Why Steve Sailer Should Vote For Barack Obama for President
Seven simple reasons.
1. He disagrees with John McCain about absolutely everything. Sailer has described the Bush philosophy as “Invade the World, Invite the World, In Hoc to the World.” McCain was an enthusiastic supporter of the Iraq War, and is the strongest proponent of the idea that America needs to maintain a significant presence in that country indefinitely. He’s a hawk on Iran, but he’s also a hawk on North Korea, on China, on Russia – if Steve is against an “invade the world” foreign policy, he’s against McCain. McCain is also the most enthusiastic major Republican supporter of a liberal immigration policy, having co-authored the failed comprehensive reform legislation, and having repeatedly returned to the theme that some legislation of that kind needs to be passed. And McCain, while he has a reputation of being a hawk on spending, is now running on a frankly fantastical fiscal plan that would massively expand the national debt. Now, I personally don’t think McCain is going to invade the whole world, nor do I think McCain’s fantasy budget bears any meaningful resemblance to what would actually be passed if he were President. But the fact is, he is running on a platform that is the exact opposite of what Sailer believes. (And immigration reform of a liberal cast is somewhat more likely to pass in a McCain than in an Obama Administration, simply because McCain would give it bi-partisan cover.) How can he vote for the guy?
2. The GOP must be punished. Sailer commented in 2004 regarding Bush’s reelection that a lot of the people he knew who were supporting Bush didn’t really agree with Bush about key elements of his program, and didn’t actually think he was doing a very good job. They were voting for him anyway because of partisan or cultural inertia, or because they couldn’t stand that Kerry fellow. To which he responded: if you reward this kind of behavior with reelection, you just get more of it. Well, if he still believes that, and believes everything he says about the awfulness of the Bush Presidency, then he should not want the GOP to retain the White House in 2008: simple as that.
3. Obama is running on two things Sailer does agree with: national health insurance and withdrawing from Iraq. In his essay on ways to help the left half of the Bell Curve, number two or three on the list was some form of national health insurance, which would relieve a huge burden from old manufacturing behemoths that pay relatively high wages, and would relieve a huge anxiety from working-class folks who worry about losing their health insurance if they should lose their jobs. Any Democrat is going to work hard to get some kind of legislation of this sort passed, and Obama has positioned himself as being somewhat more business-friendly within the scheme of the Democratic Party on this issue than his competitors. While there’s a reasonable chance that McCain would sign a similar bill if produced by the Congress, the odds are much higher of getting a bill if there’s a Democrat in the White House. On Iraq, meanwhile, Obama is clearly committed to withdrawal on some timetable, while McCain is clearly committed to a long-term presence. And Sailer clearly favors withdrawal (on the grounds that we had no business being there in the first place). Moreover, on a constellation of other issues where Obama is to McCain’s left – card-check, for example, and upper-bracket tax rates, and possibly trade (though I doubt it) – I’m not sure Sailer is in McCain’s camp (he’s expressed support for unions in the past, as well as skepticism on free trade, and I don’t know how strongly he feels about keeping the upper income bracket’s taxes low, if at all).
4. Most of the things that Sailer most dislikes about Obama from a policy perspective are issues where he and McCain agree – immigration most prominently, but also the whole basket of race-related issues like affirmative action, bi-lingual education, etc. And on some of these issues, McCain is worse, from Sailer’s perspective, than Obama is. McCain is a firm supporter of bi-lingual education, for example, and was the leader on immigration reform; Obama, by contrast, is a follower of the party line on both issues rather than a stand-out leader. While I would expect an Obama Justice department to be more vigorous about enforcing civil rights law than a McCain Justice department (simply because of the party difference), I would expect a McCain Administration to be more easily intimidated by pressure from the left on this constellation of issues. Overall, it seems to me that, on these questions, Obama will only be notably worse if he can make a more left-wing position enduringly popular; otherwise, he’ll either be relatively cautious or provoke a backlash, and the damage, from Sailer’s perspective, will be limited.
5. Sailer is not a single-issue abortion or gun rights voter. If he were a single-issue abortion voter, I could see him voting for McCain simply to prevent the judiciary from shifting to the left (or to enable it to shift further to the right). If he were a single-issue gun rights voter, I could see him voting for Barr as a protest vote. But (so far as I know), he’s neither. I can’t think of any single-issue trump card from Sailer’s issue basket that could justify a vote for McCain or a vote against Obama.
6. McCain is old. Obama is young. Sailer has written numerous times about his concerns about the capacity of a too-old chief executive to function well: he would be more likely to be manipulated by his advisors, less-able to respond to novel situations and assimilate new information, etc. He’s also expressed concerns about a too-young chief executive being too rash and aggressive and insufficiently savvy about the ways of power, and that cuts against Obama; Sailer’s ideal Presidential age is late-50s, I think. But I think on-balance a preference for Obama on this metric is clear, particularly given that both men are only getting older.
7. He thinks Obama is interesting. Which he is. Who would he rather listen to for the next four to eight years? Who would he rather write about?
Sailer has spent a lot of ink arguing that the press needs to be tougher on Obama, needs to ask him more probing questions about who he really is, etc. And, you know, more power to him for that. But at the end of the day, nobody is going to do what Sailer wants them to, and he’s going to be standing in that voting booth having to choose between these two men, and which he thinks will be a better choice for the country. If the choice is not between these two, even with the inevitably limited information we have at our disposal, I think his choice is clear.
you said the “S”(ailer) word. The trolls are coming for you
— Bob(o) · Jul 7, 03:34 PM · #
Hey – traffic is traffic.
— Noah Millman · Jul 7, 03:42 PM · #
Steve should vote O! simply because O! is the pinnacle of political evolution.
The dominant lifeform in the evolutionary political landsccape.
The top of the foodchain.
Form follows function an all that.
;)
— matoko_chan · Jul 7, 04:04 PM · #
OMG! st**e s**ler!!!
in all seriousness, i think you make good points noah. the main issue here is that i think the difference on cultural issues re: obama vs. mccain is more substantively stark than you present. that being said, mccain is way too liberal on many of these issues. he’s an echo, if fainter, than a choice. for me, as a moderate libertarian with paleo sympathies (i.e., will wilkinson + some “xenophobia”) the thumbs-down to the mccainification of the republican party is critical. i’m generally skeptical of the “mommy part” vs. “daddy party” paradigm, but if mccain is elected i do suspect that we’re looking at a lesbian same sex marriage when it comes to america’s political duopoly, with one party being a bit more butch….
— razib · Jul 7, 04:05 PM · #
snap!
i forgot mention hybrid vigour!
;)
— matoko_chan · Jul 7, 04:06 PM · #
Well, no matter who wins, the President will be someone on the “wrong” side of every issue Steve Sailer cares about most. So, he might as well vote his pocketbook.
Like him or not, Steve was waaaay ahead of the mainstream media on Obama. When others were content to worship or hate him for superficial reasons, Steve took the time to read what Obama had actually written and said, to analyze it. to make people wonder “Is this guy really who we think he is?”
If Obama wins, Steve will be the Right’s Obama Expert, and will be in big demand as a columnist and talking head. Not a bad place to be.
So, even if Steve can’t get the president he wants, he can still profit handsomely from an Obama win.
— astorian · Jul 7, 04:17 PM · #
seriously…..how can Steve NOT vote Obama?
Obama is the concetrated instantiation of both homosapiens sapiens biodiversity and evolutionary theory of culture.
O! is not just inevitable, but inexorable.
— matoko_chan · Jul 7, 04:24 PM · #
Matoko, that was funny the first time you said it.
That said, putting words in Steve’s mouth, I don’t think Steve would support the inevitable pinnacle of current evolution if it meant that Steve and his offspring/relatives would be consumed by this pinnacle. He might admire the pinnacle, but that’s not the same thing.
— J Mann · Jul 7, 04:32 PM · #
astorian is right. Sailer nailed several of Obama’s weaknesses well in advance of most media outlets. I do wonder if the “MSM” will analyze Obama’s book(s) again and find a portrait of a depressive man with an identity crisis as Sailer did. But to address Noah’s post, voting for Bob Barr would achieve the same result. National Health Insurance aside, all points are covered. Barr is 59 years old to boot. Or was this post less from a pragmatic and more from an anti-McCain perspective?
— Bob(o) · Jul 7, 04:41 PM · #
I do wonder if the “MSM” will analyze Obama’s book(s) again and find a portrait of a depressive man with an identity crisis as Sailer did.
Predicted response: Obama = Lincoln!
— Trevor · Jul 7, 05:18 PM · #
Sooooo… nobody is going to use the word “black” here at all? That’s not meant as an indirect accusation of racism (I’ve accused Sailer of racism quite directly, thank you), and in fact I’m not interested in fighting that fight here. But Sailer is, you know, interested in questions of race. Might be worth addressing.
Look I’m not stupid or missing the irony or sideways glances here, I just think eventually it should be directly addressed. I mean I know it’s kind of the elephant in the room but sooner of later you’ve got to give the elephant a goddamm peanut.
— Freddie · Jul 7, 09:10 PM · #
heez not black, heez john kerry with a tan!
— razib · Jul 7, 09:38 PM · #
but im not bein funnie.
im deadly serious.
ask razib.
;)
— matoko_chan · Jul 7, 10:01 PM · #
Ignore the elephant. Focus on the cocktail party.
— southpaw · Jul 8, 02:34 AM · #
Thanks.
Those are excellent reasons for not voting for John McCain, very similar to the reasons I didn’t vote for George W. Bush in 2004.
It’s important to remember, however, that a better-informed citizenry is a good thing, no matter who wins. Many commentators view efforts to improve public understanding of the candidates through a zero sum “Who? Whom?” lens.
Yet, as I wrote in March, politics doesn’t end on Election Day. Obama is far more of an opportunist than a fanatic, a moderate head cohabitating uneasily with a leftist heart. Thus, a President Obama could be deterred by a public shorn of its illusions about the politician from committing the worst excesses desired by the heart that plunked him in Rev. Wright’s pew for 20 years. I noted:
“Much to the disappointment of Obama cultists, January 20, 2009 would not mark Day One of the Year Zero. Obama’s inauguration would merely be a brief lull before mundane struggles over seeming minutia such as appointments to federal agencies, struggles in which Obama can be tied up … if enough of the public understands who he really is.
“What this means is that, if President Obama’s rather timid personality would be confronted by an informed, skeptical citizenry, there would be a chance of keeping an Obama Administration from doing most of the destructive things he’s been promising himself to do once he finally got to be President.”
http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/080330_obama.htm
— Steve Sailer · Jul 8, 05:27 AM · #
Steve: All that is well understood. But I still think it would be instructive to know whether you agree with me that, based on your own understanding of both candidates, their personalities, their platforms, their party interest groups, etc., that you should prefer Obama to be the next President rather than McCain. Even if you vote for a 3rd party protest candidate, it would be useful to know whether you see no meaningful choice between the two major candidates, or whether one is clearly superior in your mind to the other, but neither is close enough to what you’d like to see in a President to win an actual endorsement.
As for reading Obama’s heart: I’m not convinced Obama has been “promising himself” to do anything in particular other than become President. That’s the big weakness of the Reagan and Lincoln comparisons: Obama doesn’t actually have a cause. (The de Gaul comparison is more interesting, since Obama clearly does want to embody America in the quasi-monarchical way that de Gaul embodied France, but since Obama isn’t going to have the opportunity to re-write the American Constitution the way de Gaul did, it’s not likely that our electoral system will allow him to fulfill that particular ambition.) I can’t even get much of a fix on what you’re afraid he secretly wants to do – beyond the things that any liberal Democrat would do, and that Obama has been perfectly up-front with his intentions about (e.g., raise taxes on upper-income Americans, support tougher environmental laws and enforce them more thoroughly, appoint liberal judges and enforce civil rights laws more aggressively, tilt the legal playing field more in favor of union organizing, etc). The closest I can come is some hypothetical scenario where we have a replay of Rwanda in East Africa and Obama feels a moral imperative to intervene . . . but (a) he has been much more temperate than that when he’s spoken about the Rwandan genocide of the 1990s and our non-intervention there; (b) what makes you think McCain would be less-likely to have that reaction?; and © which are you more worried about – Americans getting bogged down in a Kenyan civil war, or Americans getting involved in a war with Iran? And if that’s not the fear then . . . what is it? Where does the rubber meet the road?
There is no contradiction between trying to inform the citizenry, and disabuse it of illusions, and also saying what you think about the choice as it stands. You have been a highly articulate critic of the Bush Administration, and you were very early in your criticisms. (For example, you are the only journalist I know of who remembered Bush’s support for relaxing airport security in the 2000 campaign.) You voted for Bush in 2000 in spite of a pretty acute understanding of the limitations of the ticket. This year, to pick a couple of people you respect highly, Andrew Bacevich is supporting Obama because of Iraq; Daniel Larison, by contrast, is supporting Bob Barr partly because he is convinced Obama will be as aggressive an interventionist as McCain. I genuinely want to know how this year’s choice looks to you.
In any event, thanks for dropping by.
— Noah Millman · Jul 8, 06:32 AM · #
Noah Millman continues to starve the poor pachyderm looming over this post in the above comment. The lengthy comment which boils down to:
“I genuinely want to know how this year’s choice looks to you.”
Sailer thinks Obama looks like a black man.
There’s your peanut, elephant.
— keatssycamore · Jul 8, 07:38 AM · #
Didn’t Steve already address this way back when Noah first started asking him about who he’d vote for? I recall Steve saying that he likes to write in protest votes. Like, for example, Ward Connerly.
— Matt Frost · Jul 8, 08:22 AM · #
Dear Noah:
I’m often reminded of the 1996 Simpsons episode in which Kodos and Kang kidnap and impersonate Clinton and Dole:
Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They’re nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them] [audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It’s true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It’s a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us. [Murmurs from the crowd]
— Steve Sailer · Jul 8, 09:50 PM · #
Anyway, the idea that I should publicly endorse one or the other major party candidate in July strikes me as a little … well, a lot off-kilter.
I’m a staff guy, not a line guy. I’ve never been terribly interested in telling people what to do, rather than helping them figure out what they need to know to make their own decisions. (For example, I devote less of my movie reviews to giving my opinion than anybody else. My view is that Hollywood has ways of making you think about its movies, so my job is to help you think about them in more interesting ways.)
With months left, there is time to learn more about the candidates, which ought to be a higher priority than badgering other people to agree with one’s premature choice.
— Steve Sailer · Jul 8, 10:24 PM · #