How far off base can the "base" get?

Yesterday, Glenn Reynolds remarked that Alan Keyes is getting nasty and linked this report about Keyes' announcement that he is leaving the GOP, apparently to seek the nomination of the Constitution Party.

While I share Glenn's skepticism about the Keyes candidacy, it just so happens that earlier I had earlier read an AP report that McCain was "winning back unhappy Republicans."

I occasionally tire of being a Republican traitor, and for the time being I am technically a Democrat for McCain. A DINO, if you will, because I will vote for McCain in the fall, regardless of whether I commit triple treason and fill out the form to change my party registration back to Republican before then.

Disgusted with both parties does not begin to describe how I feel. My problem is that I abhor activists (and activism) -- especially the tendency in both parties to impose conformity with all or nothing ideological laundry lists. I've written too many essays on the subject already, and this post is not about that subject per se. Rather, I'm intrigued by the dynamics of Barack Obama, especially what I'd call conservative Obamaphobia.

My theory is that from the conservative perspective, Obama has become a unifier. It's something that the far right is not comfortable with, because it wrecks the plan to sit the election out and let Hillary win. Obama is such a unifying force among disgruntled Republicans that he makes McCain far more palatable than he would otherwise have been.

WorldNetDaily describes Obama as:

one of the most dangerous men ever to be considered for the presidency of the United States of America.
I think they mean it. But there's more to this than ordinary Obamaphobia. Obamaphobia has reached the point where it now threatens to become the cure for Republican McCain Derangement Syndrome. From the perspective of the far right that wants the Republican Party to lose, such a threat cannot be tolerated.

The loser right might not want to acknowledge it, but Obamaphobia threatens to undo all their hard work, and they cannot sit idly by and allow Barack Obama to become the Republican unifier.

That, I think, accounts for the recent burst of third party activity on the right.

Last week it was Bob Barr as the Libertarian nominee, this week it's Alan Keyes as the Constitution Party nominee. Both parties are jokes, but taken together in a close race, the cumulative effect might pose a significant threat:

"It's my belief that McCain is very vulnerable on the right flank," adds Stephen Gordon, a former Libertarian Party political director. "Should both Bob Barr win the Libertarian Party nomination and Alan Keyes win the Constitution Party nomination, two of the three legs of the proverbial GOP stool will simultaneously be kicked very hard in November."

Ardent GOPers and Libertarians say McCain could be most vulnerable to third parties in the Rocky Mountain and western states. They also say small northeastern states with sometimes unpredictable contests, like New Hampshire, could be areas that McCain might suffer losses from third party gains.

Gordon says Barr in particular could do especially well in southern states because of his strong support for the Second Amendment, an area where many conservatives are distrustful of McCain's views. And even weak third party candidates could siphon enough votes in such states to possibly affect the outcome of the general election, notes Schnur.

It's conceivable that McCain could be hurt more by third party challengers than Democrats would be from a candidate like Ralph Nader, who's running under the Green Party ticket once again this year.

At Alan Keyes' Renew America website, a recent essay portrays Keyes as a sort of anti-Obama prophet whose viable candidacy was undone by his own party:
Dr. Keyes, more than anyone in the country, saw the dangers posed by the rise of Barack Obama, and was willing to endure the obvious ambushes that were set for him in the race, even though he knew there was little prospect of electoral success, and that the personal costs would be considerable. He knew that if he did not pick up the standard and run to the sound of the guns, a pro-abortion woman was going to be chosen by the GOP, and Barack Obama's evil record would never be exposed, smoothing his path to power.

Like the Lincoln-Douglas debates of an earlier century, the Keyes-Obama confrontations were of historic value. It's hard to imagine two men more different in their character and philosophy. It's hard to imagine two more disparate worldviews. And, it's hard to imagine how Alan Keyes, a man with broad Reagan administration foreign policy and national defense experience, could have rhetorically thrashed the inexperienced Barack Obama any more thoroughly than he did.

But, as you know, with the help of an Obama-loving media and a Republican establishment that was more in tune with the Democrats than it was with the timeless American principles represented by Alan Keyes, Barack Obama won the election handily, just as Douglas defeated Lincoln so many years before. And, as expected, Obama's rise to power in the days since has been swift, financed and promoted by the most radical and powerful forces of socialism in America today, including George Soros.

Wow. You'd almost think Keyes has a proprietary interest in being the Anti-Obama.
Alan Keyes, the great moral statesman of our day, has been foolishly betrayed by the Republican Party which he has faithfully supported and served throughout his adult life, and he is apparently about to leave it. And so, the duty of "we the people," the sovereign citizens of the United States, irrespective of political party, is to stand up and do the hard work necessary to make sure he's on our presidential ballot come November. We must go over the heads of the failed "leaders" and elites of our time, and make sure that he takes the oath of office in January.
Not that there hasn't been competition from other major movers and shakers in the far right, but Keyes appears to be positionining himself (at least attempting to position himself) as the number one Anti-Obama.

