Obama was the true conservative, the Burkean. Like the French radicals of 1790, Bush wanted to democratize Iraq, turn it, as he said in a speech at Whitehall, into a "beacon of liberty in the Middle East." Now, Robespierre and the other radicals were criticized by Burke for wanting to turn France into a republic. Not a bad idea, but they tried to do it all at once, and according to republican theory.
Maxmillien Robespierre himself would have been horrified by the notion of democratizing Mesopotamia. That may—possibly—happen. But it will take a long time, an Enlightenment, and the muting of sectarian hatreds.
Social Security has long been considered one of the most successful New Deal programs, working well now for 70 years. Yet in 2005, the Bush plan to establish private accounts that could be invested in the Stock Market got nowhere. McCain, too, has embraced this idea. In 2008 it looks ridiculous. The Stock Market! Again, this is a radical proposal, not a conservative one.
Ever since Roe vs. Wade, abortion has been a salient controversy in our politics. But the availability of abortion is linked to the long advancement of women's equality. Again, we are dealing with social change, and this requires understanding social change, a Burkean imperative that Obama understands.
On my Dartmouth campus, half the undergraduates are women. They do not want to have their plans derailed by an unwanted pregnancy. In Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, the Court ruled that the availability of abortion "enables women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the country."
Though there is a tragic aspect to abortion, as Obama recognizes, women's equality means that women have control of their reproductive capability. Men don't worry about that. The fact is that 83 percent of elective abortions occur during the first trimester, and decline rapidly after that.
Both Obama and McCain support federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, Obama more urgently. The conservative movement publications, following Bush, have been fiercely opposed. Such opposition required a belief that a cluster of cells (the embryo) the size of the period at the end of this sentence is as important (more important?) than a seriously ill human being.
I myself cannot fathom such a mentality.
In fact, embryonic stem cell research is being energetically pursued in the following nations: Israel, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, China cooperating with the EU. Privately funded and state funded laboratories are moving ahead vigorously.
Recently, Harvard announced a program that will be part of a multi-billion dollar science center to be established south of the Charles River, and will be able to supply stem cells to other laboratories. I call that Pro-Life.
This analysis could be extended, but it seems clear to me that Obama is the conservative in the 2008 election.
Tracy Quan's latest novel is Diary of a Jetsetting Call Girl, set in Provence and praised in The Nation as a "deft account of occupational rigors and anxieties before the crash." Tracy's debut, Diary of a Manhattan Call Girl, and the sequel, Diary of a Married Call Girl, are international bestsellers. A regular columnist for The Guardian, she has written for many publications including Cosmopolitan, The Financial Times, and The New York Times.
Joe Mathews is a journalist, an Irvine senior fellow at the New America Foundation, and a contributing writer at the Los Angeles Times. He previously served as Justice Department reporter for the Wall Street Journal and as a city desk reporter at the Baltimore Sun. He is the author of The People’s Machine: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of Blockbuster Democracy.
Gerald Posner is the award-winning author of 10 investigative nonfiction bestsellers, ranging from political assassinations, to Nazi war criminals, to 9/11, to terrorism (www.posner.com). Posner lives in Miami Beach with his wife, the author Trisha Posner.
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Renata Espinosa is the New York editor of Fashion Wire Daily. She is also the co-founder of impressionistic fashion and art blog TheNuNu and a sometimes backup dancer for "The Anna Copa Cabanna Show."
Amanda Fortini has written for The New Yorker, Slate, Elle, and New York, among other publications. She lives in Los Angeles.
Jeffrey Hart is professor emeritus of English at Dartmouth College. He wrote for the National Review for more than three decades, where he was senior editor. He wrote speeches for Ronald Reagan while he was governor of California, and for Richard Nixon.
Jeffrey Hart is professor emeritus of English at Dartmouth College. He wrote for the National Review for more than three decades, where he was senior editor. He wrote speeches for Ronald Reagan while he was governor of California, and for Richard Nixon.
