January 06, 2008

Why independents swoon for Obama

Posted by: Chris

With Barack Obama poised to steal independents and crossover voters from John McCain in New Hampshire, Andrew Sullivan asks himself a question I've been asking myself for awhile now also: What explains the appeal of an unapologetic liberal like Obama for those of us who would describe ourselves as conservative-libertarians (Sullivan) or lapsed conservative-turned-independents (me).

Here was Andrew's short answer:

How can I write "The Conservative Soul" and find myself rooting for Obama? … Because conservatism faces a deeper threat from corrupt Republicans than from honest liberals. Because, after eight years of big government Christianism, a unifying liberalism is something I can live with. Because I want to win the long war against the Jihadists - and we need to unite the country again to do it. Because grow-ups know that any democratic society needs at least two parties and that the alternation of right and left - without tipping into extremism - is a healthy thing.

Here's my somewhat longer attempt:

Our generation grew up with a stagnant New Deal/Big Society government that had overextended itself with welfare entitlements more successful at creating bureaucracy than actually fighting poverty. The size of the welfare state and its reach into the economy was even more pronounced in the U.K. than in the U.S. The response from Andrew and from me and from many others was a strong and deep-seated skepticism that government could play a benevolent role in people's lives.

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan seemed the perfect antidote -- with Reagan's  famous exhortation that "government isn't the solution to our problem; government is the problem." As president, he succeeded in restoring our pride in country but also ended up demonstrating the inadequacies of his approach to governing. His aggressive foreign policy did solve a big problem, hastening the end of the Cold War. And his blind eye domestically cost the lives of tens of thousands, as government responded achingly slow to the threat of HIV/AIDS.

Reagan also failed to live up to his own fiscal promise, of course, cutting taxes while failing to control spending. He blamed the Democratic Congress, but it was ultimately a Democratic president -- Bill Clinton -- who finally weaned us from welfare to work and balanced the budget.

The rise of "Christianism" -- politically active fundamentalists -- and, later, the neo-conservatives only further undermined the Right's credibility, as Andrew chronicled so well in his book. They wanted the government out of our pocketbook, into our bedroom and borrowing from future generations to pay the bills.

But for me, the critique of current-day conservatism contained in the first half of "The Conservative Soul" is ultimately more convincing than the prescription for a return to "true conservatism" in the second half. What Sullivan describes as the real McCoy conservative seems more like a mindset -- a healthy skepticism -- than an ideology of governing. And to that extent, I relate. We were burned by Reagan, by Bush and by a disastrous elective war, and we are disgusted with the divide-and-conquer politics of the Clinton haters of the '90s and Bush-Rove in the '00s.

The lesson from those years, at least for me, was that Reagan's philosophy of governing is more useful as a warning than as a truism. Even accepting that that government can play an enormously important role domestically and internationally, the skepticism that Sullivan speaks of can help to choose those opportunities with greater care. But because it is a mindset -- of independence and skepticism -- more than a governing philosophy, we're left open to the appeal of candidates from either party who can demonstrate an independence from the entrenched interest groups that so inhibit a politicians maneuvering room that skepticism is of little value.

McCain showed that type of independent in 2000, arriving in South Carolina and declaring Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance." His "Straight Talk Express," his maverick streak, his campaign finance reform -- all suggested political independence. Of course he long since sold his soul to the same "agents of intolerance" he called out eight years ago, but we still see signs of it in his resistance to the Bush tax cuts and his sane approach to immigration reform. Unfortunately, his positions on the Iraq War and gay rights eliminate him from serious consideration.

Then along comes Obama, with a deeply inspirational narrative and a message of unity and hope. Like McCain, he isn't an establishment candidate. And even better than McCain, he seems above the partisan fray and willing to stand up to his party's entrenched interests -- whether labor unions, the black clergy, anti-war zealots and (yes) gay activists.

Obama's combination of political independence and unifying, hopeful message is what has exhilirated so many. His steadfast opposition to the war and support for gay rights only make him more attractive as a candidate. There's still plenty of time for him to disappoint, and his relatively short record raises yellow flags, if not red.

But for now, expect to see independents and some "true conservatives" swayed by his candidacy.

Technorati Tags: Andrew Sullivan, Barack Obama, independents