It is unclear exactly how Columnist Sullivan qualifies as a conservative, or why people take him seriously, considering his failure to use facts or logic in suggesting that electing Senator Obama would be a good idea.  

Recently I can across a column by a purported conservative, Andrew Sullivan giving ten reasons conservatives should vote for Barack Obama.  At the time I read this piece Sullivan’s own poll showed the popular vote running against his position 60% to 38% with two percent undecided.  Obviously, the true Conservatives, or perhaps the sane voters were winning. 

After reading his positions the question that came to my mind was  “Is Sullivan really a conservative, or, has he become totally insane?”  If he is not insane, then it must be that he is not now and never was a conservative, because conservatives use logic and facts to make their points.  Sullivan’s positions show a singular lack of information and/or ignorance of the facts.  My analysis follows, with Sullivan’s abbreviated positions in italics.  Those who wish to read his material in its entirety can find it here . 
 

10. A body blow to racial identity politics.  This is the first major blunder.  Senator Obama is one of the most divisive candidates in the history of the United States, and his election would likely spark a sense of entitlement among African-Americans seeking greater levels of government support at the expense of the rest of the population. The Senator has done nothing to disabuse them of that notion, and has implied that he will add to their unearned benefits.  Sullivan is just plain wrong.  If he wants to see an end to racial identity politics it will take a color-blind candidate such as Michael Steel or Lynn Swan to do the job.  Or, perhaps we can convince Larry Elder or Star Parker to take up public office.  Any one of these four, in my opinion, is eminently better qualified to be President of the United States than Senator Obama; any one of them would reduce racial identity politics.  Mr. Obama would exacerbate it because his basic policy is to divide and conquer. 

9. Less debt. The CBO estimates that McCain's plans will add more to the debt over four years than Obama's.  The Congressional Budget Office has generally been wrong on this subject because it subscribes to a static revenue model where economic behavior does not change as a response to tax policy.  This approach is highly inaccurate as proved by Arthur Laffer.  Additionally, some financial experts have estimated that Senator Obama’s proposals would increase the national debt by close to a trillion dollars per year on spending, alone.  Adding the effects of new taxes and regulation into the mix with a declining, perhaps a depression economy will make “less debt” impossible to realize.  Every nation that has tried the form of national welfare state he advocates has gone on to economic decline with debt increasing as the government struggles to pay off on it promises.  We should not allow the same thing to happen here. 

8. A return to realism and prudence in foreign policy. This is another major blunder.  The Senator has consistently shown himself to be horribly naïve on foreign policy, and his running mate, Senator Biden has shown any uncanny ability to make the wrong decision at every opportunity.  Obama is, in the eyes of Vladimir Putin, a pushover; a child trying to play an adult game he only barely understands.  Putin knows the value of strength.  He knows that the world is divided into winners and losers.  Obama would deliberately make America a loser by disarming and appeasing because he fails to understand the one most important fact of the post World War II era; that the world is a dangerous place  and that other nations will not disarm even if we do.  They keep themselves strong to take advantage of opportunities for conquest.  If we disarm, who will protect our allies, or ourselves?  It is a question Sullivan does not answer because he has not considered it.  I’m sure that he does not know the simple answer: No one. 

7. An ability to understand the difference between listening to generals and delegating foreign policy to them.  This is a total non sequitur.  There is no evidence that anyone in the recent past has been abdicating foreign policy to the military, unless we assume, incorrectly, that President Bush accepting the “surge” strategy in Iraq is such a thing.  Since Senator Obama has no foreign policy experience and Senator Biden’s abilities are mostly the creation of propaganda, we have to wonder what Sullivan was smoking when he composed this point.  In any event, narcissistic leaders rarely listen to their generals.  Senator Obama will, unquestionably fall into this trap. 

6. Temperament. Obama has the coolest, calmest demeanor of any president since Eisenhower, (better than) the hot-headed, irrational impulsiveness of McCain.  We have only seen Obama when he is at is best.  We haven’t seen him when thwarted, except, perhaps when his truth squads were intimidating people in Missouri, or when Joe the Plumber was investigated following his challenging questions.  Obama may appear cool but is likely to react with moves betraying repressed anger and even violence.  McCain has never shown “hot headed irrational impulsiveness” in all the years I’ve been observing him.  To do so would have gotten him killed while he was imprisoned in Vietnam.  His years as a POW probably taught him more about self-control than Senator Obama will ever learn in a lifetime.   

