Why Conservatives Might Like Obama
Filed under: 2008 elections, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Lead Story — Jason, Managing Editor on January 28, 2008 @ 2:12 am CET
PoliGazette’s Jason argues that moderately conservative voters may consider voting for Obama because of style and because he’s not unacceptable policy wise.
Publius over at Obsidian Wings theorizes that the reason conservatives might like Obama is that they just hate Clinton enough to override what would otherwise be a preference for her relatively more centrist tendencies. As a moderate conservative myself, I would like to take up Publius’ challenge for conservative comments and offer an alternative reason:
Basically, I would argue that Publius’ assumption that a Clinton administration would be more friendly towards conservatives is just wrong. Sure, the standard theme is that Hillary Clinton is relatively conservative, but what evidence of these conservative tendencies actually exists? Those elements of her policy positions that show some centrist components tend to be those embraced belatedly, only after Sen. Clinton began to pursue the presidency.
More serious than suspicions of insincerity is the memory of the Clintons’ demonizing style. While the first Clinton administration was relatively moderate in its policies, this was often an artifact of successful resistance by conservatives in Congress, not a willing outreach by the Clinton machine. On the contrary, conservatives were almost always presented by the Clintons and their surrogates not only as wrong on policy, but as immoral, mean-spirited people. As I recall, the public was told by the Clinton administration that conservatives literally wanted elderly people to live in ditches and eat dog food or starve. It is not “Clinton derangement syndrome” to be once-bitten, twice-shy when it comes to assessing prospects of cooperation by conservatives with a second Clinton administration.
Fears about the Clintons’ aggressive, wedging political style are only reinforced by watching their behavior towards their internal rivals in the Democratic party. The intense level of personal contempt and vitriol directed towards Barack Obama and often headlined by no less than the former President himself does little to assuage conservative memories of bare-knuckles politics of demonization from the same Clintons over a decade ago.
Barack Obama shows a markedly different style and attitude towards conservatives specifically and political disagreement more generally. His stated preference for a politics of consensus-building and an end to the hegemonic tyranny of “wedge issues” resonates with those conservatives who are tired of endless and intractable combat over what is often lesser issues using rhetorical nuclear weapons. And that stated preference is backed up in his remarkably detailed issue positions, where one will often find the conventional Democratic positions modified ever so significantly by important gestures of conciliation towards those who disagree.
Why should conservatives like Obama? Because, unlike the Clintons, he doesn’t seem to hate us. That entitles him to the benefit of the doubt when he is being compared to a centrist on paper that has a past of political demonization at the drop of a hat … any hat.
1 abrisaham
January 28, 2008 @ 3:17 am CETBasically, I would argue that Publius’ assumption that a Clinton administration would be more friendly towards conservatives is just wrong.
Jason It is obvious that you were traumatized by the Clinton administration.
I suggest that you like so many others are being Bamboozled and hoodwinked.
I would just ask why in the world would a Conservative turn to the most liberal member of the democratic party at all. Period.
I mean I understand that the pickings are slim in the GOP but comeon. Obama? The most liberal member of Congress? What am I missing here?
2 Jason
January 28, 2008 @ 3:39 am CET1) I discuss the issue of Obama being supposedly "the most liberal" in the post. I simply don’t agree that that is the case.
2) I never said I am choosing Obama over the Republican nominee. I don’t even know who that is yet. What I said is that I am choosing Obama over Clinton and that choice has nothing to do with "Clinton Derangement Syndrome". I just have a different opinion about what the empirical record is than you do. Simply noticing what Hillary Clinton has done in the past and is doing again now is not being “traumatized”.
Maybe y’all Clinton defenders should undertake a little psychoanalysis on yourselves for a while instead of looking for it in others. Tend your own gardens.
3 wj
January 28, 2008 @ 8:02 am CETI may be wrong, but my distinct impression is that Senator Clinton is substantially further left than her husband. Which means that predicting what her administration might do from what his administration did is chancy, at best.
