|
VFR readers on the prospects before us
Below are comments that came in throughout the day yesterday, the day of Romney’s highly praised speech in which he articulated a conservative politics, but then suspended his campaign and assured the nomination of John McCain. Also I recommend checking in regularly at Lucianne.com, as the main readers’ threads there on the election are filled with pungent observations. The definite consensus there is anti-McCain. Unfortunately, as with Rush Limbaugh and other mainstream conservatives, these same L-dotters were mostly slavish followers of GW Bush for the last seven years. Now they’re unhappy with McCain. But without the steady weakening of conservatism under Bush, McCain could not have emerged as the nominee.
Spencer Warren writes:
McCain filed an amicus curiae brief against the position of Wisconsin right to Life in a case where the issue was whether McCain-Feingold could stop their issue advertising. McCain supported his legislation against the pro-life position. Laura Ingraham has discussed this.
Derek C. writes:
Given the tightness of the Democratic race, I’m considering voting in that primary, and I have to say, against expectations, I’m tending to favor Obama. He’s willing to state his positions fairly clearly. From a right-wing perspective, there’s plenty to disagree with, but it’s not over the top insane. Best of all, he won’t bring the seedy corruption that comes with everything Clinton.
LA replies:
But Hillary might arouse more right-wing opposition. His blackness will suppress criticism. Also, she’s more mature and ready than he for presidency. But I understand how you feel.
Derek replies:
I think Obama will get an extended honeymoon period, but that will come to an end. The black thing will wear down after a while. A president can’t keep saying, “Leave me alone, I’m black,” forever. Even the liberals will call him on it eventually. In the end, that would be a good thing, too. America will get used to criticizing a black man without having to over obsess about his race. [LA replies: an interesting point, that challenges my view that Obama as president would be sun-god whom no one could question.]
The problem with the opposition to Hillary is that it’s going to be the same kind of knee-jerk personality-based politics of the 90s. The GOP won offices under Bill’s terms, but it also grew intellectually lazy. It hasn’t offered anything in the way of new ideas since 1994—well, except Dubya’s “Invade the World, Invite the World” foreign policy. [LA replies: another good point.]
Finally, I think, when possible, virtue should be rewarded and vice punished. When it comes to viciousness, I can’t think of anyone more so than the Clintons. Obama is as liberal as you can get, but from what I can see he’s led a fairly good life, albeit with some Augustinian pear-stealing here and there.
Emily B. writes:
I read that article when it first came out and have seen variations of “The candidate of perpetual wars, open borders, and vanishing jobs” as moniker for McCain popping up on the web since. To me, it is the most devastating encapsulation of any politician this primary season. In a snit, some McCain supporters are saying that Buchanan says at the end, “And if you don’t like it, vote for Hillary.” In the article, Buchanan puts those words in McCain’s mouth, not his own.
Nicholas G. writes:
Notice how the one volunteer at CPAC said that the point was to appear “above the Democrats.” So no longer is about representing ideas or any political convictions but rather, just trying to seem “above the Democrats.” McCain deserves to be help accountable for his push for amnesty, etc, etc,
Leonard K. writes:
I’d rather open a vein than vote for McCain.
There is also a quote from Wikipedia:
Contrary to popular belief, the surname McCain does not mean “Son of Cain” …
True, it does not mean “Son of Cain.” It means “Cain reincarnated.”
Rachael S. writes:
Mitt Romney quit, and he said he agreed with John McCain on … basically the fact that Al-Qaeda is bad.
This is conservatism?
I am disappointed. If he really cared about his country and his party he would at least say that McCain is bad for us.
McCain constantly refers to the Democrats as our friends. The Dems hate our guts and say so. These mushy-middle Republi-Cons are political dhimmis.
Jason writes:
Well, it appears that the last person who at least sounds like a conservative has gotten out of the race.
Mark Levin is correct, and my hope is that Conservatives across the country understand that you do not have to “stay home.” Simply do not vote for McCain. But there are many good Congressman, and still a few good Senators, that will need help this fall. We need to help them.
The various parties in the states need to start concentrating on keeping these seats. Maybe even getting the House back to stop Hillary once she wins.