How much of a dent it will make in Obamaphobia as a Republican unity factor remains to be seen.

I continue to think that the best hope of the loser right remains Hillary Clinton. If she's the candidate, the unity threat posed by Obamaphobia will largely dissipate, and I think they'll all breathe easier. While few will actually vote for her in November, the rest will feel a lot more comfortable sitting it out.

A lot of people laugh when Barack Obama is called the unifier, but I think he is. I'm still not sure what to call this paranoid fear of Republican unity that I see cropping up on the far right.

If it's fear of Obamaphobia, then wouldn't that make it Obamaphobophobia?

The problem with that is that while Obamaphobia -- and even the more esoteric Obamaphobe -- have arguably become established words (at least for political junkies), Obamaphobophia remains hitless. Ditto Obamaphobophobe. I'd sure hate to use the wrong word for right losers.

The problem may be that this stuff is just too new for words. And besides, don't we have enough phobias and enough phobes as it is? I'm sure I'm not the only person who's sick to death of sticking the "phobia" suffix on everything that comes along.

And where does it end? No seriously. Being an admitted anti-Limbaugh RINO DINO crossover strategist who fears the pro-Hillary MDS Limbaugh group, I'd have to attach yet another suffix to my yet-undiagnosed phobic disorder.

Obamaphobophobophobia.

Surely, there have to be limits.

MORE: Not to be outdone by the loser wing of the Republican Party, the loser wing of the Democratic Party (activists such as Leslie Cagan, Medea Benjamin, Cynthia McKinney) plan on recreating the famous 1968 Democratic Convention riots this summer. The slogan? "Recreate '68!

A coalition of anti-war groups is vowing to protest this summer's Democratic National Convention in Denver under the rubric "Re-create '68," prompting criticism from some on the left who are loath to revisit what they see as a disastrous time for both the anti-war movement and the Democratic Party.
(HT M. Simon.)

It's an interesting read. Ironically, the gray-haired 68 rioters now find themselves deeply perplexed.

I'd say "what goes around comes around," but I don't want to be accused of helping to contribute to "cycles of violence"!

The angry right might be angry, but unlike the angry left, at least they're not into recreating historic violence.

posted by Eric on 04.18.08 at 09:12 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/6506






Comments

This might just be my obtuseness, but I don't quite understand what you mean when you say, "My theory is that from the conservative perspective, Obama has become a unifier."

Jamelle   ·  April 18, 2008 11:59 AM

Alan Keyes' candidacy would be a gift from God.

Harry Truman was supposed to get trounced in '48 because of the division of the Democratic Party. Republicans were united behind Dewey, but the Dems were split left and right. Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats on the one side; Henry Wallace to the left. And Truman won. Part of the explanation is that Wallace's left-wing candidacy assured centrists that Truman would not be overly soft on communism.

The media will love to cover the well-spoken, dynamic (and ultimately loony) Mr. Keyes. And that will serve to assure swing voters, moderates, suburbanites, soocer moms, and the vestigial Rockefeller Republicans of the Northeast that John McCain is not too far right. How could he be when the hard right is so angrily against him!

Keyes will help McCain win this election, despite his best efforts.

Rhodium Heart   ·  April 18, 2008 12:32 PM

Obama wants to be seen as a unifier - I believe that is sincere but self-deluding - and has some of the elements a unifier would have. Conservatives who know him comment on his willingness to politely listen to other points of view. That's fine as far as it goes, but is insufficient to actually be a unifier.

Many political conservatives are also conservative in personality: they don't want a lot of upheaval and demagoguery in their lives. Obama's personality is consonant with that, and seems to hold out that promise to those who really prefer to just be left alone. These folks sense a kindred temperment, though not belief, with Barack. Keyes, who they agree with more, is also a fire-breather, which is off-putting to some.

The radical left has figured out that if they give up the joy of watching their guy scream and throw red meat to the crowd, they can have the farthest-left president in the history of the Republic. By far. Reagan did something similar. By being unalarming and not attempting to fight every issue to the death, he was able to be the most anti-tax, anti-communist president in our history. Just about everything else he let slide to the middle.

This strength of Obama's is very much his weakness as well. When he shows any passion at all, the depth of his radicalism leaks out.

Assistant Village Idiot   ·  April 18, 2008 12:52 PM

Rhodium,

Brilliant and spot on. The other thing it will do is make sure the socon wing is muted come post election. In the words of the Great James Baker "Fuck 'em they didn't vote for us anyway" or was that Hillary? Or maybe it is just the rule in politics.

McCain talks about a new coalition. It is my estimation that he can pull it off.

M. Simon   ·  April 19, 2008 08:21 AM


May 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits