Don Devine: “The only rational solution is for red conservatives to vote for Obama”

(Note: Jason in a comment vehemently disagrees with Don Devine, arguing that an Obama presidency would destroy the country.)

Spencer Warren writes:

All that Limbaugh, Hannity et al. are busy doing is attacking Obama, which, objectively, harms conservatism over the long run. Don Devine writes at Conservative Battleline:

Even under these horrific conditions, the polls still find Sen. McCain within a few points of the Democrat. State-by-state, it looks even better for McCain to run a close race. Indeed, my gut tells me McCain will win narrowly. But conservatives should hold the champagne. It will be a disaster for their philosophy and their party over the long run. Why? It is even more obvious that Democrats will increase their majorities in both houses of Congress in this election. And afterwards, liberals will be so angry flubbing the White House for the third slam-dunk election in a row they will make a President McCain pay dearly.

Democrats already have the most effective House of Representatives majority in years, obvious in the American Conservative Union congressional voting scores for last year. The Democratic leadership there has not lost a single important vote since regaining control in the 2006 election. If not for the Senate, the GOP would be out of the legislative game altogether. They will be out after the 2008 election results even if McCain wins, maybe especially if he wins. It is even very likely the Democrat victory will produce a filibuster-proof Senate in 2009, with the support of a few weak-kneed Republicans it is a virtually certainty.

Well, a President McCain would have the veto. But he would be trapped by the same dynamics as George W. Bush. To get anything accomplished, ultimately, he needs Congress. Legislators—former and current—are congenitally unable to get along without “results” so they typically give in to a determined majority. The Democrats will be unwavering in their determination to make McCain fail to prepare the way for veto-proof majorities in 2010. Presidents almost always lose seats in the off-years and a frustrated McCain and a quietly reactive Congress will make it inevitable. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Leader Harry Reid have already demonstrated in the last two years that they know how keep a low profile and play legislative defense, learning from the disastrous tenure of Newt Gingrich.

So the cost of a McCain victory would be overwhelming Democratic control of Congress and the inability of the president to overcome it with even constant vetoes—in the unlikely event he would pursue them in the first place. Two years later, a “do-nothing” Republican president is easy pickings even for your typically hapless “progressive” Democratic presidential nominee. But the liberals should hold the bubbly too. What if they win in 2008? It is all undone! And, as we have noted, all the objective evidence says the Democrats should prevail….

The article concludes:

… Conservatives will be annihilated by a McCain victory and liberals will be enraged by an Obama win. The only rational solution is for red conservatives to vote for the Democrat and blue liberals for the Republican. Conservative columnist Bruce Bartley has already collected a short list of conservatives who are for Obama. Perhaps it is the beginning of a trend. Or perhaps it is another political science law at work, first set by the Marquis de Condorcet—for which he was guillotined by the Paris mob—that elections based upon opportunistic stands on individual issues rather than coherent philosophies are only incidentally related to voting rationality. Maybe we can get it right the next time.

- end of initial entry -

LA writes (July 10)

By the way, I have to say, I copied the Don Devine excerpt because its theme was so provocative. But when I read it again more carefully, I realized it’s very poorly written.

Jason writes:

I am sorry to say I could not disagree more with Mr. Warren (although I think this may be the first time for that) and Don Devine. Barak Obama has the potential to be the last President of the United States. He is that dangerous. Everyone of sound mind must unfortunately vote for McCain the liberal because at least with him we may actually have a country to save after four years. Not so with Obama.

Nothing good comes from an Obama presidency, except giving control of our military forces to a man who will order it to stand down in the face of an Islamist danger the likes of which we cannot fathom. Whether he is a Muslim himself or not, or just so naive as to think his messiah like qualities will convince countries like Iran not to strike us, or whether or not the leftists pulling his strings own suicidal tendencies take us down a bad path, it does not matter. Pick one, the final result is still the same.

After McCain wins, a conservative party is going to form, one that will break away from what is left of a destroyed Republican party that is officially bankrupt not only financially but politically as well. McCain will be the only victory on election day, as we lose seat after seat after seat at all levels of government.

McCain will still cause the conservative resurgence we all want, but no one can question this man’s patriotism and love of country. He is a liberal, but he will not permit the country to be destroyed.

A saying I came up with during the primaries still holds true; Hillary vs. McCain I abstain, because I will no longer sacrifice my conservative principles for a candidate. Obama vs. McCain I must vote McCain, because I cannot sacrifice my country for my conservative principles.

Hope everyone had a great Independence Day!

LA replies:

“[McCain] is a liberal, but he will not permit the country to be destroyed.”

Well, Jason is making the one argument that I said would make me vote for McCain: that Obama is an existential threat to the country. But I’m not convinced that that is the case.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 09, 2008 02:12 PM | Send