Christopher Buckley endorses Barack Obama (and prays that his father cannot spank him from beyond the grave).
I’ve read Obama’s books, and they are first-rate. He is that rara avis, the politician who writes his own books. Imagine. He is also a lefty. I am not. I am a small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and old-fashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets. On abortion, gay marriage, et al, I’m libertarian. I believe with my sage and epigrammatic friend P.J. O’Rourke that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away.
But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves. If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a balmy summer zephyr.
Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for” silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.
So, I wish him all the best. We are all in this together. Necessity is the mother of bipartisanship. And so, for the first time in my life, I’ll be pulling the Democratic lever in November. As the saying goes, God save the United States of America.
If there was any evidence of this or I had some faith this was true I could vote for him as well, but such is not the case.
Imagine the additional serial autobiographies he'll produce.
Did Obama really write his own books?
Large deficits will be needed to stimulate the economy. This used to be the province of the left, but has been usurped, unfortunaely during the good times, by the right.
Think depression, and what the Fed and gov't should have done at that time, and apply those remedies now.
Obama has NEVER demonstrated one ounce of behavior that what you are praying (secularly) for is remotely possible...
You may as well play Russian Roulette with a semi-auto.
For myself, I can't imagine putting Christopher Buckley's kind of faith in another human being. Just goes to show, as Chesterton said, that when people stop believing in God, they don't then believe in nothing, they believe in anything.
That's not a prayer; it's a delusion.
but i must say that i chalk this endorsement up to the younger generations' obsession with identity politics. this time it's the profession of the written word.
Do you have any reason whatsoever to doubt that he did?
I have drifted from libertarian to liberal-with-libertarian-leanings over the years, and I have to say that Obama is the first Democrat I've found truly inspiring, as opposed to just marginally better than the ignoramus on the other side. I don't agree with him on every issue, but have contributed to his campaign monetarily and otherwise. I can understand all of Buckley's sentiments, and I think his cantankerous father would forgive him (and maybe even cross over).
Besides the change in tone and nautical references in his second autobiography? No, none at all.
Does he associate with terrorists, like Barack HUSSEIN Obama does?
Fox news (and some VC readers, apparently) want to know!
Technically, it's then called "Polish Roulette."
Franklin Drackman:
Almost anything can be fried, especially in the South. For the rest, there's barbecue.
did Obama write his books?
Can you afford a dictionary? Trust me, those words are all in the dictionary, and have been for a long, long time.
People need to realize what a non-sequitur is. Just because you are smart does not mean you will do the right thing. Much less the Right thing. Lenin was smart. FDR was smart. I wouldn't want either helping us out here.
Any honest conservative should leave the republican party which is becoming very fast the hate inciting desperate lying organisation playing with fire in the Weimar republic times...
we need De-Republicanization.
Like they did with communists in Eastern Europe...
You guys are delusional morons. Like virtually every other prominent Democrat, Obama is a cautious centrist who differs from Republicans by believing that the government should take some actions to benefit the middle class.
Remember the last Democrat President? The one whose big accomplishments were welfare reform, a free-trade agreement, and a government surplus? I bet you thought he was a scary socialist too.
---
Libertarians for Life
Kool-Aid table over here folks, drink up!
If I ever got to challenge BHO on the issue I mainly cover, he'd probably take his "first-class intellect" and run crying off the stage after five minutes.
Examples: link, link.
P.S. So far I've seen at least Julian Sanchez and DavidBrooks pushing the same line as Buckley does.
Is this guy writing for The Onion? My God, those are standard English references used millions of times I'd wager. They are hardly signs of advanced naval technical knowledge.
As for Senator Obama: He has exhibited throughout a “first-class temperament,” pace Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s famous comment about FDR.
No, he did not say that about FDR, but Theodore Roosevelt. From The Essential Homes:
"Holmes did not say Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 'A second class mind, but a first class temperament'. As many letters make clear, this was Holme's opinion of Theodore Roosevelt, though it is not clear he ever stated it so pithily."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Essential Holmes: Selections from the Letters, Speeches, Judicial Opinions and Other Writings of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., ed. Richard A. Posner (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), xiv–xv.
h/t to Jonah Goldberg, NRO (n.b. read this book some years ago, totally forgot about Posner's statement)
Or maybe it was Herman Melville. Or Herman Wouk.