Jeffrey Hart is professor emeritus of English at Dartmouth College. He wrote for the National Review for more than three decades, where he was senior editor. He wrote speeches for Ronald Reagan while he was governor of California, and for Richard Nixon.
by Jeffrey Hart
Embryonic stem cells would be a wonder for modern medicine if we manage to figure out how to use them. For now only adult derived stem cells (sans controversy) can be manipulated into doing anything useful, while embryonic stem cells just turn into teratomas (benign tumors of all sorts of cell types like hair, bone, muscle, etc.). Thank you for making the distinction by placing "embryonic" prior to "stem cells."
Bravo! Finally, a reasonable voice from a reasonable conservative. I am sad to say that you are in the minority since the GOP pimped itself out to America's religious kooks under the Reagan administration. And it doesn't seem that the party operatives supporting McCain/Palin care to change that strategy. I believe Senator Obama represents, or possibly will represent, a move away from ideology with a capital "I" to problem solving and lower case ideologies.
Mr Hart:
Please do not stop, I can go for a thousand and one nights reading you. A mind like yours can turn me into a Republican.
Your are the balance this Country needs, thanks!
Coherent and convincing in a way that Button's emotion-driven screed was not.
Mr. Hart,
Reading about Burke in the day of McCain, Palin, and Rove is a breath of fresh air. Conservatives need to either clean house in the GOP or start a new party, or become Democrats. Please continue writing, it is a joy to read good sense.
Thank god for abortion. Think of all the "plans" that could have been derailed due to irresponsibility and promiscuity. How much longer until individuals are no longer accountable for ANY of their actions? Also, I look forward to the day in which everyone see's that one person winning an election with a little over half of the nations support is a bad thing.
If you must salve your conscience by labelling Obama as a conservative in your own mind in order to justify supporting him, please feel free to do so. However, I must say that I find your basic thesis -- and your misappropriation of Obama -- to be both questionable and somewhat arrogant. The Obama policy positions that you correctly identify as laudable are not uniquely conservative in nature. To suggest that they are so is disingenuous when so many on the left agree with those same positions while so many on the right have rejected them.Labelling Obama's positions as conservative in this context is to redefine conservatism in a way that would be unfamiliar to most people in the modern United States. Perhaps this is why you had to reach all the way back to Burke -- a figure from another country in another century -- to find a supposed analog that could be labeled as "conservative". As for your dubious assertion that Nixon and Reagan would have agreed with Obama, this amounts to little more than feckless speculation because it is not possible to ask the opinion of men who are no longer with us. Even if true, it simply does not follow that the agreement of past conservative figures with specific policies demonstrates the fundamentally conservative nature of those policies. I predict that ideologues of both the right and the left will find Obama to be a frustrating and a challenging figure because Obama's policy positions tend to be more pragmatic than they are ideological. Obama is about finding common ground in order to solve problems and to get things done; he is not about ideological purity in any form.
Exactly Mr. Hart. This is the first piece I've read that offers a clear view on Obama, Bush and McCain. And I believe, after eight years of Bush, it's time for the U.S. to go home and take care of itself, and to clean up its act. But practicality isn't everything. It took more than purely conservative leadership to make America what it is---both good and bad. I hope that Obama will also have the guts to do amazing things at home and throughout the rest of the world.
The bottom line....
To all you newly registered, young voters...You MUST get out and vote as if your life depends on it. The GOP is hoping upon hope that young voters will follow their usual trend, become complacent or over confident and stay away from the polls. That is their only hope..Be patient and persevere. Stand in those long lines..rain, snow, sleet, rain, cold. Plan ahead...let your boss know you WILL vote, skip that class, take a friend with you......Do what you have to do and VOTE!
Im the man
Guess you missed the whole point about gender equality being dependent on a woman's ability to choose when to reproduce. Still, you make this grand assumption that soon no individual will be accountable for their actions. Because of abortion? Bush hasn't been held accountable for HIS actions, mistakes, and utter irresponsibility- is it because some women choose to have a first term abortion? Are we in Iraq because of abortion, how 'bout the financial crisis? The other point you seem to miss is that wedge issues, like abortion, should take a back seat to true conservative principles, you know like a small government leaving people's private lives the hell alone.
