Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

Stopping torture, restoring habeas corpus, stripping political revenge from the responsibilities of the Department of Justice, and resuming a foreign policy that doesn’t think war first, last and in-between constitute a return to traditional American values.  I’d expect true conservatives to want that.

As a libertarian, I don’t agree on much, ideologically, with Barack Obama, but yeah, I’d be happy if he could just undo some of the excesses of the current administration, already mentioned by Mike above.

Nobody on the Republican side is prepared to do that, except Paul, and he ain’t gonna win (although I plan to vote for him, anyway).

Sullivan responded:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/bainbridge-asks.html

Sully’s specific answers to the above questions are on his main page.

O puh-leeze, Sullivan is in his manic love-puppy phase.  Remember how he rhapsodized about Clinton and Bush, successively?  Remember the funny guy in college who could always dress up his latest romantic urge in Kantian (or Nietzschean, or whatever) rhetorical garb?  That’s Sullivan, not grown up one bit.  Find something better to occupy your mind.  And if you don’t like Sullivan’s current opinion, don’t worry; it’ll change.

y81, you couldn’t carry Sullivan’s jock strap.  As a Barry Goldwater conservative myself, I’m glad AS is out there trying to save us from the Frankenstein party that Rove built.

It’s funny, because half the changes Obama wants to make are just undoing the radicalism of Bush. I’d expect you to support that, just like if you lived in a socialist country you’d support the change of abandoning socialism. I can understand reservations about the other half, but it isn’t a bad thing to change away from failed, counterproductive policies.

And if you don’t like Sullivan’s current opinion, don’t worry; it’ll change.

Actually, the trait I admire most about Andrew is his capacity to assess and reassess issues constantly - taking his readers on the journey from presumptions to a logical conclusion - letting us witness the mental acrobatics as he analyzes the empiric evidence and proceeds to form, shape or modify his opinion.

I don’t always agree with him, but his blog is both intellectually stimulating and fun to read. He actually translates conservative principles into Ideas that make common sense. And while most other outspoken conservatives reek of inexplicable delusions, Andrew both merits and commands my respect.

He says…

“I support a fresh start in foreign policy...”

Does this also mean HRC would give us “a fresh start in foreign policy”? It must since Obama and Clinton have identical records when it comes to the war.

He talks about diplomacy but, bottom line, he still thinks that sanctions and even military action against Iran would be justified if they continue with their nuclear program. So, the Obama difference is that we bribe Iran and sanction Iran in order to delay war with them.

Whether you agree with them or not, the only 3 candidates with a foreign policy that differs enough from the status quo to be called a “fresh start” (or maybe a “disastrous change” depending on who you ask) are Paul, Kucinich and Gravel. Obama is just an illusion of change and, if you pay attention, not even a good illusion.

The only question to which Sullivan replies with any substance is “Why are those changes “necessary”?” and most of that answer doesn’t even apply to Obama. I can’t stand Bainbridge but, if I were him, I would try to get something more than answers that sound like the cliffnotes of Obama’s speeches. Sullivan is a sharp guy so I can only hope he has a crush on Obama and is not actually losing his mind.

"Obama is just an illusion of change and, if you pay attention, not even a good illusion.”

If you think an Obama presidency would not be a change from Bush/Cheney - condoning torture, falsifying/suppressing intelligence, extending the occupation of Iraq - well there’s no civil discourse possible, really.  Other than to wish you improved mental health.

"Obama and Clinton have identical records when it comes to the war”

So, opposing it and supporting it are the same thing in your mind? Must be interesting to be you, Andrew.

Here we go again.  You ask, Sullivan answers, but look at his answer to your last question:
______________________________________________
What evidence is there, if any, that Obama would be prudent in effecting such changes?

Obama’s legislative record, speeches, and the way he has run his campaign reveal, I think, a very even temperament, a very sound judgment, and an intelligent pragmatism. Prudence is a word that is not inappropriate to him.
_______________________________________

This is all that you hear from Obama supporters.  His ‘judgement’ is good.  His temperament is ‘even’.  This is evidence??????  Huh?  No, this is not evidence.  It is Sullivan’s opinion.  And you hear this drivel from Obama supporters all of the time.  He is ‘charismatic,’ he has great ‘instincts.’

Frankly, I would expect this sort of stuff from a twenty-something, but from Sullivan, I expect better.

I dunno, Susan—instead it just says to me that he’s playing a hunch, which in fact is no uncommon thing, maybe even no bad thing.  The hunch is—of a slew of declared candidates, none of whom have served as president before, which seems most likely to improve the status quo, either proactively or reactively, and acknowledging that one person cannot produce this improvement overnight and/or universally?  In a nutshell, this is what we’re all currently facing, and when it comes down to two (or three?) major candidates, it’s the question that all those who decide to vote face—and if there’s one thing I’ve learned over time, it’s that most voters are basically playing hunches at best.

We can decry this state of affairs—saying instead that we should all be detailed wonks about every issue rather than playing hunches—but it’s not going to change.  That’s humanity for you!  I’d say most of us with blogs or commenting on them aren’t any different; we just do our thinking out loud more often.  As has been noted, and as I’ve concluded, Sullivan’s one to type as he thinks, sometimes very inconsistently—but I’d be willing to guess we have our examples we could all draw on that we never actually set in type.

i just don’t get the change thing - I saw a recent poll which showed that over 80% of Americans are “happy” with their situation…

I think most Americans want their government to leave them alone - not bother them for no good reason and to stop taking from them to give to people who don’t really need the help - and that includes things like farm subsidies and corp welfare.

They work hard - love their families and their country and get a bit nervous when they think that those things aren’t important - that they need to “change”.

Change works as a way to energize folks in a primary - get out the single issue voters - but in an general election i think the idea of change scares the hell out most voters.

mint_tea says…

“If you think an Obama presidency would not be a change from Bush/Cheney...”

This is a strawman argument. Where did I say “a change from Bush/Cheney”? The context was foreign policy and no, Obama would not change our foreign policy. It would probably be a Clinton-esque interventionist policy as opposed to a Cheney-an interventionist policy but interventionist (and imperial) none the less.

tom says (in response to my statement that “Obama and Clinton have identical records when it comes to the war” ):

“So, opposing it and supporting it are the same thing in your mind? Must be interesting to be you, Andrew.”

Saying your against the war when you’re not a Senator and have no vote to case means nothing. Your voting record in the Senate counts and it is a fact that the only difference between HRC and BO is the vote on the confirmation of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff for the Army. Were you lying to trick readers or are you really unaware of the voting record of the candidate you want to be President? Shame.

Here are the votes:
http://tinyurl.com/2uoyll

And here is some links you should probably check out…

http://tinyurl.com/33l5u5
http://tinyurl.com/2mr8ua
http://tinyurl.com/37mayo

Punctuated Equilibrium is sometimes the critical event in successful adaptation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#In_social_theory

Is Obama an effective agent? I suspect more so than anyone else interviewing for the position.