No one gives a flying f* about founding conservative principles anymore. Not that founding liberal principles have fared much better. The only two ideologies still standing in American politics are "hang together" or "hang separately".
Oh and AntonK, you can choke on that kool aid yourself, being utterly brainwashed and what not, or just choke on the healthy dose of Vodka, idiot....
In fairness we don't know that Obama shares Bill Clinton's centrism on issues such as free trade or deficit reduction. There are things to like about both Obama and McCain -- and things to be worried about. I've concluded that Obama is the better bet. His level-headedness is a positive trait during times of crisis, and he showed good judgment in his vice presidential pick, unlike McCain's disastrous choice of Sarah Palin. I would be lying, however, if I said that I was a *certain* about the wisdom of electing Obama as I was about (either) Clinton.
Finally, I agree with Ilya's implication that the election is over. McCain was, IMO, on track to win until the financial crisis broke -- but the crisis was the financial equivalent of 9/11 for the Republicans.
Stalin forbid a conservative be in the running.
If Buckley is having us on, I think it also applies. At this point, we need all the help we can get....
What is the real reason these guys are defecting? I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems to be a combination of a reluctance to be affiliated with the populist politics of the great unwashed and a desire to fit in with their real peer group.
It is quite disconcerting as a conservative to see some of our leading lights abandon principle and be seduced by what seems like a desire to be loved by the left. I thought that only happened with our judges!
Well, apparently the GOP's Christian Right vetoed him because he's a Mormon and they believe Mormons have weird beliefs.
Democrats/ liberals, of course, would never even think such bigotries.
Bill Clinton has always had a record as a center/right democrat, and while many a republican loathes him even as president he mostly governed as a center right democrat-even if some of him accused him of being a scary socialist.
Bill Clinton also had a GOP congress for the majority of his years in office.
Obama doesn't have anything close to a track record of governing from the center or right/center of his party. He doesn't have any real history for bucking his own party either-he strikes me as a left democrat who mostly plays along to get along if it helps his career. If he came into office with a GOP congress, I suspect we might see some centrism from him, but he will have a democratic congress and possibly a veto proof majority in one or both houses of congress-he is going to govern from the left.
But given the crap that is currently our economy, I doubt Obama will keep both houses for the four years of his presidency and I strongly suspect that whether Obama wins or by some miracle McCain does that the next president is going to be in office for only one term. I think the economy is likely to tank further-and while we may not see a depression, I think we are going to see a serious recession, and I am not convinced either man running for office in conjunction with a democratic controlled congress are going to do much to help and will likely do a lot to make it worse.
Let's see now -- Obama doesn't have any track record in the Senate, and we don't know anything that he stands for, and anything he says is a lie.
But on the other hand, we *know* that he is a hard leftist.
Anyone care to reconcile these two statements?
Color me shocked.
"
Let's see now -- Obama doesn't have any track record in the Senate, and we don't know anything that he stands for, and anything he says is a lie.
But on the other hand, we *know* that he is a hard leftist.
Anyone care to reconcile these two statements?"
I wish I could. But your guys claim that mentioning his mentors and associates is dirty politics, and probably racist. So what's a right-wing nut-job illiterate like me supposed to do?
Vote for Ron Paul, of course. Geez, do I have to spell it out for you in public like this?
A lot of Obama's statements are pretty hard left, but when called on them, he will nuance them away and the media leaves him unchallenged.
"Thomas Jefferson was very fond of nautical metaphors. I strongly suspect he wrote Obama's books."
I'm guessing Oscar Wilde. See classic Wilde story at bottom of page 21.
I'm actually with Buckley, and it can't be blamed on Palin hate, since I like her too and look forward to campaigning for her in 2012/16 as need be. Worst case, Obama is Harding (well, worst case is Ayers as Cheney with widespread military mutiny, but that's low probability). Best case the KGB propaganda ghost is finally exorcised and we can get on with the American experiment again.
