Same you can believe in

Just arrived at LAX, taking a few minutes before flying off to LAV (to which I would like to append oratory) to post a couple of pointers to what I read and heard on the plane.

First is A Conservative for Obama, by Wick Allison, who actually gave the maximum sum to McCain earlier this year, “…when there was still hope he might come to his senses”. A few grafs:

  Liberalism always seemed to me to be a system of “oughts.” We ought to do this or that because it’s the right thing to do, regardless of whether it works or not. It is a doctrine based on intentions, not results, on feeling good rather than doing good.
  But today it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts — a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war — led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his “conservative” credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask.
  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.
  …I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.
  Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.

The other is this interview with Tom Friedman on Fresh Air. I’m not sure he’ll succeed at making green “the new red, white & blue”, but if you don’t have enough reasons to vote against McCain already, he’ll load you up with a few more good ones.

Bonus link.

This entry was posted in News, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Same you can believe in

  1. Monica Ray says:

    Excellent observations, I agree, and a realist is what we need in the white house.

  2. Marktropolis says:

    You don’t mention this, and don’t know if you or your readers will know this without digging into the Wiki link you provided: Allison used to be the publisher of the National Review. THE conservative newspaper of record. Bill Buckley and all that.

    Sounds like he may have had some of the same feelings you did about McCain and his maverick reputation. Too bad McCain is just hungry for the position, and will do anything to get there.

  3. lurkerfan says:

    Here’s hoping this leading conservative’s stance will resonate with many of that persuasion who are no doubt bitterly disappointed in the results of the so-called Conservative revolution.

    I too heard the Tom Friedman interview and was cheering behind the wheel as I drove — also worrying he would have apoplexy while on the air, as he got quite agitated.

    Another conservative voice with a resonant message is Andrew Bacevich’s book on Limits of Power. See

  4. Doc Searls says:


    Yes I knew that Allison was a former publisher of National Review. He succeeded William Rusher, as I recall. I was a subscriber back in those days, too.

  5. docduke says:

    As a member of acadame, I wonder what you think of politically indoctrinating professors, like this:

  6. Doc Searls says:

    Well, I hesitate to call myself a “member of academe”. While I’m a fellow at centers at both Harvard and UCSB, I’m not on the faculties of either, or even close.

    That said, I’m still not sure what to make of the story you describe in your post, partly because I don’t have the whole story (which I suspect is more complicated than it appears from the report of one student), and partly because I believe every faculty member in every class at every college and university should be at liberty to teach their subjects in any way that works for them, and for their students. If they’re good teachers, they should be recognized and rewarded. If they’re lousy teachers, they have their jobs yanked.

    Are we sure Professor Ulrich was “indoctrinating”
    her students? I’m not. Yet. Until I hear more reports, from more witnesses, the benefit of my doubt goes to the professor.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *