My Easter dinner and Obama

[davefoc]

My Father and his wife invited most of the extended family over for Easter Dinner.

Politics and these kind of dinners is always a dangerous area but that didn't stop me from venturing forth.

The participants

Roughly 75 year old woman and German immigrant. Unknown party affiliation.

Roughly 50 year old very successful commercial insurance salesman. Jewish but married to non-Jewish woman. Probably an atheist. Staunch Republican.

My 91 year old father. WWII vet, nice guy, Republican most of his life. Recently finished writing his first book and is working on a second.

Me. 58 year old ex-electrical engineer. Registered Republican but Obama supporter. Believe strongly that US should announce plans for a staged withdrawal from Iraq that would take place over the next year and a half or so. Very critical of Bush administration in many areas.

-----The conversation-------

I was only slightly listening as the conversation turned critical of Obama. I could have just ignored it. Obviously anything I said was going to be very contentious but I chose to enter into the fray.

I am not skillful enough to recount the conversation very well so I have just tried to summarize the views put forth by the participants:

75 year old German woman:
Obama's a Muslim. Muslim's are sneaky and it would be bad to have one as president of the US. When informed he wasn't a Muslim, it didn't seem to matter to her. Obama was close enough that she wasn't going to vote for him although she did think that the US needed to get out of Iraq.

50 year old Jewish Atheist Staunch Republican:
Democrats will spend us into oblivion. When confronted with the fact that the national debt had nearly doubled under Bush, it didn't matter. Whatever evil the Republicans might have created with their governance the Democrats would be worse. Also spent a little time on a typical anti-Hillary Clinton rant. Interestingly he was highly critical of NAFTA which he saw as stealing jobs from the US. I told him I thought NAFTA was a good idea and that borrowing massive amounts of money from foreign countries might be more problematic than NAFTA as far jobs go. I think he thought I was misguided. I wish I'd thought to point out that McCain is pro NAFTA and Obama at least says he's against it. I don't know what he would have thought about that but I'm sure he wasn't going to vote for any Democrat regardless of how many views they shared in common.

91 year old father:
The disaster of WWII was caused by the appeasement of a dictator and we would be following in the same path if we had allowed Hussein to stay in power. We are fighting them over there so we don't need to fight them over here. We haven't been attacked since 9/11 so the current policies must be working. Muslims are trying to convert America to Islam so we need to fight them or they're going to impose there religion on us. When the massive cost of the war was brought up, he said that he thought that was completely irrelevant when the security of the country was at stake. I tried to make the point that there were lots of dictators and we didn't have the resources to pay a trillion dollars or so to get rid of each of them. Mostly I was just shouted down on this point and I didn't really understand what if any the response was.

So based on my Easter Dinner conversations Obama might be in trouble. On the other hand most of the 25 or so people at the dinner had enough common sense not to get involved in a political discussion so who knows what most of the people thought. My wife and her mother are life long Democrats and I don't think either of them have ever voted for a Republican so I think Obama can count on their votes.

So including my wife and mother in law, Obama and McCain were tied 3-3 in this early survey of general election leanings.

[BPSCG]

So including my wife and mother in law, Obama and McCain were tied 3-3 in this early survey of general election leanings.What you should have done was find out if there was anyone who'd voted for the winning candidate in every election since 1960, and if so, find out who that person was supporting this year. Coulda saved the rest of us a lot of trouble.

[T.A.M.]

Obama is not in trouble with anyone he would not have been in with from the get go, from what I have read above.

The immigrant obviously is ill informed, and when informed allows her preconceived bias to sway her regardless.

The 50 year old is a fiscal conservative, and will not likely be swayed.

The 90 year old sounds like a pro-war patriot (fair enough) who would unlikely be swayed.

Obama IF HE IS nominated, will win over votes in the general election from the undecideds or very left leaning REPS...none of your dinner guests you mention seem to be in there.

TAM:)

[davefoc]

You are of course right T.A.M.

I was embarrassed by my behavior at the dinner table. I thought I had not shown enough respect for the views of others and wished I kept my mouth shut if I was going to act like I did. Especially with my father.

My little story was a kind of mea culpa together with what I hoped was something of a little interest.

[Sefarst]

My 70-year-old German former Hitler Youth grandfather is an Obama supporter and we got into an argument over Easter dinner as well. Mom and dad are both leaning McCain, though my mom was originally a Clinton supporter.

I think you blew an opportunity about fiscal conservativism with your Jewish relative by trying to use the tired Bush argument as most of we fiscal conservatives believe Bush is not a fiscal conservative. Don't equate Republican with fiscal conservative, look at their policies.

[BPSCG]

I was embarrassed by my behavior at the dinner table. I thought I had not shown enough respect for the views of others and wished I kept my mouth shut if I was going to act like I did. Especially with my father.

My little story was a kind of mea culpa together with what I hoped was something of a little interest.Heh.

There's a group of four families in my neighborhood who get together irregularly but often - more frequently as the weather warms up and we can all congregate on Brian and Paula's front porch on a Friday evening. Of the eight of us, five could be characterized as moderate-to-hard-right (believe it or not, I am not the hardest right), two genuine moderates, and one Barbra Streisand lefty.

The evenings typically begin with Brian and Paula sitting on the rockers on their front porch and seeing me and yelling at me to come over for a drink, which I do after I've raided the refrigerator for some cheese and crackers and a bottle of wine. Al and Sarah get home (they work in the same neighborhood as each other) and we yell at them and ten minutes later they're on the porch with something Sarah's whipped up on the spur of the moment that would make Martha Stewart weep with envy. They don't bring any wine because Al admits that after a glass or two of wine, "even my hair hurts." Mrs. BPSCG is usually next, and we yell at her; she has to go into the house first and feed her precious little darlings, but is soon amongst us. Then Silas and P.K. come over, by which time the conversation is friendly and animated. At some point, however, P.K. will interject something like, "So what about that abortion decision the other day?" and we're off. Sometimes the two gay guys from down the block come walking down the street and we yell at them and now there are ten of us and the political spectrum is less tilted to the right.

Lots of yelling and fingers jabbing at the air, lots of sentences that start, "Let me explain something to you!!!" Eventually, someone says, "Hey, it's Friday, why don't we make a potluck dinner out of this?" and everyone sends someone home to raid the refrigerator for yesterday's leftovers. We yell at each other over the dinner table ("People are afraid to air their opinions in this country any more since Bush got elected!" "Really? Is that why you haven't called Bush a fascist baby-killer since late last week?") and laugh and open another bottle and eventually all go home and the next morning we see each other on the street and thank each other for getting together last night and wasn't it a hoot?

I really like my neighbors.

[davefoc]

My 70-year-old German former Hitler Youth grandfather is an Obama supporter and we got into an argument over Easter dinner as well. Mom and dad are both leaning McCain, though my mom was originally a Clinton supporter.

I think you blew an opportunity about fiscal conservativism with your Jewish relative by trying to use the tired Bush argument as most of we fiscal conservatives believe Bush is not a fiscal conservative. Don't equate Republican with fiscal conservative, look at their policies.

I don't think he is a fiscal conservative in the philosophical sense. He is an unusual fellow. He has very specific ideas about who he is and what he does. He only eats a very limited range of foods, he doesn't venture into any activities that he doesn't think are his, when his wife has done some around the house task he doesn't understand why, he thinks they should just hire specialists to do it. He is by his self image a Republican. It would be very difficult to get him to examine the possibility that the Republican Party as it exists today hardly represents fiscal or economic conservatism. My own view along those lines is that the secular small government Republicans have been abandoned by the party. The party is now focused on social conservatism, hawkish military ideas and only plays lip service to the views of their small government supporters.

My wife and his wife are friends and we have met them for dinner several times. The evenings are pleasant for me in that they are both very pleasant people, but his range of interests is much more narrow than mine and much more structured so that not only isn't there a very wide range of things to discuss between us, of the things that we might discuss I am usually concerned about not wanting to push the area in ways that he is uncomfortable. Although my inner jerk prevents me from being completely successful along those lines.