4 thescoundrel
January 28, 2008 @ 10:10 am CETI know individuals that Republican that registered as Democrats this year simply because they do not think a Republican has a snowballs chance in Hades of winning no matter who they nominate. They are doing this not because they necessarily plan on voting for a Democrat in the general election but because they despise the Clintons that much and wish to vote for Obama to win the primary to help eliminate her chances of becoming president. That said I think if Teddy Kennedy does come out as a heavy political stumper for Obama, it could hurt Obama with a large amount of possible conservative/moderates. The only Democrat I can think of that is hated by most conservatives and many moderates more than Hillary is Ted Kennedy. He is even more polarizing than Hillary Clinton!
5 Michael van der Galien
January 28, 2008 @ 10:42 am CETHow can you not agree with that? He has a more liberal record than Clinton has. Record, record, record. That’s not making things up, it’s a fact.
6 Claudia
January 28, 2008 @ 10:53 am CETMichael, read the reference; abrisaham didn’t say Obama was more liberal than Clinton, he/she said Obama was the most liberal member of the WHOLE SENATE. That’s a considerably stronger claim, don’t you think? I also find it funny that abrisaham seems to think that anyone who doesn’t like Hillary is traumatized by her while he/she clearly has a burning dislike for Obama. I dislike Clinton very much, but she’d probably be a relatively decent president, if very divisive. Abrisaham goes further than even most conservatives go in how bad Obama would be as president. It really is rather astonishing.
7 Michael van der Galien
January 28, 2008 @ 12:07 pm CETThat’s obviously nonsense indeed, but he’s more liberal than Clinton. She is right about that. That’s not a problem if you’re a liberal or left-of-center, but as a conservative, even a moderate one (which I would be in the US as well - centrist - moderate conservative), that means that you can’t vote for Obama. At least, not if you actual policies count for anything.
8 Claudia
January 28, 2008 @ 12:26 pm CETHmmm my impression is that it’s not that many conservatives are thinking of voting for Obama over a Republican, but that they prefer Obama to Clinton, quite a different matter.
Frankly their policies aren’t all that different, so obviously the differences have more to do with the potential style of governance (which is also important) than actual policy positions.
9 Michael van der Galien
January 28, 2008 @ 12:32 pm CETWell, that’s logical, although I think that many of them also prefer him because the Clintons beat them (up) in the past. I think that conservatives make the mistake of thinking that they can beat Obama more easily (lack of experience, etc.).
Yes, which is also why I believe that the Democratic race has become so nasty. If you have policy differences, big ones, you can debate them. But that not being the case since both are basically running on the same platform (which means that Obama has broken with much of his record), they’ve got to make it personal.
10 C Stanley
January 28, 2008 @ 12:32 pm CETI agree that conservatives couldn’t vote for Obama without compromising their principles on policy, but I feel exactly the same about Clinton. The reason people are saying that they’re both about equally liberal is because their platforms are so similar; true that Obama has a more liberal record, particularly back in Illinois, but Clinton is running on a platform that’s quite a bit more liberal than her record is (domestically, that is.) So are we to look at her record and assume she’s lying about her promises for universal pre-k, univeral health care, universal everything?
On this, Jason:
You’re going to have to back that up with some examples. I remember a previous post where you cited his immigration proposal as an example- but heck, even BUSH pushed for compromise legislation on that issue. Is there a single other example of these gestures that you see? Because when I scanned his website I agree it was detailed, but it was all details of boilerplate liberal policies.
11 C Stanley
January 28, 2008 @ 12:35 pm CETHuh? I see Hillary as the one who’s breaking with her record. Look at her website and proposals- it’s a sweeping array of federal programs and promises, nothing like the moderate way she’s voted as a Senator.
12 abrisaham
January 28, 2008 @ 3:06 pm CETFrom CBS news.
He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes. And the list of sensitive topics goes on.
From Captains Quarters Website: I know they are Conservative but still you wanted information.
He joins a multiple-tied first place for most liberal economic record, sharing that with Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry, among others. On foreign policy, he’s almost as bad, with an 85 rating
Whither Hillary? She drifts into the center of her caucus overall, with 63 on economics and 62 on foreign policy in 2006.
From National Journal
Liberal ratings
Obama 86 rating.
Clinton 70 rating.
For comparison….Kennedy 93.
13 abrisaham
January 28, 2008 @ 3:14 pm CETFrom his book "Audacity of Hope"
“The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact,” the Illinois Democrat wrote in “The Audacity of Hope,” a memoir published last year. “Much of what I absorbed from the sixties was filtered through my mother, who to the end of her life would proudly proclaim herself an unreconstructed liberal.”
