Skip to main content

The conservative candidate won

I was actually gearing up to write an open letter to downcast conservatives. But then William Saletan went out and did a much better job than I could have done (at Slate.com). He argues that conservatives---not modern-day Republicans, but true conservatives--should take heart: Obama is the best moderate conservative candidate we've had in decades.
Obama’s no right-winger. You might have serious issues with his Supreme Court justices or his moves on immigration or the Bush tax cuts. But you probably would have had similar issues with Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, or Gerald Ford. Obama’s in the same mold as those guys. So don’t despair. Your country didn’t vote for a socialist tonight. It voted for the candidate of traditional Republican moderation. What should gall you, haunt you, and goad you to think about the future of your party is that that candidate wasn’t yours.
This is the thing that had me scratching my head for so long. Obama is pretty damn far from a liberal or progressive. I consider myself a progressive, and Obama has given me precious little to celebrate on issues such as the drug war, torture, indefinite detention, warrantless eavesdropping, drone-ing people, etc. Where did this caricature of a radical socialist muslim come from? It finally dawned on me when I watched Fox News the other night. The irony, of course, is that by casting Obama in this way left the Republican party completely flatfooted in their ability to counter him as he actually is. Hence the "surprising" landslide Tuesday night.

Just goes to show that you shouldn't live in an echo chamber. The problem is, I'd love to debate politics with conservatives, but I just can't find any true conservatives. The only "conservatives" I encounter are the weird modern-day Republicans whose worldview is shaped by either gun rights and zero taxes on one front, or abortion and teh gays on the social front. All the while the people they vote for only care about ensuring that the rich get richer while the poor have their safety nets pulled out.

As a somewhat related thought, an interesting point came up in a recent conversation with (liberal) friends. The idea is that people vote against their self interests because they vote according to what they aspire to be, not where they are. This really helps me understand tea partiers who protest against universal health care despite being the people (blue collar workers) who will need it the most if they lose their jobs. They're not voting against health care as people who need it, but as people who aspire to make the kinds of 1% money that would ensure they don't need it. Interesting notion.

Anyway, if anyone knows of any actual conservatives living in the Pasadena area, let me know. I'd like to have a beer with them. I think we'd have a lot to talk about as reasonable adults. But if you've ever entertained the notion that our president is a far-left, anti-American, teleprompter-needing socialist, well, I just feel bad for you son.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An annual note to all the (NSF) haters

It's that time of year again: students have recently been notified about whether they received the prestigious NSF Graduate Student Research Fellowship. Known in the STEM community as "The NSF," the fellowship provides a student with three years of graduate school tuition and stipend, with the latter typically 5-10% above the standard institutional support for first- and second-year students. It's a sweet deal, and a real accellerant for young students to get their research career humming along smoothly because they don't need to restrict themselves to only advisors who have funding: the students fund themselves!
This is also the time of year that many a white dude executes what I call the "academic soccer flop." It looks kinda like this:


It typically sounds like this: "Congrats! Of course it's easier for you to win the NSF because you're, you know, the right demographic." Or worse: "She only won because she's Hispanic."…

Culture: Made Fresh Daily

There are two inspirations for this essay worth noting. The first is an impromptu talk I gave to the board of trustees at Thatcher School while I was visiting in October as an Anacapa Fellow. Spending time on this remarkable campus interacting with the students, faculty and staff helped solidify my notions about how culture can be intentionally created. The second source is Beam Times and Lifetimes by Sharon Tarweek, an in-depth exploration of the culture of particle physics told by an anthropologist embedded at SLAC for two decades. It's a fascinating look at the strange practices and norms that scientists take for granted.
One of the stories that scientists tell themselves, whether implicitly or explicitly, is that science exists outside of and independent of society. A corollary of this notion is that if a scientific subfield has a culture, e.g. the culture of astronomy vs. the culture of chemistry, that culture is essential rather than constructed. That is to say, scientific c…

The subtle yet real racism of the Supreme Court

Judge Roberts, a member of the highest court in the land, which is currently hearing the sad story of mediocre college aspirant Abigail Fischer, recently asked, "What unique ­perspective does a minority student bring to a physics class? I’m just wondering what the benefits of diversity are in that situation?" 
Did you catch the white supremacy in this question? If not, don't feel bad because it's subtly hidden beneath the cloaking field of colorblind racism. (As for Scalia's ign'nt-ass statements, I'm not even...)
Try rephrasing the question: "What unique perspective does a white student bring to a physics classroom?" The answer is, of course, absolutely nothing! Why? Because race isn't biological, and is therefore not deterministic of cognitive abilities. Did you perhaps forget that you knew that when considering Roberts' question? If so, again, it's understandable. Our society and culture condition all of us to forget basic facts …