And today, I am feeling a little down about how my inner jerk got the best of me yesterday.

[Sefarst]

I don't think he is a fiscal conservative in the philosophical sense. He is an unusual fellow. He has very specific ideas about who he is and what he does. He only eats a very limited range of foods, he doesn't venture into any activities that he doesn't think are his, when his wife has done some around the house task he doesn't understand why, he thinks they should just hire specialists to do it. He is by his self image a Republican. It would be very difficult to get him to examine the possibility that the Republican Party as it exists today hardly represents fiscal or economic conservatism. My own view along those lines is that the secular small government Republicans have been abandoned by the party. The party is now focused on social conservatism, hawkish military ideas and only plays lip service to the views of their small government supporters.

I don't think so. The party has always and, hopefully, will always be about money. The unholy alliance with the religious right is temporary because we need their votes. The Zeitgeist is changing in this country and the social conservatives are a dying breed. I think they'll eventually manage to get abortion overturned, but gay marriage, euthenasia, drugs, and stem cells are losing battles.

As far as Bush goes, he's a largely useless idiot. Bill Clinton was more fiscally conservative (read Greenspan's Age of Turbulence sometimes to get a good idea of how things were behind-the-scenes).

My wife and his wife are friends and we have met them for dinner several times. The evenings are pleasant for me in that they are both very pleasant people, but his range of interests is much more narrow than mine and much more structured so that not only isn't there a very wide range of things to discuss between us, of the things that we might discuss I am usually concerned about not wanting to push the area in ways that he is uncomfortable. Although my inner jerk prevents me from being completely successful along those lines.

And today, I am feeling a little down about how my inner jerk got the best of me yesterday.
I turned 18 just in time to vote in 2004 and voted for Kerry. My parents both voted for Bush AND they voted in favor of the ammendment to ban same-sex marriage in our state. I argued with them all the way to the voting booth, called them all sorts of names and, when Bush won, I didn't speak to them for three days.

[davefoc]

...I don't think so. The party has always and, hopefully, will always be about money. The unholy alliance with the religious right is temporary because we need their votes. The Zeitgeist is changing in this country and the social conservatives are a dying breed. I think they'll eventually manage to get abortion overturned, but gay marriage, euthenasia, drugs, and stem cells are losing battles.


There's a lot in your post that I think is reasonable. Right now though, I think it is more accurate to see the conservative movement especially in the context of the Republican Party as mostly a social conservative, jingoistically pro-war political group. As a long time social liberal and economic conservative, my sense of it is that the Republican party no longer represents my views and that the only way for people with views similar to mine to achieve Republican Party reforms consistent with what we want is to see the current Republican Party suffer major electoral defeats. The party elites have made a calculation. i.e. they can work for their social conservative base and their corporate cronies who are their principal financial beneficiaries and maintain a sufficient coalition to remain in office regardless of the best interests of the country. I think fiscal conservatives need to let them know that their calculation is flawed by working for their removal from office.



As far as Bush goes, he's a largely useless idiot. Bill Clinton was more fiscally conservative (read Greenspan's Age of Turbulence sometimes to get a good idea of how things were behind-the-scenes).



I agree with this. The problem is that for partisan political reasons the party still rallies around Bush. This is just the way people are. They are loyal to their team members especially to the leader of their team, even when he's corrupt and inept. My view here is that the Republican elites need to be punished for putting Party ahead of country when they supported this idiot. The one thing I might have been able to build something of a consensus around in my Easter Dinner discussion is that Bush is an idiot.

[Sefarst]

There's a lot in your post that I think is reasonable. Right now though, I think it is more accurate to see the conservative movement especially in the context of the Republican Party as mostly a social conservative, jingoistically pro-war political group.
I think you couldn't be further from the truth here. John McCain's success so far is testament to this fact. The truly socially conservative candidate, Huckabee, lost and lost badly, all things considered. He only did well in the Bible Belt, as was expected. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani were probably among the least socially conservative. Romney, whom I consider to have been the second place candidate, was the fiscally conservative, economically savvy one and also the one most viewed with suspicion by the social conservatives.