Bravo, Prof. Hart. An admiring former student.
Like the majority of posts so far, I agree that Mr Hart's views have seldom been articulated in the Press; and are certainly well made. I have watched the campaign and pre-campaign intently from England. The characterisation of Obama as a dangerous left wing radical barely merits a response. His voting record alone suggests he is a conservative 'with a small c', as they always say over here. Much of the Republican rhetoric is truly radical: it's an anti-establishment, clean up Washington/big business message with almost no detail attached. It operates, centrally, on gut instinct and eschews analysis, after all, good folk know what's right. Well, the political sophisticates, shortly to be joined by a majority of the electorate, know that politics is more complicated. Obama is conservative in temperament. That is why he did not rush out to solve the world financial crisis. He saw it coming and knew that an instant fix is impossible. Faced with an international crisis, he would respond like another conservative, Pres. Kennedy, during the famous 13 days. Listen wisely, get the best intelligence (rather than make it up to bolster a pre-determined plan), stay cool, decide rationally, ignore hothead advice, analyse the angles. Does anyone here think that's not the way to take decisions?
"Conservative" used to mean not changing something that works unless absolutely certain that the change will result in an improvement. America has learned the hard way that we need policies that achieve the goals we want, not policies that enable the comforting false beliefs of their privileged way of life. Obama is the candidate who understands that Americans want a government that faces reality and addresses the concerns of the middle class: jobs, housing, health care, the environment, and America's integrity at home and abroad. By seeking policies that work for America, Obama is the real conservative in this election.
The rethoric of old GOP politics is coming to an end. The torch of hope in today's america is opening the door to restore fundamental social rights and deter corporate privileges. The Cheney/Bush duet of the last eight years has provoked pain and distress beyond imagination. This is time in history when the kind of McCain rogue campaign ballyhoo that one time might be excused can no longer be justified. Million of americans today are facing real economic and political woes. The Cheney/Bush overt anti-American misleading and devilish behavior needs change. I am confident Obama and his entourage are well placed to restore the strength and the well being of the whole nation. Alas McCain is no more no less the incoherent expression of those eight years wreckage we all know.
hardrain
abortion isn't the only way that women can choose when they reproduce. abstinence and birth control being two of the options, but I'm sure that you were already aware of that. Abortion has nothing to do with the financial crisis, but the core issue of irresponsibility and accountability is. How many CEO's and upper management have been held accountable for our current crisis? How many politicians? If there are never any consequences when is it going to end? How many bailouts for companies that have made poor financial decisions? If GM goes down the need for vehicles doesn't go away and someone will come in to replace that business. Why do we need to bail them out as they are requesting? That's the stance that Republicans and conservatives should be taking on this issue. It won't get 'em elected, but at least it is in line with the core principles.
The New Politics... (sans labels).
Regardless of its dubbing by pundits and professors and polsters, the new politics, which Obama is spearheading in rhetoric and in practice, mostly, is one that doesn't allow "sides" to own issues.
This is evidenced by a couple of factors:
-the brilliant campaign run by the Obama team that casts wide appeal across the spectrum of political thought
-the terrible, slow, accusitory tactics of the McCain team that embrace all things Bush.
-The simple fact that lots and lots of smart people, conservative and liberal both, wholeheartedly endorse the former.
I don't think we'll be able to call an Obama admin. liberal or conservative, republican or democrat. As a registered independent, that makes me very, very optimistic.
Social Security is working well? Are you crazy? Its hemorrhaging! I won't see a dime of the money I've already put into the current antiquated system. Social Security, in its current form, was never meant to support a population of today's scale, especially when the average lifespan of Americans has increased so much over the last 70 years. Privatized Social Security is a great idea and one I fully support. If you're worried about the rest of Americans being too ignorant to invest wisely, make a default T-bill investment option for their privatized accounts. Its not that hard! And you really show how little you know about investment if you take a snapshot of market conditions and make a blanket insinuation that Social Security would be horrible because of it. Market investing is for the long term! People would be much better off in a market with lifetime average returns of 9.2% than T-bills at 4.2%. Even with portfolio values cut in half vis-a-vis the current crisis, the returns would still be at T-bill rates!
