SIGN UP - IT'S FREE!
SEARCH FSM
| National Debt Clock |
A million seconds pass in 12 days.
A billion seconds pass in 31 years.
A trillion seconds pass in 31,688 years!
October 23, 2008
Exclusive: To ‘Conservatives’ Supporting Obama
This article is written in the effort to bring to light a number of facts about Obama which, I believe, would lead a "conservative" to the conclusion that endorsing or supporting the candidacy of Barack Obama is impossible. Let me begin by saying that I hold no monopoly of conservative thought or opinion, I consider myself no "expert" whatever that may be. I would define a conservative as someone who believes in a limited role for government, where the individual is the primary means of wealth generation, where taxes should remain as low as possible, where government's primary role is to provide security and enforce the rule of law while providing a basic social safety net. To paraphrase Reagan, government is more often the problem rather than the solution.
My goal is to make a respectful argument and highlight the aspects of Obama's views and beliefs which, I believe, run directly against conservative principles, and even the very tenets of individualism and free markets.
Taxes
Mr. Obama claims that his tax plan will provide relief to the middle class. He has stated clearly that he believes it is the government's role to "spread the wealth around" for the benefit of the collective. Such an argument assumes that it is the government's role (or duty) to spread the property of some to others. This is nothing short of socialism. The government's job (in the eyes of a conservative in my opinion) is to create equality of opportunity through the rule of law and by creating an environment where the creative talents of individuals can flourish. Obama's statements show that he believes it is the government's job to re-distribute wealth in the fashion of Robin Hood, using the coercive powers of the state – in other words, by force.
Obama's "tax cut" is really no cut at all. He is not proposing to lower the tax rates, but to provide a "tax credit" to eligible members of the middle class. His "tax credit" will even involve a check being delivered to those who qualify under his plan. This is the equivalent to a welfare check. Meanwhile, Obama proposes increasing taxes on the "wealthy", which I might also refer to as the productive, to use less class centered language. He wants to tax small businesses. But consider thatS-corporations, which allow individuals to "pass through" taxes for their business and their personal taxes, will be taxed more. S-Corp's help small business people avoid "double taxation", but Obama's increase on these businesses will strain the wealth generating capacity of the most vital part of the American economy.
McCain proposes cutting taxes across the board regardless of income level. And why not, both Kennedy and Reagan did this to achieve incredible economic growth and expansion. Obama's tax plans sound eerily Marxian: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." At a time of such economic uncertainty, tax increases should be the last thought on any one's mind.
Foreign Policy
Joe Biden said earlier this week that Obama will undoubtedly be tested with a foreign policy crisis because of his inexperience just as JFK was. I agree with Biden, but I agree that almost every new president is tested in some way or another on foreign policy. The danger is that JFK came within a hair of nuclear war as a direct result of his disastrous meeting with Khruschevand his failure to effectively deal with Fidel Castro.
Obama has proposed slashing military programs, retreating from Iraq, and has undermined President Bush and the troops by attempting to negotiate outside the normal channels with the Iraqi government before he has any constitutional authority to do so. I will be the first to say that Bush has caused tremendous damage to the country, but Obama's actions are indefensible when considering the U.S. Constitution and that foreign policy is a zero sum game. If U.S. power is withdrawn from a place, the vacuum will be filled by someone or some thing. Withdrawal from Iraq will mean that some other power will fill the void. Thus, the question is then does the Iraqi government have the capacity and the will to fill that void at this time? Every American general on the ground says, "not yet."
Obama's eagerness to meet with Chávez or Ahmadinejad smacks of dangerous naivety and a willingness to legitimize the most oppressive regimes on the planet. There's nothing wrong with diplomacy, but there is no sense in adding to that stature of a dictator for the sake of diplomacy alone.
