For a long time, “liberals” have seen their label turned into a four-letter word… its synonyms include “extremist,” “socialist,” “gay,” “weak,” “anti-American,” “elite.” Most have stopped using the word as a self-description — going instead with the rather vague “progressive” — though it’s blisteringly invoked by the opposition. “Conservative,” meanwhile, has experienced something of a resurgence. Seen in the ’70s and early ’80s as “old-fashioned” or “prudish,” conservative has come to mean “common sense” and “with the people.” (Note, please, that none of these “synonyms” really reflects the political histories and deep meanings of these two terms, and I endorse none of them.)

In the wake of a hypothetical likely Obama victory, however, it may finally be time to return these words to their rightful places in history — and, subsequently, to leave them there and come up with some that work. “Liberal” is already out except as a slander; “conservative” now has no relation to its previous meaning and will likely fall out of common use except for a few brainiacs and purists. This was foreseeable in the GOP primaries, when Ron Paul continually explained that HE was the “real” conservative — the guy calling for an immediate end to war in Iraq and American occupations in general; a return to sound financial principles and abolishing not only the IRS, but also the Federal Reserve; a cease-and-desist on warrantless wiretapping and torture and secret military tribunals. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, did his best (which was not very good) to stand as the Reagan caricature, while Mike Huckabee tried to revive the “compassionate” conservative label that George Bush shed as soon as he took office. John McCain, once the nomination was mostly locked up, stepped in and claimed that he was a Reagan “foot soldier” and a great conservative, until he got to the general election and instead took to calling himself, once again, a “maverick.”

Yet, as McCain parades about as “maverick” (and with his mavericky sidekick Sarah Palin, no less), the conservative right-wing media continues to assert that “conservatism” must be upheld, and McCain’s victory is the only way for this to occur. (The reason I know this, by the way, is that my car radio picks up few good stations, and I end up catching some piece of Limbaugh or Hannity nearly every day.) They deride Obama for his associations and for his choice of words (“He said he was going to ‘spread the wealth’! The man is obviously a Communist!”), and embrace — no, make that amplify — whatever extreme characterization the latest McCain ad carries. So, those who listen to this stuff (or who read National Review or Weekly Standard) are presented with a simple choice: Vote for McCain and remain free and moral, or vote for Obama who is a closet socialist, possible terrorist sympathizer and who just might reach into your pregnant sister’s womb with his bare hands and pull the baby right out.

Yes, by all means, vote for McCain! Who wants to spend $300 billion buying up mortgages that would default (spreading the wealth?). Who wants to leave U.S. troops in Iraq — a “sovereign nation,” that — despite that its people basically want us to go home. Who wants to

This is “conservatism,” right?

Away from the yellfests on cable news and the fire-breathing gabfests on right-wing radio, some of the nation’s most thoughtful, influential and history-making conservatives (and/or Republicans) are starting to disagree. (Click here for a fuller explanation of and thorough cast of characters in the “Obama Republican” phenomenon.)

Colin Powell’s endorsement this morning on “Meet the Press” is getting a lot of coverage, though his conservative credentials have always been suspect (Limbaugh, predictably, says the endorsement is solely on the basis of race). But others are more telling:

Andrew Bacevich, professor of history and international relations at Boston University and contributor to the American Conservative:

(C)onservatives 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.

Christopher Buckley, son of conservative intellectual icon William F. Buckley:

I’ve read Obama’s books, and they are first-rate. He is that rara avis, the politician who writes his own books. Imagine. He is also a lefty. I am not. I am a small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and old-fashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets. On abortion, gay marriage, et al, I’m libertarian. …

Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for” silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.

So, I wish him all the best. We are all in this together. Necessity is the mother of bipartisanship. And so, for the first time in my life, I’ll be pulling the Democratic lever in November. As the saying goes, God save the United States of America.

Frank Schaeffer, pro-life leader and son of Christian intellectual icon Francis Schaeffer:

In Obama’s America arguments for compassion for the unborn and all the other “least of these” will resonate regardless of Obama’s stance on the legality of abortion. Roe is not the point. Our hearts are the point. The unborn like everyone else will do better in a country that puts people, the earth, and our future ahead of greed, oil company profits and jingoistic rule by fear.

I will be voting for Senator Obama and am fighting for his election because I am pro-life.

Wick Allison, former publisher of National Review:

Today it is conservatives, not liberals, who talk with alarming bellicosity about making the world “safe for democracy.” It is John McCain who says America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth.

This kind of conservatism, which is not conservative at all, has produced financial mismanagement, the waste of human lives, the loss of moral authority, and the wreckage of our economy that McCain now threatens to make worse. …

As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama.

There are countless others who indicate that they’re pulling for Obama, but haven’t come right out and endorsed him: New York Times conservative columnist David Brooks, Wall Street Journal columnist and former Bush adviser Peggy Noonan, syndicated conservative columnist Kathleen Parker (who says she’s gotten tens of thousands of pieces of hate mail from “conservatives” since), sometimes Bill O’Reilly fill-in talk host Michael Smerconish.

The point, of course, isn’t that Obama is “conservative” — he’s obviously not. And my point, here, is not that there’s something wrong with “conservatism” as the word is actually defined based on history and intellectual theory.  But the word now means nothing but “Republican,” and those “conservatives” who aren’t voting Republican are seeing themselves cut down by their fellow “conservatives” who think one may ONLY vote Republican.

The right-wing talkers are nearly right about one thing: If elected, Obama won’t tear America apart — but he’ll certainly be the knife that may forever dice the idea of a “conservative” movement into a million little pieces.* Then again, I’m guessing a few of them are secretly rooting for him too — “the most liberal member of Congress” elected president? That’s four more years of job security, right?

*Yes, I know… the conservative movement is already quite fractured, with paleo and neo and “crunchy” and various other subgroups. But the general public, I think, is unaware of these distinctions and couldn’t care less; most elected members of Congress who are Republicans fall into either the neo or “plain old” camps at present, but the true divisions will begin to come soon. I think.

Tags: Barack Obama, Chris Buckley, Colin Powell, conservatism, John McCain, Obamacans, Obamacons

This entry was posted on Sunday, October 19th, 2008 at 9.23 pm and is filed under Uncategorized, politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.