During the 2008 campaign, some of the more bizarre moments came as several supposed conservatives endorsed the progressive Barack Obama and trashed Sarah Palin, the only genuine conservative in the race. Christopher Buckley lost his post at National Review over it. David Brooks referred to Governor Palin as a cancer on the Party and gushed over Obama’s reading of Reinhold Niebuhr.
And now, just six weeks after Obama’s inauguration, it finally dawns on these cocktail conservatives that they were saps. From Chris Buckley:
One thing is certain, however: Government is getting bigger and will stay bigger. Just remember the apothegm that a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away.And remember what de Tocqueville told us about a bureaucracy that grows so profuse that not even the most original mind can penetrate it.
If this is what the American people want, so be it, but they ought to have no illusions about the perils of this approach. Mr. Obama is proposing among everything else $1 trillion in new entitlements, and entitlement programs never go away, or in the oddly poetic bureaucratic jargon, “sunset.” He is proposing $1.4 trillion in new taxes, an appetite for which was largely was whetted by the shameful excesses of American CEO corporate culture. And finally, he has proposed $5 trillion in new debt, one-half the total accumulated national debt in all US history. All in one fell swoop.
He tells us that all this is going to work because the economy is going to be growing by 3.2 percent a year from now. Do you believe that? Would you take out a loan based on that?
And all this surprises you why, Chris?
Then there’s David Brooks:
Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.”
While hiding behind the sanctimony of being "moderate" (whatever the Hell that means), David has discovered exactly what we who opposed Obama were trying to tell him and Chris Buckley and other elitist conservatives all along: that Barack Obama is a progressive statist who wants to remake the US along Euro-Socialist lines. This wasn’t hard to see for anyone who bothered to look past the "historic moment." Obama’s background, his associates, his record in Chicago, Springfield, and Washington … everything about this man screamed of someone in the liberal fascist line of Wilson, FDR, and LBJ. And now, finally, Messrs. Buckley and Brooks look up from their arugula and put down their copies of Vanity Fair and realize that Obama is trying to achieve something LBJ only dreamed of: the full manifestation of the Progressive State-as-God.
I consider myself a "moderate conservative," but it doesn’t matter if one is a "moderate" or "hard core" conservative or liberal — or anything else– to have known all along who Barack Obama is and what he represents.
Just put down the martini and look around you.
(hat tip: Pax Parabellum)