T Nation

Buckley Endorses Obama

This is mindblowing. I saw this on another thread, posted by katz, but no one responded to it so I decided to make a separate thread.

I can’t believe this. Christopher Buckley, the son of the great conservative thinker WF Buckley, is endorsing Obama for the presidency.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama/

…And leaves his father’s magazine in the process.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-14/sorry-dad-i-was-fired

I don’t follow his reasoning, to be quite honest, and don’t see what the hell he is thinking about as a libertarian-conservative. But he is a bright mind himself, and as such his defection is noteworthy in its own right independent of any reasoning flaws.

This would seem to be a blow to McCain to lose the faith of a man who’s known him so long, and is so influential in the conservative movement.

Thoughts?

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
This is mindblowing. I saw this on another thread, posted by katz, but no one responded to it so I decided to make a separate thread.

I can’t believe this. Christopher Buckley, the son of the great conservative thinker WF Buckley, is endorsing Obama for the presidency.

…And leaves his father’s magazine in the process.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-14/sorry-dad-i-was-fired

I don’t follow his reasoning, to be quite honest, and don’t see what the hell he is thinking about as a libertarian-conservative. But he is a bright mind himself, and as such his defection is noteworthy in its own right independent of any reasoning flaws.

This would seem to be a blow to McCain to lose the faith of a man who’s known him so long, and is so influential in the conservative movement.

Thoughts?[/quote]

Good for him for dumping the Republicans. But, to actually vote for Obama? I don’t get that at all. Why not look at the LP or Consitution Party? Or, not even vote. I noted that’s he voting Obama, because he doesn’t think Obama will do things he claims he will. Huh?

Ronald Reagan’s son did the same thing back in 2000, or 2004.

Big Deal. It got him exactly what he wanted - attention.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

Thoughts?[/quote]

Hahahaha

Although I don’t blame him, as a conservative, for dumping the GOP, I don’t understand why he wants to vote for Obama.

Unless, of course, he believes in change. :wink:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Although I don’t blame him, as a conservative, for dumping the GOP, I don’t understand why he wants to vote for Obama.

Unless, of course, he believes in change. ;)[/quote]

Ahhh yes, change. A government bureaucrat in every community making sure we stay in line. A wealth redistribution program 'cause it’s just so darn unfair for people who sit on their ass not to get rewarded for that. Oh an let us not forget we can freely kill our kids in or out of the womb because after all who wants to be “punished” with a baby…I need a government who can take care of me because I am to damn dumb to take care of myself…That’s the change. Wow, can’t wait…I rather have hillary, hell I’d ever put up with 4 more years of Bush. I’d rather have a useless war than the government up my asshole.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Although I don’t blame him, as a conservative, for dumping the GOP, I don’t understand why he wants to vote for Obama.

Unless, of course, he believes in change. ;)[/quote]

Spitting in the face of the GoP. Anyone can see he’d be a far better fit in the Libertarian party. So yeah, I think his true motivation in supporting Obama (who’s going to win anyways) is in giving the GoP the finger on his way out.

maybe, but why? I mean, it’s true that the last 8 years have been anti-conservative, but it confuses me.

RJ I really don’t think his motivation is attention grabbing. He and WFB never really were the type to take center stage–no talk show hosting, none of the typical antics. Their positions generally got them opposition and attention but it wasn’t like it was their primary motive. They were and have been driven by their philosophies.

I just wonder why he thinks that Obama isn’t going to do exactly what he says he will. That in particular just doesn’t compute on any scale I know.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
This is mindblowing.
[/quote]

I wouldn’t call it mind-blowing at all. Buckley, I believe, is pro-choice, unlike his Catholic father. The key objection a lot of disaffected conservatives have to voting Obama is that he is the most pro-abortion nominee ever. If that doesn’t matter to you, then you’re basically choosing between an intelligent advocate of big government and interventionist foreign policy and a less intelligent/informed version of the same. Might as well cross your fingers and go with option A. There’s really not much difference between the two.

[quote]pat wrote:
hell I’d ever put up with 4 more years of Bush.
[/quote]

Pat…say it ain’t so ! I would rather stick pins in my eyes for the next 4 years than have Bush run the show for the next 4.

I see your logic though but Bush and a war for 4 more years vs. more govt up your ass ? I think we are going to get more govt up our ass regardless.

2 words…Bail Out. I think this set the stage for lots of govt fucking.

[quote]therover wrote:
pat wrote:
hell I’d ever put up with 4 more years of Bush.