Here in New Jersey, we have two Republicans actually retiring from the House, and one vulnerable Democrat, that is where most of us will be concentrating our energies. John McCain will get no help from me.
I also had an interesting thought. We keep hearing about how if we never had Carter, there would be no Reagan, that without Clinton, there could be no Gingrich. However, anyone ever thought that without the Bush Family Presidencies, there would never have been the Clinton Family Presidencies?
This of course does not make me popular in RINO NJ, but what can you do.
Dimitri K. writes:
They say Romney is going to quit. It’s the second conservative after Tancredo, who you (and me by your advice) supported, and he also is quitting fast and quietly. Without a struggle. I can’t help thinking that there is something wrong about conservatives—it is as if they actually don’t really want to win. Maybe, the feel more comfortably as an oppressed minority then as the ruling majority?
Jeremy G. writes:
The New York Times reports that Romney has dropped out of the race:
McCain is now the Republican nominee for certain. But he will not be able to unite the party and he will lose the general elections, unless Obama wins the Democratic nomination (in which case we all must support McCain). The critical test for immigration reformers will be whether we large numbers of us can stick to our principles under attacks from mainstream conservatives, and then to lay the blame for McCain’s loss squarely on his open borders and never-ending war positions.
On another pressing issue. Between Hillary and Obama, the better choice for our side is undoubtedly Hillary. Hillary would be more moderate and reasonably competent as President. Obama as president would fundamentally damage America’s identity, besides the reality that Obama is further to the left than Hillary and far less competent. An Obama win would force us to support McCain. Now that the Republican primaries are meaningless, we should be motivating our supporters to vote for Hillary in the Democratic primaries in order to defeat Obama. How about that, a campaign by Rush and Coulter and other influential personalities for conservatives to cast their vote for Hillary in the remaining states of the Democratic primary.
Jeremy G. writes:
The Hillary/Obama race is very close. An Obama win will force racialists and traditionalists to support McCain. A huge opportunity will be lost to oppose McCain’s open borders and perpetual war ideology and resist the leftward march of the Republican party. We need to support Hillary and motivate conservatives to vote for Hillary in the Democratic primary in the remaining states. With the race so tight, even a boost to Hillary of a few percentage points could be the difference between a Hillary or an Obama win.
Spencer Warren writes:
Just a little while ago, I saw Vincent Chiarello at the CPAC conferences. He and others were holding up signs in the lobby, Republican against McCain. I gave interviews to BBC and the Shimbun Japanese newspaper and told everyone, including the reporters to read VFR!
Don’t be fooled by the applause for McC as he speaks. His people have packed the audience. They are all over the hotel.
Van Wijk writes:
This article, dated today, seems to indicate that Romney is, in fact, out of the race.
Heh. So much for superior height saving our bacon.
Also, even liberals are waking up to the cult of Oba-ma, Son of Ra.
Of course, none of this will keep them from voting for him. I have a feeling we are about to see this country’s first affirmative action president.
Rachael W. writes:
If Obama wins, … I don’t think the strategy of Republican resistance in Congress will work as well.
How many times will the race-card get pulled? How many rumors will be whispered about who was speaking in a racist way about the President behind closed doors?
Since racism is the worst accusation to have levied against you (in modern times), will Republican senators and congressmen be able to stand on principle against these slings and arrows?
Wade C. writes:
Here is interesting article on McCain.
Richard B. writes:
Rush Limbaugh’s rant against establishment Republicans is what you have been saying for YEARS. They are where they are today because conservative principals have been ignored and watered-down within the Republican party, and they want U.S., true conservatives to change and get on-board? Not likely.
Terry Morris writes:
Are you surprised by Romney’s announcement earlier today? I admit that I was somewhat surprised, but not at all shocked. The timing, more than anything I think, caught me a bit off guard.
Dan McCullough writes:
Now that all hope of having a president we don’t hate is dashed, it’s time to consider the pragmatic stop-gaps of political holding actions. The most troublesome thing and the real reason so many of us endorsed Romney at the last minute is that McCain strikes us as a proto-fascist. I don’t at all mean this as mean-spirited and ignorant political mud-slinging of the type so often engaged in by the left and recently by Jonah Goldberg. True fascism is not properly a phenomenon of either left or right, but it is always a clear and present danger to degenerate Western societies like ours. The various elements of fascism have come and gone at different times in the U.S., without ever combining in the exact wrong way necessary to take us over the cliff. We never have been fascist, but we’ve also never been closer to it than we are right now. My problem with McCain is that even though he is not a fascist, and doesn’t intend any such thing, his character and his political inclinations could take himself and us there very fast, even in spite of himself.