Past Associations
Although Colin Powell may disregard Obama's relationship with William Ayers, a conservative should not. Obama's relationship, however slight, is akin to a politician in Canada launching their political career from the home of a former FLQ member. This is inconceivable and dangerous. Obama has been evasive on Ayers, Wright, Alinsky, and Rezko and the media has done nothing to root out the true nature of his affiliations because they have been infatuated with the celebrity cult of Obama's hype.
Seeking to destroy the United States from within "the belly of the beast," Ayers and Dohrn convened a "War Council" in Flint, Michigan, in 1969. From the stage, Dohrn, holding her fingers in what became the Weatherman "fork salute," praised Charles Manson and the recently committed bloody murders by Manson's crazed followers of actress Sharon Tate, coffee heiress Abigail Folger, and six others – all deemed too "rich" to be allowed to live.
"Dig it," shouted Dohrn, thrilled about the "Tate Eight" murders, to the assembled horde of America-haters. "First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim's stomach! Wild!"
Sharon Tate, pregnant at the time, was stabbed in the womb. Her baby, one assumes in the minds of the murdering levelers, would have been born with too many advantages, too much of a head start.
Inexcusable.
Social Issues
While not every conservative must be against abortion, Obama's views on the subject are the most extreme of any candidate to ever run for office. In my opinion, any reasonable person faced with the reality ofpartial birth abortion would oppose this heinous procedure that is akin to infanticide. Yet, Obama has repeatedly voted to allow such procedures. This rarely used procedure has no place in a civilized society and should be banned if a state so legislates (I do not believe the federal government should play any role on abortion since criminal law is a state issue).
Obama's deception on the abortion issue was evident during the "Saddleback Forum"when he declared that it was above his pay-grade to say when human life begins. This was a cop-out that showed only weakness and fear.
Obama has also been excessively vague on where he stands on gay marriage. If he's a true leader, he should be clear about his views and where he stands.
Trade
Obama has either lied about his beliefs on free trade or was initially deceptiveas to his beliefs. He declared to a union friendly crowd that he would re-negotiate NAFTA. Being Canadian, I'd say bring it on since we sell the U.S. so much oil and would hold a trump card capable of paralyzing the American economy. But as a friend and ally of the U.S., this should be troubling for any Canadian. Free markets and free trade are the cornerstone of economic development and our own prosperity.
Obama's partisan vote to oppose free trade on Columbia showed that he would be willing to shun a strong ally at war with domestic terrorists for the sake of partisan gain. Could Canada suffer a similar fate from a President Obama if the circumstances changed? I fear it could.
McCain has long been a free trader and has the record to show for it.
Conclusion
I am no McCainiac; my past posts have been extremely critical of McCain and his past votes on immigration, judges, and taxes. Indeed, I am a very reluctant McCain supporter. However, when choosing between the two "evils" presented in this election, I believe a conservative, in the small "c" sense of the word, is naturally led to supporting McCain even if it is not an enthusiastic support. Obama's judgment, policies, and associations are questionable at best and frightening at worst. Obama would likely move to stifle free speech with the re-imposition of the "Fairness Doctrine". He would impose socialistic tax policies and has a tendency towards protectionism. He can point to no accomplishments or achievements as a senator, a state senator, a lawyer, or a community organizer. His claims of bi-partisanship are laughable. I don't believe we will see gulags or the end of democracy if Obama wins, but I do believe his presidency would erode the conservative values of individualism, personal ambition, personal responsibility, the rule of law, the constitutional right of freedom of the press (because of the Fairness Doctrine), and the free market's role in society. In return, government would expand almost uncontrollably as Reid, Pelosi, and Obama (RePO) are free to spend, tax, regulate, and legislate at will.
While I don't expect to persuade anyone to "fall in line" or change their view, I do hope that my article will contribute meaningfully to political discourse and increase the level of healthy skepticism in regards to Mr. Obama's candidacy and policies.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Jonathan D. Strong graduated from the Michigan State University College of Law. He is a member of the Florida bar and currently resides in a suburb of Toronto, Ontario. E-mail: strongconservative@gmail.com.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!