You might look at George Bush as one of the most socially conservative, jingoistic pro-war Republicans out there and I would likely agree with you. But I think that speaks to my point. He has an extremely low approval rating, he lost the popular vote in 2000 and only beat Kerry (considered by most to have been a weak Democratic candidate) by 2%. He shouldn't have won in 2000 and only managed to win in 2004 by riding the crest of 9/11 and fears of terrorism. IMO, the reason he's done so poorly is that the Republican party isn't truly behind him like a lot of people think we are.

To say the Republican party is jingoistic is to be unfair. The United States is jingoistic. Ask any major politician and he will probably tell you he is living in the best country on the planet. I recall spending two months taking classes in Heidelberg, Germany two years ago and having a Polish roommate. When I told him children say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning and that most Americans probably would say they live in the best country in the world, he was appalled and surprised. It's just how we are.

As a long time social liberal and economic conservative, my sense of it is that the Republican party no longer represents my views and that the only way for people with views similar to mine to achieve Republican Party reforms consistent with what we want is to see the current Republican Party suffer major electoral defeats. The party elites have made a calculation. i.e. they can work for their social conservative base and their corporate cronies who are their principal financial beneficiaries and maintain a sufficient coalition to remain in office regardless of the best interests of the country. I think fiscal conservatives need to let them know that their calculation is flawed by working for their removal from office.

My sense is that the Democratic party represents me even less than George Bush. I too consider myself to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

[davefoc]

I think you couldn't be further from the truth here. John McCain's success so far is testament to this fact. The truly socially conservative candidate, Huckabee, lost and lost badly, all things considered. He only did well in the Bible Belt, as was expected. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani were probably among the least socially conservative. Romney, whom I consider to have been the second place candidate, was the fiscally conservative, economically savvy one and also the one most viewed with suspicion by the social conservatives.

You might look at George Bush as one of the most socially conservative, jingoistic pro-war Republicans out there and I would likely agree with you. But I think that speaks to my point. He has an extremely low approval rating, he lost the popular vote in 2000 and only beat Kerry (considered by most to have been a weak Democratic candidate) by 2%. He shouldn't have won in 2000 and only managed to win in 2004 by riding the crest of 9/11 and fears of terrorism. IMO, the reason he's done so poorly is that the Republican party isn't truly behind him like a lot of people think we are.


I think there is a lot to what you say there. My strong suspicion is that the country would have been enormously better off if McCain had won in 2000 instead of Bush. A key requirement for a successful presidency, IMHO, is that the presidency restricts the always present corrupt tendencies of the legislature. Instead the Bush administration embraced the corrupt tendencies of the legislature and used them as part of their effort to run a government for partisan political and just plain self interest purposes.

None the less, I see the damage done by the Bush administration as largely irreversible by another Republican President especially one as old as McCain. I think excesses of either party like what we have seen for the last seven years need to be punished significantly and electing another Republican president sends the wrong message in my mind.

To say the Republican party is jingoistic is to be unfair. The United States is jingoistic. Ask any major politician and he will probably tell you he is living in the best country on the planet. I recall spending two months taking classes in Heidelberg, Germany two years ago and having a Polish roommate. When I told him children say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning and that most Americans probably would say they live in the best country in the world, he was appalled and surprised. It's just how we are.Here I disagree a bit more with your thoughts. The Republican Party with respect to the Iraq war is all about jingoism. They use inappropriate but emotional concepts like winning and losing to justify the US continued occupation of Iraq, they misrepresent what the "surge strategy" was, they exaggerate the benefits of the "surge", they exaggerate the connection between people that actually attacked the US and the people that the US is fighting in Iraq, they constantly refer to islamofacists as a way of playing up the religious nature of the conflict to appeal to the Christians that see this as a rehash of the crusades and they are constantly trying to incite righteous indignation against various elements in the middle east without acknowledging US transgressions.

