The conservative case for Barack Obama
by Andrew J. Bacevich
Barack Obama is no conservative. Yet if he wins the Democratic nomination,
come November principled conservatives may well find themselves voting for the
senator from Illinois. Given the alternativesand the state of the conservative
movementthey could do worse. Granted, when it comes to defining exactly what
authentic conservatism entails, considerable disagreement exists even (or
especially) among conservatives themselves. My own definition emphasizes the
following:
a commitment to individual liberty, tempered by the conviction that genuine
freedom entails more than simply an absence of restraint;
a belief in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the rule of law;
veneration for our cultural inheritance combined with a sense of stewardship
for Creation;
a reluctance to discard or tamper with traditional social arrangements;
respect for the market as the generator of wealth combined with a wariness
of the markets corrosive impact on humane values;
a deep suspicion of utopian promises, rooted in an appreciation of the
sinfulness of man and the recalcitrance of history.
Accept that definition and it quickly becomes apparent that the Republican
Party does not represent conservative principles. The conservative ascendancy
that began with the election of Ronald Reagan has been largely an illusion.
During the period since 1980, certain faux conservativesespecially those in
the service of Big Business and Big Empirehave prospered. But conservatism as
such has not. The presidency of George W. Bush illustrates the point. In
2001, President Bush took command of a massive, inefficient federal
bureaucracy. Since then, he has substantially increased the size of that
apparatus, which during his tenure has displayed breathtaking ineptitude both
at home and abroad. Over the course of Bushs two terms in office, federal
spending has increased 50 percent to $3 trillion per year. Disregarding any
obligation to balance the budget, Bush has allowed the national debt to balloon
from $5.7 to $9.4 trillion. Worse, under the guise of keeping Americans
safe, he has arrogated to the executive branch unprecedented powers, thereby
subverting the Constitution. Whatever else may be said about this record of
achievement, it does not accord with conservative principles. As with every
Republican leader since Reagan, President Bush has routinely expressed his
support for traditional values. He portrays himself as pro-life and pro-family.
He offers testimonials to old-fashioned civic virtues. Yet apart from sporting
an American flag lapel-pin, he has done little to promote these values. If
anything, the reverse is true. In the defining moment of his presidency, rather
than summoning Americans to rally to their country, he validated conspicuous
consumption as the core function of 21st-century citizenship. Should
conservatives hold President Bush accountable for the nations cultural crisis?
Of course not. The pursuit of instant gratification, the compulsion to
accumulate, and the exaltation of celebrity that have become
central to the American way of life predate this administration and derive
from forces that lie far beyond the control of any president. Yet conservatives
should fault the president and his party for pretending that they are seriously
committed to curbing or reversing such tendencies. They might also blame
themselves for failing to see the GOPs cultural agenda as contrived and
cynical. Finally, there is President Bushs misguided approach to foreign
policy, based on expectations of deploying American military might to eliminate
tyranny, transform the Greater Middle East, and expunge evil from the face of
the earth. The result has been the very inverse of conservatism. For Bush, in
the wake of 9/11, ideology supplanted statecraft. As a result, his
administration has squandered American lives and treasure in the pursuit of
objectives that make little strategic sense. For conservatives to hope the
election of yet another Republican will set things right is surely in
vain. To believe that President John McCain will reduce the scope and
intrusiveness of federal authority, cut the imperial presidency down to size,
and put the government on a pay-as-you-go basis is to succumb to a great
delusion. The Republican establishment may maintain the pretense of opposing
Big Government, but pretense it is. Social conservatives counting on McCain
to return the nation to the path of righteousness are kidding themselves.
Within this camp, abortion has long been the flagship issue. Yet only a naïf
would believe that todays Republican Party has any real interest in
overturning Roe v. Wade or that doing so now would contribute in any meaningful
way to the restoration of family values. GOP support for such values is akin
to the Democratic Partys professed devotion to the working poor: each is a
ploy to get votes, trotted out seasonally, quickly forgotten once the polls
close. Above all, conservatives who think that a McCain presidency would
restore a sense of realism and prudence to U.S. foreign policy are setting
themselves up for disappointment. On this score, we should take the senator at
his word: his commitment to continuing the most disastrous of President Bushs
misadventures is irrevocable. McCain is determined to remain in Iraq as long as
it takes. He is the candidate of the War Party. The election of John McCain
would provide a new lease on life to American militarism, while perpetuating
the U.S. penchant for global interventionism marketed under the guise of
liberation. The essential point is this: conservatives intent on voting in
November for a candidate who shares their views might as well plan on spending
Election Day at home. The Republican Party of Bush, Cheney, and McCain no
longer accommodates such a candidate. So why consider Obama? For one reason
only: because this liberal Democrat has promised to end the U.S. combat role in
Iraq. Contained within that promise, if fulfilled, lies some
modest prospect of a conservative revival. To appreciate that possibility
requires seeing the Iraq War in perspective. As an episode in modern military
history, Iraq qualifies at best as a very small war. Yet the ripples from this
small war will extend far into the future, with remembrance of the event likely
to have greater significance than the event itself. How Americans choose to
incorporate Iraq into the nations historical narrative will either affirm our
post-Cold War trajectory toward empire or create opportunities to set a saner
course. The neoconservatives understand this. If history renders a negative
verdict on Iraq, that judgment will discredit the doctrine of preventive war.