So we might actually do better under an Obama-Democrat dominated system, with R's taking the right and sniping at them, rather than the do anything liberal to maintain share attitude of Bush and R Congressional leaders
Which wouldn't be so bad if he had a track record of governing, period. But he doesn't. It would also help if he had, like, a single original idea regarding governance or reform, but he doesn't have one of those either, much less an actual accomplishment aside from his education, but he doesn't have any of those either. Seriously, has anyone ever heard him articulate a single innovative idea? That's not a rhetorical question.
yours/
peter.
Wilde is good. He was gay. It's all coming together now.
Too bad a hardleft, united Democrat government will radically change government until close to the end of the century.
In the spirit of Joe Six Pack (&for that matter Chris who steals from Krauthammer without credit; &yes I know Holmes said that FDR had a second-class intellect), may I plagiarize from Dr. Johnson here? Chris B is exhibiting a first-class case of hope over experience.
Wonder how he’ll feel with the appointees in an Obama Administration? Hint: Not all of them will have a first class intellect or a first class temperament.
And strangely, Chris B doesn’t even have the grace to note, as does Krauthammer that:
“Obama has shown that he is a man of limited experience, questionable convictions, deeply troubling associations (Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko) and an alarming lack of self- definition - do you really know who he is and what he believes?”
BTW, Chris B did a wonderful send up of Joe Biden in his (Chris’s) most recent book. Don’t think that Chris thinks that Joe Six Pack is first-class in anything except in logorrhea. Wonder how he’ll feel pulling the lever for old Joe.
For goodness sakes what’s with Libertarians like Buckley fils or Brooks or Conservatives like Will or Noonan, as well as with some independents/centrists/beyondists? Can’t they grasp that a quantum leap in government power by those who cry havoc, even criers with a first rate temperament &intellect, means a quantum leap in government power? Except Military power, I suppose.
I find it odd and troubling that Christopher Buckley has virtually nothing to say about his own foreign policy views or those of Senator Obama's (other than mentioning that having an Ivy League pedigree doesn't guarantee success in foreign policy). Does he really think that there's no substantial difference between how Senator McCain and Senator Obama will conduct foreign policy?
"Except Military power, I suppose."
And 99% of the guns. That's the fall-back. Imagine for a moment you were a lefty. And you think you're scared.
If I had to, I'd say someone who values equality over liberty, but the whole bipolar thing is often little more than gussied-up tribalism. In that case, someone on your team, and not Vinegar Hill's.
Another victim lost to the "I'm going to paint my hopes and dreams on the man, not because of any actual, you know... evidence but because he's given so little information about himself that I can dream up what I want him to do." mindset.
How sad.
Paulson is a Democrat, one of Bush's attempts to placate the Dems. No wonder his every word speak to government control.
Um, what bipartisanship? You're voting in a one-party government. Maybe even a filibuster-proof one. During a crisis. If you have a surer recipe for the OPPOSITE of bipartisanship, I wish you would share it with us.
I can see why you want to pretend that the president is the only person behind this. But it does make people back here in reality wonder what all the hooplah was about in getting a bill passed through the democrat-controlled congress, if GWB was doing this all by his lonesome.
Secondly, nationalizing large parts of the economy is a democrat strategy, and always has been...
Question: Are you seriously contenting that Nancy Peloci and/or Harry Ried are upset at the idea of government control of the financial sector?
... and if you recall, GWB portrayed himself as a "compassionate conservative" during his initial election campaign, and has governed as one since. A compassionate conservative is a democrat on social issues and a conservative on national policy. So its no surprise that Pelosi and GWB are getting along like thieves on this issue... the only true points of disagreement appear to be who gets to loot what, and who gets the blame.
And this is what scares me about Obama winning this election.
It is unlikely the democratic congress will have to even try to be bipartisan, they can tell the GOP to go suck eggs in a corner and pass all the crap they want to.