Thank you for your words, Professor Hart. As a conservative and Republican who has become utterly disgusted by the GOP these last 8 or 10 years, and doubly disgusted by the McCain Palin campaign, I find this essay heartening. The fact that so many conservative intellectual lights are coming out for Obama or distancing themselves from McCain and Bush gives me hope that, whatever happens to the GOP, Conservative principles are not dead and will find a political home somewhere. Most of the comments left here are also encouraging.
However, two comments are quite unintentionally humorous. Neither Rainmaker nor closethistorian seem to understand the intellectual tradition of conservative thought, nor that it even has one. Indeed, the ill-informed and aptly named closethistorian takes you to task for mentioning Burke while "appropriating" Obama. How dare you sully his hero by admiring him!
Thank you for keeping the flame alive. It is painful to watch our great experiment in democracy devolve into name calling and posturing, especially when the positions taken are logically inconsistent and focus on trivial issues. Obama does speak common sense, to use a Reid/Paine rather than a Burkeian term. Coming together, personal responsibility, appealing to the better interests in us all, opposing not all wars but dumb ones ... these are ideas that will enrich the American political dialogue. Thank godness the stars are aligned to bring a thinker back into the White House.
InTheMan,
Abortion is not necessarily the result of irresponsible behavior. Pregnancy can happen even when birth control is used.
Abstincence as social policy would be ineffective given social reality. Of course abstinence can be chosen by individuals, and encouraging abstinence is fine. But millions of responsible people consider sex a basic part of their relationships. Its unrealistic to think the majority will become abstinent because of a government program encouraging them to do that.
Abortion itself is most often a decision of responsibility. Studies show that women who choose to end pregnancies almost always do so for very good reasons directly related to their inability to be a good parent at the time of pregnancy. The most common reasons include being too young, not being financially stable, being single, etc. This is also reflected in the demographic shift of less crime a generation after Roe vs Wade reduced the number of children born in poor family situations.
Finally, given that a large part of the country do believe abortions are moral and responsible, the conservative thing is to let people make their own choice, while maintaining the freedom of speech for those who wish to discourage abortions.
I'm a first time reader of your Blog. I enjoyed this post, but I must agree with "closethistorian".
The conservatism to which you align Obama is unfamiliar to me. It requires me to "hit the reset button" on all I, and most Americans have come to accept regarding conservatism. Perhaps what you describe here is conservatism in its purist, and relatively obscure iteration?
Good food for thought.
Watch Ronald Reagan Ask Are You Better Off then You Were 4 Years Ago? in new video ad.
http://www.betteroff08.com/index1.html
I agree what he says. The troubling aspect of this article is that he's re-defining Bush and McCain as "radicals" and Obama as a Conservative, thereby washing the guilt of the last sahmeful eight years off the GOP, and by innuendo, onto liberals (codeword for "radicals.)
Nice try, Bub. You and yours made this bed...now sleep in it!
Most posts seem to be talking about specific issues and I think are missing the broader point of the article.
The current administration rapped the cloak of conservative around themselves while not being what they claimed,
The idea of repeating THE BIG LIE often enough became truth.
This administration was like a fox claiming to be a rooster while guarding the hen house.
No party or idealologue is right on every issue.
Hopefully in the future both parties and idealologies will state their true positions and going forward we can pick and choose the best ideas from both sides.
Anyway thats just my take on things.who knows I could be wrong..but I sure dont think so
Nice to see conservatives who are have a real intellectual foundation for their perspectives which allows them to see that Obama represents them better than Bush ever did. All to often conservative is just a name someone puts on themselves when they simply believe "to hell with the other guy," or "God made the universe and the earth is a few thousand years old." My hats off to people who actually think and can draw distinctions even if I don't agree with their working assumptions.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.