Election Issue

The new election issue of the Review will be distributed this evening. Here’s a preview of the new issue:

Dear Readers,

As Election Day nears, an increasing number of conservatives have announced their support for Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.). The list now includes (among others) Doug Kmiec, Ken Adelman, Christopher Hitchens and (most painfully) Christopher Buckley.

The Carolina Review will not be following suit. We are utterly unconvinced by the arguments of those on the Right who support Obama. We can see no loop holes in the conservative ideology that are big enough to enable any sort of conservative to support Obama, his positions or his temperament.

The aforementioned conservatives almost always say they support Obama in spite of his ideology and history of leftist positions. They typically say that, though he has always legislated as a leftist, he will govern as a centrist. Abir Chatterjee’s article deals with one plank of Obama’s platform- his tax policies- and argues that Obama exhibits an unreformed, uninteresting form of Liberalism which casts an ineluctable doubt on the notion that Obama will govern from the center. Case in point, Obama’s policies are so leftist as to satisfy Marx’s policy suggestions.

Further, we believe that Obama’s reaction to the financial crisis has been manifestly inept. Zachary Dexter and Anthony Dent trace the origins of the crisis and conclude that Obama is flatly wrong. The crisis was not caused by Wall Street greed and deregulation (as Obama has argued), but rather numerous actions of Congress, the FED, and several other government institutions.

Not only is Obama wrong about the cause of the crisis, he’s also wrong about how to fix it. For a multitude of reasons, we conclude that the $800 billion bailout of the financial sector is not going to solve the current catastrophe and will only prolong and worsen our economic downturn.

We also distrust Obama’s positions on the military. Christopher Jones’ article takes a look at Obama’s proposals concerning military spending and contends that an Obama presidency would do irreparable damage to the development of military technology. Without that technology our ability to preserve national security will be greatly hamstringed. There is no evidence to suggest that Obama’s military policies will be tempered by any kind of moderation.

Most often, conservatives site Obama’s temperament as the reason for their support. Brad Smith’s article argues that Obama has reached a celebrity status and that his campaign is supported to a large degree by simple groupthink and Obama’s “mindguards” in the media.

It follows that conservatives should naturally recoil from Obama. After all, we are the more sober wing, and the conservative temperament should be repulsed by anyone whose success is largely built on palpable insobriety. It takes a peculiar sort of temperament for a person to develop into a celebrity, and that sort of temperament is ill-suited for the presidency.

The conservative viewpoint can often be used to legitimately justify different positions on the same issue. The issue of the potential Obama presidency is not such an issue. In this election, a conservative should stand athwart Obama, and his supporters, yelling Stop.


Bryan Weynand and Nash Keune

One thought on “Election Issue

  1. Brian Sopp Reply

    Thank you!! Even if the descendants of great conservative minds cannot be counted on to stand firm these days, people should be able to count on the review. Christopher Buckley’s endorsement of Obama is not shocking simply because it constitutes “betrayal.” For it is not betrayal to stand up for what one believes. His endorsement was shocking because it was idiotic. Essentially he said that McCain should be president, but because Obama seems like a good guy and because the economy is too bad for him to do anything too crazy, people should vote for Obama. Yes, Bill Buckley took unexpected positions, but they were based on principle, not ambiguous feelings toward personality. Another interesting piece of that endorsement was his comment that he is “libertarian” on social issues such as abortion, meaning, I guess, that he is for abortion but thinks that it should be left to the states to decide. I am sick and tired of hearing “libertarians” make this statement. First off, it suggests that even though the libertarian party is for the reversal of Roe, because they are concerned what might be done once Roe is overturned people shouldn’t vote for candidates likely to appoint justices who would overturn Roe. Why don’t we work toward overturning Roe, which the Libertarian party and most Conservatives agree on, and argue about all that other stuff when we get there? Secondly, and more importantly, the “libertarian” position on abortion is simply an effort to avoid the issue. Regardless of your view on the role of government, killing innocent life is evil. If you believe that the unborn child is a human being, then it is impossible to support its continuation, whether there is a “personal choice” involved or not. If you do not think that it is a human being with the inalienable rights of other human beings, then the issue does not need to be relegated to the position of a “personal choice.” If you are okay with the killing of innocent life, come out and admit it. Don’t obfuscate the issue. Christopher Buckley’s subtle statement reveals that there isn’t much to his “conservatism” and we probably shouldn’t be too worried about his desertion. First, he is not conservative on social issues. Secondly, although he is for limited government, he is going to vote for the most liberal member of the Senate because . . . Obama is unlikely to put his viewpoints into action. Not only is there nothing conservative about this man, but he is illogical. He thinks that Obama will be a great leader and is the man for the times, but is voting for him, not because he agrees with Obama, but because Obama is unlikely to put his leftist “principles” into action. Aren’t “great leaders” supposed to be able to accomplish their goals? Aren’t great leaders supposed to be guided by their beliefs and not the necessities of power? (So, why will Obama be a great leader?)

Leave a Reply