What I’m talking about is not the danger of a reprehensible label that could be applied to us by our enemies, but a real political phenomenon that happens to soi-disant liberal democracies in their final stages of degeneration into tyranny. Whether a nation-state is or is not headed to fascist tyranny is not decided by how energetically one denounces historic fascist states like Nazi Germany or Italy under Mussolini, or how loudly one preaches about freedom and global democracy, but by how many essential principles of fascism one accepts. According to John T. Flynn,
“The test is—how many of the essential principles of fascism do you accept and to what extent are you prepared to apply those fascist ideas to American social and economic life? When you can put your finger on the men or groups that urge for America the debt-supported state, the autarchical corporative state, the state bent on the socialization of investment and the bureaucratic government of industry and society, the establishment of the institution of militarism … and the institution of imperialism under which it proposes to regulate and rule the world … and proposes to alter the forms of our government to approach … absolute government—then you will know you have located the authentic fascist.”
In the case of John McCain, it’s not that he would ever take us there knowingly. McCain doesn’t know where he would take us. He would just follow his ego (and the war crowd in Washington) wherever it took him. With so much of the state bureaucratic apparatus of fascism already in place, John McCain would take us over the cliff. It’s a well known political phenomenon that in times of economic crisis, those in power will often try borrow their way out and engage in foreign wars to prop up the economic life of the nation. If the dear reader isn’t reminded of something by this description, I don’t know what else I can say. This is how it all starts. Many thought that Bush himself was heading down this path, but he seems to have pulled back from the brink. “Bush on steroids” will not be held back.
The only question remaining is whether the eventual Democratic presidential nominee would be as bad. The answer is not immediately obvious. Hillary Clinton exhibits no obviously fascistic tendencies, but what worries me is that she may feel pressure to prove herself as “tough” as a man, and end up following more or less the same course as McCain under the heavy tutelage of CFR and neocon advisors—the more or less permanent political class in Washington. The same can be said of Obama, but for slightly different reasons. With Obama though, I have the additional fear that he may revert to Mohammadanism. His Christianity is a sham and a cover for black nationalism. The thought of Obama in the White House is beyond bizarre, almost unimaginable; the thought of a Muslim Obama is unbearable.
The pragmatics of patriotism therefore break down as follows: Since the Republican party is the only viable vehicle at present by which we might hope to regain some semblance of endurable circumstances for ourselves and our future, we must not allow it to become the vehicle of fascism. If that were to happen, not only would the party be destroyed, but the political right in this country as well, for even though there isn’t a single truly rightist thing about the party a present, the public believes it to be representative of the right. We must choose between three odious alternatives, and McCain is the worst of the three. Therefore, if he is ahead in the polls even slightly come election day …
I can’t bear to say it. Hillary’s our girl.
A. Zarkov writes:
Conservatives do have leverage over McCain: he can’t win without their support. Extracting promises from him is useless because he will just do a double cross and anyone with an ounce of realism in him should know this. So what can they do? Answer: make him select a conservative vice president. Of course the VP doesn’t have much to do unless the president dies in office, then the VP is everything. As I said before, I believe McCain is too old be president, and is probably in poor health. The next president will face severe stress. We will be lucky to avoid a severe recession if not an actual depression. We are in for another big terrorist attack somewhere on the land mass of the U.S. He will face problems with Iran, North Korea, China and Russia. What will the next president do if a low yield nuclear weapon detonates in an American city? None of the possible future presidents is capable of handling this situation. We need someone of the caliber of Teddy Roosevelt, and unfortunately no one like that is around today. Any of these events would severely test a young healthy president, let alone McCain. Thus we need the right VP, and conservatives must use whatever influence they have left to that end.
Of course I’m not at all optimistic about McCain’s chances of winning in any case. The best we can hope for is Hillary who might be tough enough to handles the challenges we will soon face.
LA writes:
It should be pointed out that if McCain becomes president, on the day he is sworn in he will be two and a half years older than Ronald Reagan was when he was sworn in. Reagan was two weeks short of his 70th birthday. McCain will be 72 1/2.
More precisely, Reagan, born February 6, 1911, was 25,551 days old when he became president on January 20, 1981 (calculated with a Word macro I have that calculates the number of days between any two dates). McCain, born August 29, 1936, will be 26,442 days old on January 20, 2009. The difference is 891 days, or 2.4 years.
Ed writes:
It was a great speech by Romney. My question: Why didn’t he perform this way when he was running for the nomination.
Rachael S. writes:
McCain has spent a good part of his career as a maverick aiding liberals through sins of omission and commission; and now we are supposed to quiet down and support the “good of the party” by backing him?
Gall doesn’t begin to describe McCain.
At present I am filled with a flame-colored desire for his political destruction, regardless of the possibility of a President Clinton or Obama.
On the other hand, maybe the Bush-dupes (like myself—I voted for him twice) deserve to have to vote for McCain.
Should we vote for the inevitable fruit of the Bush years?
For the judges?
Vincent Chiarello writes:
I’ve just returned from the CPAC in Washington. While there, I met Warren Spencer, and we had a nice chat. I may send you something about the gathering, but Roy (Beck) was there and he’s scheduled to speak at ANCIR’s monthly meeting on Tuesday; therefore, I may wait and combine elements of the two meetings in one contribution.
Bob W. writes:
The thing to do is not to elect a Democrat, but to elect Ron Paul.
He’s still in the race, although you’d never know it if you get your news from the old media.
Of course at this point nothing short of divine intervention will get Paul enough delegates—every Republican in the remaining states will have to suddenly grow a brain.
If Paul is a nut, a kook, or an extremist, as the pundits keep telling us, then so were George Washington, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson.
Laura G. writes (2/6):
Like many, I suspect, I didn’t look forward to waking up this morning. So, we are now blessed with a reaffirmation that a large proportion of our fellow citizens suffer from extreme shortcomings in their general level of education and civic understanding. I badly need an antidote to despair, and am trying to think about action which might improve the ability of U.S. electorate to make adequate decisions in the future. Adequate would be great…I don’t even seek good. So, I wanted to ask you what are the organizations/groups/societies/think-tanks which are trying to inform and educate the public in ways which would allow for a less dysfunctional electorate sometime in the future.
I have my own little list of groups I try to support as well as my limited resources allow, and wonder what you think or know of these groups. What would you add?
Heritage Foundation
America’s Truth Forum
Vigilant Freedom
Second Amendment Foundation
Investigative Project on Terrorism
Fund for American Studies
The Claremont Institute
NumbersUSA
Freedom Center
College Republicans
Last, and best, View From the Right
I understand that Catholics teach that despair is a cardinal sin (deep apologies if I have that wrong), and they often seem to have a pretty good understanding of human events. So, just an exhortation to all readers of VFR to avoid despair, and please let me know if you see a pathway to a better outcome one of these days.
LA replies:
Because the immediate political prospects are all so miserable, because there is no hope for anything good on the national scene for the next four years, I think the way to avoid despair is not to invest too much of our attention and energies in the mainstream politics as it is going to be for the next four years. Yes, of course, we need to remain alert and politically active on specific issues, to help stop bad actions by the government, such as last year’s immigration bill (though we may only have the ability to stop bad things, not to pass good things). But beyond that, if we are to maintain hope, I think we need to withdraw somewhat and go beyond the current politics, to start building up understandings and organizations that can ultimately replace the current politics.
For example, it’s already evident that the next nine months of conservative discussion are going to consist largely of people debating whether to vote Republican, not vote for president (note that I did not say “stay home,” but “not vote for president,” since it’s still important to vote in other races), vote for a third-party candidate, or even vote for the Democrat. While such discussions can be absorbing (I find them so), they are inevitably going to get repetitive and draining after a while. Endlessly discussing a set of options all of which are miserable will not be good for us. That’s why we need to look beyond the present politics.
(One place for me to begin would be to go back to the long thread on traditionalism that we had a few months ago and write up the reply that I never got around to delivering.)
Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 08, 2008 09:34 AM | Send
|