Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: McCain is even worse than you thought Link: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/mccain_is_even_worse_than_you_thought#31993 Post contents: I fail to see the point of Prof. Gottfried's piece. Having been personally victimized by affirmative action, I am certainly second to none in my hatred of this evil and authentically divisive State practice. That said, it is hardly a 'first tier' issue from any rightist perspective. Even the Racial Right (so fearsome to timid John Zmirak) sees in mass nonwhite immigration an infinitely greater threat. I would gladly trade more decades of unjust affirmative action, restricted narrowly to unqualified American-born blacks (and I believe that determined conservatives could so delimit it), in exchange for 1) an indefinite immigration moratorium; 2) militarizing the US/Mexico border; and 3) deporting all illegal aliens from American soil. Christopher Roach's comments about the modern military, while interesting, well-articulated and true (although he left out the military's ideological acceptance and advocacy of feminism), are similarly less than germane to the larger question of how to vote in the upcoming McCain/ Obama presidential race. The correct approach should be obvious to any rightist of even marginal intelligence: vote for a rightist third party candidate (I prefer Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party), but root for Obama to win, albeit by the smallest possible Electoral College as well as popular vote margins. Obama is correct that McCain will represent a Third Bush Term. Is Bush a conservative? As I never voted for him (Buchanan '00, Nader '04), I believe I have more of a right than many to be disgusted by this most disappointing of administrations. I would like, polemically, simply to refer to Bush as a leftist, except that would not be quite accurate. Bush is a horrible ideological hybrid, as is his near-clone, on all the major issues, McCain, and therefore far more insidious than a clear-cut leftist. Let us be fair and describe Bush/McCain thusly (if simplistically): they are 50% liberals, and 50% the wrong type of conservatives for this historical period. The Racial Right believes, as does Taki's pal Pat Buchanan, that Bush should be impeached by the Senate, then tried in a court of law, convicted, and presumably jailed (or even executed) for treason, as evidenced both by his unwillingness to fulfill his Constitutional duty to defend the nation against foreign invasion (ie, numerically unprecedented mass illegal immigration - though advocacy or tolerance of legal nonwhite immigration at least morally, if not jurisprudentially, constitutes treason in the face of a 'foreign invasion' as well), as well as to honor his Executive function to enforce Federal law, specifically, to deport illegal aliens. Insofar as Bush's inactions benefit the political and other interests of nonwhites at the expense of whites, he is not merely an abrogator of his Constitutional duties, but also a race-traitor. The Libertarian Right likewise hates Bush, for his massive expansion of Federal domestic spending (his oxymoronic "Big Government conservatism"), as well as economic regulation; for his alleged dismissal of civil libertarian concerns (and the setting up of various dangerous, civil liberties-endangering precedents); and, most of all, for his reckless, immoral, expensive, and unnecessary warmongering. There are some factions of the Right which do like him, however. Discounting the neocons, who are not really conservatives at all, the Christian Right still seems to support the President. Indeed, it can certainly be argued that Bush is sympathetic to Christian Right concerns, and that his policies have reflected that. Does opposing abortion, stem cell research, cloning, and gay marriage, without more, merit the designation 'conservative'? I would say no, but such 'social issues' positions are obviously not those of the Left. It could also be pointed out that Bush has made a number of conservative-leaning judicial appointments, to lower courts as well as the High Court - though we have Justice Alito only because of a groundswell of conservative opposition, including from neocons, to Bush's original pick, the ideologically awful Harriet Miers. Bush has also been a fairly strong (but far from perfect) supporter of firearms freedoms. Finally, how can/should we ideologically classify Bush's militarism? If done for the sake of advancing leftist ideological causes ("human rights", "democracy", "female empowerment", "sexual emancipation", "protection of [nonwhite] minorities", etc.), then such militarism would be leftist. But what if Bush actually invaded Iraq to 1)remove a genuine security threat; or 2) secure favorable US access to large oil deposits; or 3) launch a New Christian/Western Crusade against Islam; or 4) simply expand the sphere of American geopolitical hegemony (or some combination thereof)? Would any of the latter motives endear him to America's regnant left-liberal political - media - academic establishment? Sent at: 2008 12 01