5. Faith. Obama's fusion of Christianity and reason is a critical bridge between the new atheism and the new Christianism (sic).  I’m not one of those people who think that Obama is a Muslim.  On the other hand I find it impossible to see him as a Christian.  He defies Christian tradition on a daily basis, particularly on the pro-life issue.  His 20-year membership in an “Afro-centric” church run by the racist Jeremiah Wright makes one wonder exactly what kind of Christianity he practices.  Christians are all supposed to be brothers and sisters in Christ.  Senator Obama’s actions are similar to those of Wright in that they show little or no devotion to that principle.  His interest, more likely is to create a false bridge by suppression of those he disagrees with, then rewriting the dictionary to define Christianity as something it never was. 

4. A truce in the culture war … that has raged since the 1960s.  Senator Obama as President would not create a truce; he would symbolize and implement the surrender of traditional American culture for his own personal version of the 1960’s and 1970’s counter-culture of which William Ayers is emblematic.  While it may not be possible for all of Ayer’s goals to be put into effect, the potential increase in politically motivated violence and social deconstruction would be massive.  Obama’s autobiographical writings and his activities at the Annenberg Chicago Challenge show that his political views are part and parcel of the counter-culture revolution.  Allowing him to implement them would be a terrible mistake for America.   

3. Two words: President Palin.  This point show exactly how ignorant and class driven Sullivan is.  He fears a President Palin because it could turn current tradition on its head by proving that you do not need an Ivy League education to be a capable political leader.  It is my opinion that Governor Palin is the best-qualified person of the 4 on the major party tickets to serve as President.  I would vastly prefer her to a President McCain because she is better qualified through executive experience and her connection to the average American.  Those people who know Sarah Palin well have compared her to Margaret Thatcher.  I believe that the comparison is correct.  She lacks only the opportunity to show what she can do on the national stage.  It is also likely that many current office holders are afraid of her because she is willing to confront government corruption in any political party including her own.  Perhaps that is the most significant reason why she faces opposition from insiders and support from the common people.   

2. Conservative reform.  The survival of conservatism requires a temporary eclipse of today's Republicanism.  Sullivan describes the current state of the Republican Party as “big-spending, privacy-busting, debt-ridden, crony-laden, fundamentalist, intolerant, [and] incompetent.”  He is correct, but those same adjectives apply equally well to today’s Democrat Party, and Senator Obama has shown himself, in his less than three years of Senate experience to be a significant part of that problem.  Our government has become generally subject to all the wrong influences and taken up many improper behaviors all at the same time.  Creating a single party state in which the power holders may carry out actions based on their belief that the opposition is not merely misinformed, but evil, would be a mistake of earth-shaking proportions.  It might mean the end of the nation, as we know it.  Senator Obama’s statement that he intends to fundamentally transform the United States is proof that he has ideas along this line. You cannot save Conservatism by destroying it. 

1. The War Against Islamist terror.  Again, this is a non sequitur.  The Bush approach to the war was the correct one, but it was not prosecuted properly because it faced opposition from legislative interests, and because there was no coherent strategy for counterinsurgency at the outset.  What Sullivan fails to realize is that an intelligent general does not allow the enemy to dictate when and where it will be engaged.  By going into Iraq the United States dictated where the Al Qaida was to be fought.  Al Qaida took the bait and fought where it was weak and the US was strong.  It has been losing ever since.  What this strategy has also enabled the US to do is to develop new techniques for dealing with local populations infiltrated by Islamic terrorists.  These techniques can be adapted further for use in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  At present Iraq has taken major steps to secure its own internal affairs and create a stable government. Afghanistan should be the next target, with Pakistan next on the list.  What makes the situation difficult is that the US will have to negotiate an agreed strategy for our troops to operate in Pakistani territory.  Senator Obama seems to think that this is unnecessary; another indicator that he fails to understand the implications of unilateral action in that part of the world.  But then, as above, he is an extremely naïve person when it comes to foreign affairs. 

Quite aside from the above, it is more than likely that Senator Obama, who is perceived by our antagonists as an ignorant weakling, will fold or try to talk his way out of a problem based on a total misunderstanding of the world situation.  His most likely response to the Iranian threat will be to sacrifice Israel for “peace in our time” only to find that the enemy has no interest in peace. 

Andrew Sullivan is, in short, a fool.  Unfortunately, it is unlikely that anyone with brains enough to realize it and authority to cut off his inputs to major media will be present to take action.  It is a sorry testimonial to the state of American journalism that he is taken seriously.