This does not to me reflect non partisan politics. Liberals beliefs are grounded in reason and fact. Implication? Conservatives views are grounded in ??
Unreasonablness and Lies??
From the NYT.
December 12, 2006 — WASHINGTON - Barack Hussein Obama is a soaring political superstar right now - but he also sports one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate and has a shady land deal in his recent past.
From the Washington Post
The liberal lobbying group Americans for Democratic Action gives Obama a 100 percent voting rating - 5 points to the left of Sen. Ted Kennedy, who gets a 95 percent grade.
There is no wonder the far left progressives have latched on to Barak Obama. He is their dream candidate. Slick Willy? Remember that. I don’t think we’ve seen nothing yet.
14 abrisaham
January 28, 2008 @ 3:19 pm CETI also find it funny that abrisaham seems to think that anyone who doesn’t like Hillary is traumatized by her while he/she clearly has a burning dislike for Obama.
I suppose in this day and age of electronic media that I should have implied this was a great big snark. I had just watched the video where Obama was using the black codewords
Hoodwinked
Bamboozled
It was meant in jest to some degree. However I find it pitiful that those people who used to scream at the right for defending Bush by bad mouthing Clinton are now fully allowed to bad Mouth Both Clintons without being called for it.
15 Claudia
January 28, 2008 @ 3:28 pm CETabrisaham, I might be more convinced by your arguments if your entire premise was not based in disliking Obama. You seem to find zero redeeming qualities in him. You rail against people who are inspired by Obama, saying they aren’t issue-based, while presenting zero arguments as to what makes Hillary so different on the issues. Actually, Hillary doesn’t seem to interest you that much, only insofar as she can undermine Obama. Undermining him as a candidate seems to be your main goal and interest, hence your blog solely dedicated to just that.
16 abrisaham
January 28, 2008 @ 3:32 pm CETAlso I am passionate about the divide that is not only arising within this country but now seems to be taking place within the democratic party.
In 2004 the Democrats as a knee jerk reaction threw at GWB and America John Kerry and John Edwards. These two at the time were about as far left as you can get on the political spectrum. The progressives were drooling with glee only to watch certain victory snatched from them because America is starting to REJECT far left and far right politics.
Now once again emerging from the ashes of our party is another Far left candidate and once again I see our party making the same mistake. Throw a far left Candidate out there. Right now Obama and Clinton have pretty similar goals and positions but Hillary voted for the war and she has over the course of the last several years began to moderate her vote to make herself more palpable for the presidency. Calculated? Of course but that is what is needed if you are going to claim to be a moderate……..A record of such. She has shown she is willing to moderate. Obama has not….other then in flowery speechs which mean nothing.
Even Colin Powell gave a flowery speech in which he said we have the evidence and the world believed him because he was sincere.
What makes politics rancorous is not the politicians. It is the followers. The defenders. The partisan hacks who will turn an Obama presidency into a mindless shouting match. We’ve seen that with Bush. Do we really in a knee jerk reaction want to see that again with Obama?
I point out time and again that the record, just not me but the record shows that Hillary is way more moderate and Centrist then Obama and it gets rejected over and over by the HDS syndrome even within our own party because the progressives cant even stomach someone that is not off the scale left.
They lie when they want moderation. Period. They only want their mindlessly left candidate to be in charge so they can force their agenda down the throats of Americans.
Its knee Jerk. Its sad and its destructive.
17 Claudia
January 28, 2008 @ 3:49 pm CETabrisaham, you aren’t at all obligated to answer this, but I’m curious as to your politics. You seem to very often express a deep hatred of the "far left" or "extreme liberals" and never mention even in passing the far right. You claim to be a Democrat but seem to find a lot more to complain about in the Democratic party. You certainly express an active dislike of Obama that I’ve yet to see in any Republican. As to this:
Excuse me, are you implying that an Obama presidency would be more polarized and diving than a Clinton one? We’re talking about someone who expressed an open admiration of Karl Rove’s tactics. You can believe that Obama would be more divisive, but you’d be alone.
