Opposition Matters
by Hal_10000
"Why are you always defending Barack Obama?”
It’s a fair question. One I’m getting asked a lot these days, including by friends and family. After all, I have disagreements with the man’s policies. I dislike the populist rhetoric he indulges in. I’m nervous about some of the company he keeps.
But let me give you an you an example of why I’m defending him from some of the broadsides. While we were debating the nature of Obama’s U-Chicago appointment today, Obama made a speech on the economy. There was a lot to like—admitting that much of our regulatory system is out of date and burdensome; acknowledging that Enron and their ilk took advantage of the regulatory system; praising the free market; noting that big rich companies hate free enterprise as much as the most ardent communist. There was also a lot to dislike—blaming the whole mess on Bush’s tax cuts and “special interests”; calling for more regulation; failing to acknowledge the disaster of Sarbanes-Oxley.
But it was good speech. It was Obama at his best—thoughtful, insightful and knowledgeable. When was the last time a Democrat started out a speech talking about debates between Hamilton and Jefferson? When was the last time a Democrat knew who the hell Hamilton and Jefferson were, other than slave-owners?
At the risk of repeating myself, Obama is the liberal opponent I want. He will force us to make the case for conservatism—a case I believe is strongest in civil debate. He will not accuse us of wanting to starve children or make old people eat dogfood. Granted, he will accuse us of letting special interests keep us from embracing liberal policy. But there is a potential here for vast improvement in the quality of debate. Good debate benefits conservatism. It always has and it always will.
If the Democrat party remains in the claws of Clinton; or if the Sean Hannitys of the world remain the voice of “conservatism”, true conservatism will continue down the road to extinction. Instead of inspiring people about freedom and prosperity, we will continue to try to frighten them with monster-under the bed stories and bullshit scandals (some true; some made up—never forget the Clinton body count garbage).
I have watched, over the last seven years, conservatism become deeply seriously fundamentally ill. I have watched the party I have supported all of my life descend into a big-spending, freedom-gobbling incompetent leviathan. And I believe part of the reason was that we had a dysfunctional, disorganized, comical opposition. The disaster that was the Democrat party allowed us to get fat and lazy; to get used to screaming “Terrorists! Liberals!” and winning elections.
All Americans do better with solid competition. The Red Sox wouldn’t be as good if it weren’t for the Yankees; we wouldn’t have reached the moon if we weren’t racing the Soviets; South Park wouldn’t be a great show if it were the only thing on television. Returning to politics, do you think the 1994 revolution would have happened had it not been for our slippery, charismatic opponent?
We need this. We need a good opponent. We will never get our house in order and restore the glorious conservative ideals America needs to move forward unless we are forced to. The last seven years have shown us what happens to Republicans when the Democrats have their head three feet up their own ass. With Obama, they may bring their recto-cranial inversion down to a much more manageable six or seven inches. That will do.
Update: As an example of what I’m talking about, check out Bainbridge’s long but brilliant response to Obama’s speech.
Even if you don’t buy Day’s contrarian theory about the nature of bubbles, it’s worth remembering that what we call bubbles and busts are an inherent attribute of the process of creative destruction that lies at the heart of capitalism. Striving to eliminate the risk of occasional market blips risks eliminating the space within which creative entrepreneurs function. Think of a child so swaddled in protective gear that they cannot even play.
This is the kind of thing we need to be saying.
Update by Lee: This is a brilliant point, and it should be read over and over until it sinks in.
At the risk of repeating myself, Obama is the liberal opponent I want. He will force us to make the case for conservatism—a case I believe is strongest in civil debate. He will not accuse us of wanting to starve children or make old people eat dogfood. Granted, he will accuse us of letting special interests keep us from embracing liberal policy. But there is a potential here for vast improvement in the quality of debate. Good debate benefits conservatism. It always has and it always will.
This is exactly why I view Obama in a reasonably positive light. It’s not because I swoon for the guy, as anyone who ever says anything positive about him will immediately be accused of doing. It’s not because I plan on voting for the guy, because I’d probably vote for a cat before I’d vote for a Democrat. The truth, though, is that I view him as a generlly decent person with whom I fundamentally disagree. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is pure, vile scum. A contest between McCain and Obama would be quite an interesting one to see because, as Hal point out here, I think it would be far more issues-driven and ideologically-driven than a McCain/Clinton race, which would be nothing more than dredging up Hillary’s sordid past, and the Clinton attack machine going into full gear to respond. An Obama candidacy would force the country to choose between the young black man with the hopeful ideology and the old white war hero with the more traditional views. Do we choose “new” or do we choose “more of the same”? Is the “new” better or worse than “more of the same”? This isn’t to say that there won’t be a lot of back-and-forth between the two camps, only that this campaign will likely be more about the ideas being put forth by the men and not the men themselves, whereas if the race is against Hillary it will be all Hillary, all the time.