The freedom agenda will command as much authority as the domino theory.
Advocates of World War IV will be treated with the derision they deserve. The
claim that open-ended global war offers the proper antidote to Islamic
radicalism will become subject to long overdue
reconsideration. Give the neocons this much: they appreciate the stakes.
This explains the intensity with which they proclaim that, even with the
fighting in Iraq entering its sixth year, we are now winningas if war were
an athletic contest in which nothing matters except the final score. The
neoconservatives brazenly ignore or minimize all that we have flung away in
lives, dollars, political influence, moral standing, and lost opportunities.
They have to: once acknowledged, those costs make the folly of the entire
neoconservative project apparent. All those confident manifestos calling for
the United States to liberate the worlds oppressed, exercise benign global
hegemony, and extend forever the unipolar moment end up getting filed under
dumb ideas. Yet historys judgment of the Iraq War will affect matters well
beyond the realm of foreign policy. As was true over 40 years ago when the
issue was Vietnam, how we remember Iraq will have large political and even
cultural implications. As part of the larger global war on terrorism, Iraq
has provided a pretext for expanding further the already bloated prerogatives
of the presidency. To see the Iraq War as anything but misguided, unnecessary,
and an abject failure is to play into the hands of the fear-mongers who insist
that when it comes to national security all Americans (members of Congress
included) should defer to the judgment of the executive branch. Only the
president, we are told, can keep us safe. Seeing the war as the debacle it
has become refutes that notion and provides a first step toward restoring a
semblance of balance among the three branches of government. Above all, there
is this: the Iraq War represents the ultimate manifestation of the American
expectation that the exercise of power abroad offers a corrective to whatever
ailments afflict us at home. Rather than setting our own house in order, we
insist on the world accommodating itself to our requirements.
The problem is not that we are profligate or self-absorbed; it is that others
are obstinate and bigoted. Therefore, they must change so that our own habits
will remain beyond scrutiny. Of all the obstacles to a revival of genuine
conservatism, this absence of self-awareness constitutes the greatest. As long
as we refuse to see ourselves as we really are, the status quo will persist,
and conservative values will continue to be marginalized. Here, too,
recognition that the Iraq War has been a fools errandthat cheap oil, the
essential lubricant of the American way of life, is gone for goodmay have a
salutary effect. Acknowledging failure just might open the door to
self-reflection. None of these concerns number among those that inspired
Barack Obamas run for the White House. When it comes to foreign policy,
Obamas habit of spouting internationalist bromides suggests little affinity
for serious realism. His views are those of a conventional liberal. Nor has
Obama
expressed any interest in shrinking the presidency to its pre-imperial
proportions. He does not cite Calvin Coolidge among his role models. And
however inspiring, Obamas speeches are unlikely to make much of a dent in the
culture. The next generation will continue to take its cues from Hollywood
rather than from the Oval Office. Yet if Obama does become the nations 44th
president, his election will constitute something approaching a definitive
judgment of the Iraq War. As such, his ascent to the presidency will implicitly
call into question the habits and expectations that propelled the United States
into that war in the first place. Matters hitherto consigned to the political
margin will become subject to close examination. Here, rather than in Obamas
age or race, lies the possibility of his being a truly transformative
presidency. Whether conservatives will be able to seize the opportunities
created by his ascent remains to be seen. Theirs will not be the only
ideas on offer. A repudiation of the Iraq War and all that it signifies will
rejuvenate the far Left as well. In the ensuing clash of visions, there is no
guaranteeing that the conservative critique will prevail. But this much we
can say for certain: electing John McCain guarantees the perpetuation of war.
The nations heedless march toward empire will continue. So, too, inevitably,
will its embrace of Leviathan. Whether snoozing in front of their TVs or
cheering on the troops, the American people will remain oblivious to the fate
that awaits them. For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope.
McCain represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one.
_________________________________ Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history
and international relations at Boston University. His next book, The Limits of
Power, will be published in August.
---------------------------------
Special deal for Yahoo! users & friends - No Cost. Get a month of Blockbuster
Total Access now