Of course the Democrats are jingoistic, but it is not a primary part of their campaign sloganeering.



My sense is that the Democratic party represents me even less than George Bush. I too consider myself to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.I don't reject this notion, even for me. But if the secular fiscal conservatives continue to allow the current Republican political elite to run the show, whatever power the secular fiscal conservatives have in the party will be completely eliminated. I don't know anyway to make it clear to the current Republican Party structure that this is unacceptable except by not reelecting them.

[Sefarst]

I think there is a lot to what you say there. My strong suspicion is that the country would have been enormously better off if McCain had won in 2000 instead of Bush. A key requirement for a successful presidency, IMHO, is that the presidency restricts the always present corrupt tendencies of the legislature. Instead the Bush administration embraced the corrupt tendencies of the legislature and used them as part of their effort to run a government for partisan political and just plain self interest purposes.

Can you name a president that hasn't used the legislature to get his policies passed? That's not to say it's right, but the president's goal is to get his policies in place. Come to think of it, how many policies has Bush gotten into place? Besides the Iraq War and maybe No Child Left Behind, he's accomplished very little policy.

None the less, I see the damage done by the Bush administration as largely irreversible by another Republican President especially one as old as McCain. I think excesses of either party like what we have seen for the last seven years need to be punished significantly and electing another Republican president sends the wrong message in my mind.

Well I think you're embracing the "team" mentality here as well. McCain is a Republican that is not particularly liked by the people you're worried about. The Limbaughs and the Coulters hate him. If McCain manages to do better this election than Bush ever did, what kind of a message would that send to them? It would tell them that MCCAIN and not Bush is the kind of Republican we want. McCain is a moderate who knows how to work with the Democrats. Bush is a partisan and an inept one at that. If McCain loses, the Limbaughs and the Coulters are going to counter with, "That's what you get for not electing a 'true, pure' conservative like a Mike Huckabee or a George Bush clone." The next election, the Republicans will look for a candidate that's more to the right and plays up the evangelical social conservatism more, thinking that McCain's mistake was not playing to the base enough.

Here I disagree a bit more with your thoughts. The Republican Party with respect to the Iraq war is all about jingoism. They use inappropriate but emotional concepts like winning and losing to justify the US continued occupation of Iraq, they misrepresent what the "surge strategy" was, they exaggerate the benefits of the "surge", they exaggerate the connection between people that actually attacked the US and the people that the US is fighting in Iraq, they constantly refer to islamofacists as a way of playing up the religious nature of the conflict to appeal to the Christians that see this as a rehash of the crusades and they are constantly trying to incite righteous indignation against various elements in the middle east without acknowledging US transgressions.

Perhaps all valid criticisms. However, I think leaving Iraq in an unstable position would be perhaps the worst thing we could do. I think it would be a mistake that will haunt us for decades to come. And the religious nature of things and comparing it to the crusades is of little consequence, IMO. Most Christians I know don't have much idea what the crusades actually were, what took place, when it took place and what the ultimate outcome was. But the Islamofascists/religious extremists/terrorists or whatever you want to call them, are a very real problem. The surge has been overall successful and I believe the basic philosophy behind it is sound.

Of course the Democrats are jingoistic, but it is not a primary part of their campaign sloganeering.

It's a primary part of every campaign. Barack Obama has to give his race speech in front of eight American flags, Hillary Clinton rails about how much she loves America, and other politicians go on about how great America is, they wear their American flag lapel pins, and they will drape themselves in patriotism every chance they get.

I don't reject this notion, even for me. But if the secular fiscal conservatives continue to allow the current Republican political elite to run the show, whatever power the secular fiscal conservatives have in the party will be completely eliminated. I don't know anyway to make it clear to the current Republican Party structure that this is unacceptable except by not reelecting them.
For all the talk about "change" in this election, I think McCain is the candidate of change in the Republican party. That may sound counter-intuitive given his agreement with Bush on the war and tax cuts, but essentially McCain represents turning away from the Jesus freaks and back to the old time Republicanism. Electing him is spitting in the face of the NeoCons.