Pat…say it ain’t so ! I would rather stick pins in my eyes for the next 4 years than have Bush run the show for the next 4.

I see your logic though but Bush and a war for 4 more years vs. more govt up your ass ? I think we are going to get more govt up our ass regardless.

2 words…Bail Out. I think this set the stage for lots of govt fucking.

[/quote]

Unfortunately so. I would rather use the rape term however, since they ignored the people’s cries of anger and dissent and did it anyway.

Buckley states that Obama’s writing indicates a first rate mind. Martin Luther is credited with saying, ‘I’d rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian.’ Perhaps Buckley would rather be ruled by competent liberal rather than incompetent conservative. That is not to say that Luther prefers Islam or that Buckley prefers liberals. But sometimes you have to choose competence over ideology.

Republicans have been much less competent at balancing budgets than the Democrats, at least since the Eisenhower administration. Given the current economy, competence in dealing with budgets is at a premium.

@Aragorn

You state:
He and WFB never really were the type to take center stage–no talk show hosting, none of the typical antics.

WFB was most certainly a talk show host, He hosted Firing Line for 33 year. It was on PBS many of those years, but doesn’t Firing Line count as a talk show?

I have a lot of respect for conservatives like WFB, Jim Leach, Eisenhower and even Barry Goldwater. But the modern ‘neo-conservatives’, no longer respect privacy, the rule of law, or personal liberties (other than economic liberties), have less budget discipline than the liberals, are infatuated with imperial ambition and are increasingly theocratic. They are no longer acting to conserve traditional American values.

I will say that John McCain is something of a ‘throwback’ to the old school conservative, which I view as his primary strength. But, he still is stuck in the party of Bush and the neo-cons.

Trying to get back on topic, if (like me) C Buckley views neo-cons as almost the opposite of libertarians, I can understand why he might be disenchanted with the John McCain that has been forced to move toward the neo-con ‘base’ of the Republican party.

Well, I’m guessing that you didn’t have a brother in Iraq.

Besides, isn’t it the Bush administration and their Patriot Act, rammed through an ass-kissing Congress, that allowed the NSA staff that gets their kicks by listening to the soldiers overseas having phone sex with spouses and lovers at home? How is that for a government up their asshole or any other intimate orifice? The NSA staff may not find Osama with their unprecedented power, but at least they will have some fun at work. Who knows, if they find some good phone sex with a mistress, the NSA might even end up with a General in their pocket.

We have a useless war AND a government up our collective asshole.

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
@Aragorn

You state:
He and WFB never really were the type to take center stage–no talk show hosting, none of the typical antics.

WFB was most certainly a talk show host, He hosted Firing Line for 33 year. It was on PBS many of those years, but doesn’t Firing Line count as a talk show?

I have a lot of respect for conservatives like WFB, Jim Leach, Eisenhower and even Barry Goldwater. But the modern ‘neo-conservatives’, no longer respect privacy, the rule of law, or personal liberties (other than economic liberties), have less budget discipline than the liberals, are infatuated with imperial ambition and are increasingly theocratic. They are no longer acting to conserve traditional American values.

I will say that John McCain is something of a ‘throwback’ to the old school conservative, which I view as his primary strength. But, he still is stuck in the party of Bush and the neo-cons.

Trying to get back on topic, if (like me) C Buckley views neo-cons as almost the opposite of libertarians, I can understand why he might be disenchanted with the John McCain that has been forced to move toward the neo-con ‘base’ of the Republican party.
[/quote]

Interesting post. You are, of course, correct about WFB hosting Firing Line for so many years. I spoke very incorrectly. I suppose the main point I was trying to make is that WFB and son didn’t/don’t like to spew empty polarizing rhetoric to get attention. They tend to take positions based on their ideals, and that either gets them attention or not.

Regarding the other, I suppose that may be very viable, but I wonder why he did not instead opt to advocate a third party. That would be much more in line with his thinking I would suppose. It makes no sense for him to advocate voting for Obama on the premise that he would do little or none of what he campaigns for, with the strong possibility of a Dem supermajority in Congress, which would undoubtedly turn into something C Buckley would never approve. It is a fascinating situation.

Well, John Eisenhower (Dwight’s son), a lifetime Republican endorsed Kerry for '04. Similar traits?

I think it has more to do with personality, psychology, and emotional reactiveness. Bush and McCain both seemed skittish, agitated, reactionary, defensive, and belligerent. Not traits often associated with conservatives.