A Buckley on Obama

Kathleen Parker and Chris Buckley lately find themselves engaged in a mutual pity-party, penning several "poor me" columns, lamenting their treatment at the hands of their former allies. Their offenses? Parker dissed Sarah Palin and Bukley endorsed Obama. Each then became the target of substantial conservative and Republican (the two not necessarily synonymous) vitriol.

Which is unfortunate. Conservatives should leave the hate and scatology to Moveon and Daily Kos, neither of which is housebroken or suitable for polite company. Even vehement disagreement should be expressed respectfully.

I give Parker a bye, even though I disagree with her. Even a conservative columnist labors under no obligation to toe the party line. She’s entitled to her view and to express it. Even when wrong.

Buckley, on the other hand, deserves a spanking. While conservatives might properly object to McCain, no conservative, while retaining any intellectual honesty, can support Obama.

A conservative from New Jersey enjoys numerous opportunities to dissent from the positions espoused by Republican candidates. Our last two Republican governors spent, seemingly, more time distancing themselves from conservatives than correcting the obvious failings of leftist Democrats. NJ’s dubious distinction as the most expensive, least business friendly, highest taxed cobalt purgatory in the country owes its genesis, in no small measure, to the efforts of these two erstwhile Chief Executives, who, when not actively supporting Democratic initiatives, clearly enabled them.

As a Republican official or legislator, I felt obliged to hold my tongue – mostly. Party loyalty means something. Sometimes. As bad as Kean and Whitman were, Florio, Shapiro, and McGreevey were clearly worse. Similarly, no conservative should have many nice things to say about George Bush. His first six years in office were spending nightmares. But, again, when compared with Gore or Kerry ...

A conservative columnist enjoys the freedom from Party discipline to express his views of the Republican candidate candidly. It would be arguably proper to conclude, as Buckley does, that John McCain strayed too far from the true path of conservatism to support. But endorsing Obama? Assertedly from the right?

After admitting that Obama is "a lefty", Buckley praises him for being an intellectual, a good writer, and a Harvard man. Just after agreeing with the sentiment that "a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away", Buckley opines:

"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."

That’s a mighty thin reed upon which to base an endorsement.

In short, Buckley endorses Obama because Obama’s too bright to actually believe all the things he’s been saying throughout the course of his campaign – and, indeed, his entire life. Obama expressly promises massive tax increases and protectionism, while becoming a veritable vacuum of special interest money from trial lawyers, labor bosses, etc. Nonetheless, Buckley looks into Obama’s soul and concludes that we can’t take his rhetoric or record seriously. He avers that Obama, as President, will forthwith abandon the promises and people who put him into office, because he will conclude that they’re silly. Otherwise, he will "reap a whirlwind".

Whether this represents Buckley's cynicism respecting the veracity of politicians, or a sort of wishful thinking, I would prefer not to be around when Obama reaps that particular whirlwind, as self-created economic tornadoes tend to inflict considerable collateral damage. Liberal idiocy – "rolling the dice" – on Fannie and Freddie, all in the name of "affordable housing", produced a worldwide economic catastrophe. The architects of that disaster are, mostly, completely unrepentant. They learned nothing. Obama shows absolutely no signs of deviation from leftist-socialist orthodoxy. If he refused to "move to the center" during a campaign, what would possess him to do so once elected?

Buckley’s a humorist by trade. Perhaps this represents nothing more than a somewhat early April Fool’s joke, or a clever Swiftian satire. But there would be nothing the least bit funny about an Obama presidency. The harm he could wreak – simply with his judicial appointments – is truly frightening. No conservative could even entertain the thought of supporting him, even if he cannot find it within his conscience to support McCain.

Somehow, Buckley seems to have breezed through Obama’s writings and speeches and concluded that the man is too smart to be taken at his word. That’s not only profoundly dangerous, it’s downright insulting to Obama. Buckley supports him expressly because he, Buckley, believes that Obama, upon taking the oath of office, will promptly repudiate his every public utterance and promise.

This "historic moment" calls for a return to conservative principles of small government, low taxes, and personal freedom. One might conclude that McCain is not all the moment requires, but Obama represents the antithesis. He unequivocally supports higher taxes, huge government, and the diminution of freedom which that inevitably entails.

Buckley enjoys the right to his opinion, but support for Obama cannot be clothed in conservative garb. He can turn in his credentials at the desk.