Keeping in mind that Pelosi scheduled a bipartisan meeting to deal with the financial crisis and forgot to invite the republicans-I am pretty sure we will see a lot of this after obama wins.
They may play at bipartisanship here and there, but they likely aren't going to even have to try.
I think the GOP is going to suffer a blood bath come November, at least in the house and it isn't looking so good in the senate. If the democrats don't end up with 60 votes they will come close enough that it isn't going to matter much.
McCain: You know 100% what you are going to get, and it's bloody horrible.
Obama: You're not quite sure what you are going to get, but there's hope that it will be better than bloody horrible.
Yes, but McCain's "bloody horrible" will be unpopular, whereas Obama's "bloody horrible," should it eventuate, will have the uncritical support of the Congress, the MSM and some fair-sized chunk of the electorate; and the hope "that it will be better than bloody horrible" entails a risk that it won't.
Damn! I never realized that when Barry Goldwater said that, he was plagiarizing from P.J. O'Rourke.
Did you read on and see WHAT WFB ACTUALLY DID?
What a horribly (and dangerously) naive statement. I also cannot understand how or why intelligent people can be dogmatic Leftists, but the fact of the matter is that lots of intelligent people are dogmatic Leftists. To say that someone who has been an extreme Leftist throughout is career would cease to be so as President just because that person is smart is astonishing.
So does that statement depend on what the meaning of is is?
Always is a long time.
Nationalization was a leftist strategy for large chunks of the previous two centuries. It was a rightist strategy in various guises for long before that. Liberals have never been big on it, and still aren't.
Perhaps more importantly, the Jacksonians with the guns aren't either.
pluribus,
Why to you hate us? ("Us" being "Americans in general", not "Republicans", since I'm definitely not one of the latter.)
Alan Gunn,
The fact that McCain's response is bad has absolutely no bearing on the question of whether Obama's will be worse.
sbron,
Aren't you confusing the parties? I see no evidence that the "elites" manipulated the Republican nomination process, but if you've got some by all means bring it out here.
Are you saying that I am a bigot if I think that Mormons have weird beliefs? Why is that bigotry? Mormon beliefs ARE weird. In fact they are incredibly inane.
Although, objectively, I must concede they are no stranger than the beliefs of the Christian Right, or any other group of theists.
He sure as hell didn't write McCain's books. (Of course, McCain did write those either. Mark Salter did.)
I don't understand the logic (or lack thereof). He claims to be a libertarian. Why not vote Libertarian?
Or does he want to be sure to be on record as welcoming his new insect overlords? (Just a Simpsons joke, Democratic overlords! I'm really psyched, too!)
After 8 years of Bush/Cheney, a lot of people are convinced that Obama is the more libertarian choice...
Shoot me if you like, but that's the vibe I'm getting, especially from those under 30. If the big O lets them down, then you've got a new base. After the R convention of the dead, its clear they need one.
After 8 years of Bush/Cheney, a lot of people are convinced that Obama is the more libertarian choice...
</blockquote>
More libertarian than whom??? There's not a libertarian bone in Barack Obama's (or John McCain's) body. In contrast, Bob Barr was nominated by the Libertarian Party.
I do not understand people who claim to be libertarians, but vote for people who aren't even remotely libertarians, when there are actual Libertarians running for office.
Your vote is not going to swing the election. So vote for the person who best represents your views. If you're really a libertarian, that person would be the Libertarian.
No. I think it was Lenin.
Or Stalin.
Wait. Who do we hate more? It was that guy.
I will give $1000 to the first person who can show that his or her one vote in the Presidential election made the difference between Barack Obama or John McCain getting elected in the coming election.
Even the in the 2000 election, which is the closest election we've had in 100 years, and is closer than we'll likely have in another 100 years, the difference in Florida was 500 votes.
Your single vote will NEVER change the outcome of Presidential election, in the sense that one candidate will get chosen or not chosen because of your one vote.
So unless you're getting some sort of prize for betting on the winner, you should vote for the candidate who best represents your views, regardless of his or her chances of winning.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.