18 abrisaham
January 28, 2008 @ 4:28 pm CETYes I have indicated here that I am for Hillary Clinton. I have also indicated that I am so middle of the road that I have paint on my Hiney from setting on the fence for so long. I am so centrist. So moderate. I could very easily vote for Mitt Romney or McCain. I could not vote for Huckabee or Guilani.
I believe a woman has a right to an abortion but that making that choice should not be easy.
I believe that this nation needs medical care for all but that corporations should not be put out of business to do so.
I believe in global warming but that it is China and India that will destroy the world and not America.
I was and am against the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was a knee jerk reaction to a terrible event.
I believe in Gay rights but do not march in the streets.
I believe in states rights. I believe that all Americans need some form of saftey nets but I also believe that the way to a better life is through that which you make yourself and not that which is given to you.
I believe in immigration with quotas. I believe that America is becoming to far left to fast as a result of massive immigration failures.
I believe in God but respect those who do not. I believe that this is a Christian nation but that all religions should be welcome.
I believe Barak Obama is a Good and honorable man who is driven by a misguided sense of what is best for America.
I believe that Hillary Clinton will Rile up the GOP if elected. I believe however that Obama will do the same if not more so because of his supporters who are off the scale left.
I am a registered democrat. I do not talk about the right because they do not have anything to do with our party. Our party is in disarray and it has no leadership. As the war has progressed the far left within our party has picked up steam and gained once again a single issue candidacy. The war. In the end mabey this time around the war will matter more then it did in 2004. But our party does not discuss issues because we continue to have losing positions on those issues.
Not because our issues are bad but because we cannot frame the debate in terms that will persuade the majority of Americans to favor our positions over the right or conservatives. Until we do this we are destined to be a rudderless ship.
2006 elections were not a vote For Democrats it was a vote against Bush and the war. If we are elected because of who we are NOT then we are destined for rancorous debate within our own party because without a defining agenda we are without goals and without vision.
I do not see Obama as a uniter because of those who have supported him. It is the far left and the far right that do the shouting. Obama is being swept to the White House by the far left. Those who share a vision with Obama are on to something. I think Obama is a good man. He simply A.) Does not have the record to support anything about a moderate, centrist view. B.) Is going to be supported by the far left which once again is forming the basis of the party which serves to nullify the rest of those in the party. C.) His candidacy is based upon a single issue. I promise to be a Uniter and end the war. Yet when presented with facts there are none to support that conclusion except his word and he is a politician and Im sorry but most politicians have this thing about saying what you want to hear, not what is the reality.
So If Clinton or Romney is voted president I will support them because I believe its the right thing to do. If somehow Obama is put in the White House I will support him even when those around him are not. It is what I do. It is who I am. It is how I was raised. To respect, honor and defend those in a position of authority.
19 Michael van der Galien
January 29, 2008 @ 12:02 am CET“The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact,” the Illinois Democrat wrote in “The Audacity of Hope,” a memoir published last year. “Much of what I absorbed from the sixties was filtered through my mother, who to the end of her life would proudly proclaim herself an unreconstructed liberal.”
I actually find that statement to be very troubling. It confirms the idea I already had that he’s not a moderate or a centrist, but a liberal who talks as a moderate. Purely style.
20 abrisaham
January 29, 2008 @ 2:41 am CETClaudia
Undermining him as a candidate seems to be your main goal and interest, hence your blog solely dedicated to just that.
From my blog:
Does it matter? It is what I say not who I am. For the record. I do not trust Obama. He has no record. He has nothing upon which I can judge the man. I am not racist. But I am also not an Idealist. I like to root my decisions in facts. The facts are that he has nothing I can look at to say he will be good or he will be bad. Come back Obama in 8 years and let us look at what you have DONE. What you have accomplished. What you have spoken and what you have agreed to or disagreed with. Give us something to look at and If I like what I see then I will help you campaign for the 2116 presidency. Until such time be forewarned that I think the Republicans are fielding the worst batch of nincompoops in the history of the party and that the Democrats only hope at putting anyone who may actually try to be moderate is Hillary Clinton. Yes I support Ms. Clinton but not without reservations. This election offers a field full of Horrid Candidates with the exception of Duncan Hunter and Bill Richardson both of whom have a record of service and have shown wisdom and intellect. The rest? All yes men for their base and their parties. That is and what will drive my thinking as I blog here.