Like Hal said, I view Obama as a worthy opponent. We’ve had this “cult of personality” thing going in the US ever since Ronald Reagan, who as one of history’s great men set a standard that had to be lived up to by his successors. The first Bush didn’t meet that standard, and he was a one-termer. Bill Clinton had the fortune to be president during a time of economic prosperity, had the good sense not to fuck it up, and was helped by a Republican Congress which passed a lot of good laws. Thus, in many respects, Clinton is seen by many in the same “great man” context. With the current Bush there has been a pressing need by the GOP’s supplicants, lickspittles, and lapdogs (Hewitt, National Review, Malkin, etc.) to present Bush as a “great man,” with the comparison most often going to Truman, a president who was largely despised in his time in office but is now regarded as a great man by almost everyone. Rather than admit that George W. is a lousy, incompetent president who has left the country in far, far worse shape than he received it, they try to cast him as a misunderstood genius, whose brilliance and foresight will be revealed only in the decades to come.
Hal said that good debate benefits conservatism. I’d say that good debate benefits everyone in a democracy. I think so much of the reason our country is in such a pathetic state right now is because of our polarization, our inability to reflect. (This is true of both sides, but especially true of the GOP during the Bush yeas.) I’ve admitted many times on this blog to have been completely wrong about things. I’ve always believed that a huge part of having strong beliefs is subsequently having the strength to admit that you were wrong, and the intellectual honesty to try something new. The liberals can’t do this with welfare or schools (the problem is ALWAYS that we don’t spend enough money) and the conservatives can’t do this with social policy or war (the problem is ALWAYS that the traditional family is the solution to everything, and ALWAYS that we have to bomb the shit out of our enemies rather than having some kind of dialogue). We need to cut this shit out, because it benefits NONE of us.
A McCain/Obama race would, hopefully, somewhat dispel this polarized, cult of personality zeitgeist. I’m far more comfortable arguing for or against a flawed candidate (and, like us all, both McCain and Obama are flawed in many ways) then trying to hold a candidate up as the savior of the universe, possessed with divine purity of intent, with sunshine and rainbows shooting out their assholes. In other words, in a McCain/Obama race I’d probably not vote for Obama, but I wouldn’t be heartbroken if he became president. We traditionally try to portray one candidate as the Devil and the other as the Savior. It doesn’t matter which party, both sides do it. I’m sick of being forced to think this way.
If I ever hear the words President Hillary Clinton I will spend the next four years being physically ill.
Comments
Though I don’t call myself a conservative, I agree generally about how liberalism and conservatism have been corrupted and a good debate is what America needs. Obama would make for a much more thoughtful and productive campaign than Clinton I think, though lets not get our hopes up too much.
Good post.
There was a lot to like—admitting that much of our regulatory system is out of date and burdensome; acknowledging that Enron and their ilk took advantage of the regulatory system; praising the free market; noting that big rich companies hate free enterprise as much as the most ardent communist. There was also a lot to dislike—blaming the whole mess on Bush’s tax cuts and “special interests”; calling for more regulation; failing to acknowledge the disaster of Sarbanes-Oxley.
Lets disect this:
1) Out of date or burdensome regulation- Obama is in favor of increasing regulation. Just this week he has discussed more regulation on the fed, on mortgage financing, and all his social programs he has in the works scream more onorous regulation.
2)Enron and their ilk- always a fall back position for the evils of capitalism. There are sufficient laws on the books now to punish scaflaws, we don’t scrap capitalism because of a few renegades. These crooks are now in prison doing serious time, lets put Enron to bed.
3)Praising the free market- thats a good one. Who in the last few weeks has been in favor of scraping all our free trade agreements? Who has done backflips in favor of the unions deciding what is in our contries best interest?
4)Big rich companies hate free enterprise- really?
And who does Obama think owns these big rich companies? Share holders, people like you and me. These companies employ millions of people, all with families, all with a personal stake in the company and its future. This Marxist crap should be a big tell for anybody. For somebody that says he likes capitalism and free markets, he banties about all these socialists phrases with alacrity. He is warning you people but you are not picking up on it.
I like your posts hal because they are usually well thought out, free of ad hominem and vitriol, and show a geniune affection for what is good about America. But when it comes to Obama, I think you are being played. When he talks about hope and change, when he brings up Jefferson, when he talks about a government for everybody, I see a well orchestrated pitch to appeal to a weary nation tired of politics as usual. Obama is a smart guy who has tapped into a malaise, an apathy, and for that I give him credit. But nobody should ever fall in love with a politician, and when in doubt, look at what they say and what they do. Obama, for all the good things you say about him and he probably is a good man who cares for his country, has showed everyone with the good sense to pay attention what kind of Amercia he sees in the future, conservative and libertarians should be worried.
Next entry: Tito Jackson Estates
Previous entry: Moment By Moment
I totally respect your opinion, and agree with your general sentiments about the direction of the party and our need to have a challenge. I suppose where we differ is that in the end, I know I will not be voting for him and thus won’t go out of my way to support him (say, by “defending broadsides"). I believe simply that Obama won’t make a good president. Why should I defend the guy?