Some of our erstwhile friends are starting to figure it out.
Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice.
Attaboy, David! I know it will take you a while to give up this centrist thing, but you're making progress.
Then there's this guy:
He tells us that all this is going to work because the economy is going to be growing by 3.2 percent a year from now. Do you believe that? Would you take out a loan based on that? And in the three years following, he predicts that our economy will grow by 4 percent a year.
This is nothing if not audacious hope. If he’s right, then looking back, March 2009 will be the dawn of the Age of Stimulation, or whatever elegant phrase Niall Ferguson comes up with. If he turns out to be wrong, then it will look very different, the entrance ramp to the Road to Serfdom, perhaps, and he will reap the whirlwind that follows, along with the rest of us.
Dad would be pleased that you're starting to figure it out, Christopher.
There has been a lot of anger on my side of the aisle regarding people like David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, Kathleen Parker, Doug Kmiec and other ostensible conservatives who fell under the spell of O. If you read some of the websites where conservatives gather, you'll get the full blast furnace effect. While I understand the anger, it's probably better to treat these folks as prodigals, especially as they fitfully return to the fold. If conservatives are to govern again, we need talented communicators. And for all the willful blindness that the Brookses and the Buckleys of the world have demonstrated, they will be able to reach audiences that we will need to reach. And they'll have better stories to tell this time around.
8 comments:
I must take exception to how you portrayed David Brooks' column. His main theme concerned how moderates should be reacting and it was hardly a ringing endorsement of the Right. For example, here is another paragraph he wrote:
"Moderates now find themselves betwixt and between. On the left, there is a president who appears to be, as Crook says, "a conviction politician, a bold progressive liberal." On the right, there are the Rush Limbaugh brigades. The only thing more scary than Obama's experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it."
Didn't say it was a "ringing endorsement of the Right," anonymous. Nor was Buckley's piece. But the road to Damascus is a long one.
these two men are neither right nor left for if they were there would be within them a set of principles upon which to guide them.
this is why they are moderates. a moderate doesnt know what he believes, only that he wants to be on the side with the cool kids.
Obama is (and always has been) nothing more than "Symbolism over Substance." It's so reminiscent of Clinton's first month it's scary.
During the campaign, not one of Obama's supporters whom I asked could name a significant legislative accomplishment. The first six weeks of this administration has been one big "I TOLD YOU SO!!!"
I find the excessive "Obama is failing and lied about being moderate" sentiment to be excessively exhausting. Should we not give him that CHANCE to fail first?
I think things are coming along swimmingly.
Amanda,
He gets 4 years no matter what I say or anyone else says. Personally, I don't want him to fail, but my strong suspicion is that he will fail, and fail quite badly, if he continues on the path he's undertaken. I remember the 1970s well -- we don't want to do that again.
If you are still blogging in four years, I look forward to adding up the tally!
I expect to be here, Amanda.
Post a Comment