Obama the Conservative. A view from across the pond.

[alfredo]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jan/26/obama-conservative-progressive-agenda

There is little doubt that Barack Obama's administration will pursue many policies that we have long associated with American liberalism and the progressive wing of the Democratic party. Yet Obama is not only the new face of America, but also the embodiment of conservatism.

We must recall that the first conservatism in the modern sense originated in the late 18th century as a belief in moderation in politics to serve the interests of social harmony and the common good. The first conservative thinkers, men such as Edmund Burke, were wary of radical change based on infatuation with lofty ideals or abstract reason. They venerated tradition and placed their faith in institutions that had endured the calamities of the ages and a stable set of mores and manners, which developed over several centuries.

History often portrays these early conservatives as hostile to the revolutionaries, in France and elsewhere, who sought to abruptly and comprehensively reshape society so that liberty, equality and fraternity could reign. But they were not hostile to change. Burke himself observed that "a state without a means of change is without the means of its conservation". Rather, the conservatives wanted incremental change, arising from the organic, necessarily slow evolution of society.

Obama was a blank slate we drew our desires on. I had no doubt of his conservatism, but I also saw a man willing to try what works. He isn't restricted by rigid ideology.

To tell the truth, I don't want a president as Liberal as I. I'm way off the scale to the left. I know a president as far left as I cannot govern effectivily.

[Idealism]

1. There are many reasons why Obama transcends the Office n/t

[alarimer]

2. How do you know a liberal cannot govern effectively?

It's never been tried as far as I know. Conservatism is a morally bankrupt philosophy that has clearly failed. Why not be bold and try something else?

[alfredo]

4. Just one as far left as I. My partisanship would make governing very

difficult. The further from the center, the smaller the base.

[stillcool]

7. How do you know we've never tried it?

We could have had many 'liberal' Presidents, that doesn't mean that any of their desired policies would ever be enacted.

[alfredo]

9. You don't know how far left I am. Yes, I think a liberal can govern well.

I am saying that I would be too far left to build any support in congress. I make Kucinich look like a reactionary. As far as getting things done, a politician near the center of the political scale seems to be more effective.

[dbonds]

3. He is a moderate, not a conservative.

Liberals: leading the wave of social evolution and progression.
Moderates: riding the wave - where the current state of progression is.
Conservatives: lagging the wave - trying to hold back social progression

[alfredo]

5. In the article he rightly points out his mix of conservative and liberal

stands.

[TahitiNut]

6. Conservatives today are all about preserving (and increasing) state-enforced PRIVILEGE.

The privileges of wealth and power that extend far beyond mere purchasing power. These are the "royalists" of today, where the "Princes of industry" are the 'royals.' The only 'changes' they seem to oppose are those that would decrease their entitlements and privileges to be on par with other human beings.

[alfredo]

8. then maybe we should call them neo conservatives to differentiate them

from true conservatives. Anyone who can be tied to bush policies can be labelled neo conservative even though they may not be in fact neo conservatives. Let us define them just as they defined us.

there are many people who might actually see themselves as conservative, but in reality share more with the Liberal philosophy. By not calling republicans conservatives, and beginning to label then neocons or neo conservatives, we put them into a frame of our making.