Your email address is safe with us. View our Privacy policy.
Author Bio:
Radio talk show host Dennis Prager has been lauded by political activists of all beliefs as an intelligent and persuasive writer. One a teacher of...
Read more about Dennis Prager.
Radio talk show host Dennis Prager has been lauded by political activists of all beliefs as an intelligent and persuasive writer. One a teacher of...
Read more about Dennis Prager.
Why I Support John McCain
Dennis Prager
Last week, a conservative magazine reported that I would not vote for
John McCain for president. The magazine based its claim on a column I
had written in May 2007 about why I could not support John McCain for
the Republican presidential nomination.
The magazine was wrong. Though I did not support Sen. McCain in the Republican primaries, the moment he became the presumptive Republican candidate I endorsed him wholeheartedly for president of the United States.
----
Having not been a supporter from the outset, perhaps my endorsement of John McCain will carry more weight among conservatives who are still undecided about whether to vote for John McCain.
My bottom line is this: The gulf between John McCain and conservatives is miniscule compared to the gulf between John McCain and Barack Obama.
----
This is true regarding virtually every issue of significance to America. The America that a President Barack Obama would shape, with the help of a Democratic Congress and a liberal Supreme Court, would be very dissimilar from the America shaped by a President John McCain.
Conservatives who will not vote for McCain are well-intentioned utopians. They are comparing McCain to a consistently conservative candidate. The reality, however, is that McCain is not running against a consistently conservative candidate. He is running against a consistently left-wing candidate. And America cannot afford to have its first leftist president ever. It can afford liberal presidents -- such as Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter (who governed as a liberal but became a leftist after leaving the White House), or John F. Kennedy, or Lyndon Johnson, or Harry Truman -- i.e., all the Democrats who have been president since World War II. But the Democratic Party has moved well to the left of liberalism. And Barack Obama is at the left of that left-wing party.
Furthermore, given the strong possibility of a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and a liberal Supreme Court for decades to come, given the number of Supreme Court appointments a Democratic president will be able to make, an Obama victory will move America more radically leftward than ever in its history.
That is why the argument that an Obama administration will be so destructive that Americans will reject the left and then elect a real conservative to undo the damage done in an Obama presidency is deeply flawed.
First of all, other than impeachment, there is no way to undo Supreme Court appointments, two or three of which a President Obama would likely make. And given how active most liberal judges are, it won't matter much if the country has some conservative epiphany and then elects a Republican president and Congress. Because even if the Congress and the president will not pass liberal legislation, a liberal Supreme Court will. On almost any social issue that matters -- the right to bear arms, late-term abortion, the definition of marriage, capital punishment, and many others -- a liberal Supreme Court will rule on these issues, and there will be nothing that a post-Obama Republican president, even with a Republican congress, will be able to do about them.
Moreover, the argument that Americans will have a conservative epiphany after four years of an Obama presidency is predicated on America being greatly damaged by his policies. What kind of mindset welcomes such damage to the country it loves for the sake of potentially gaining politically after the damage is done? Is it, for example, really worth a considerably weakened economy (which Barack Obama's tax and other economic policies would likely lead to), with its widespread suffering and unforeseeable social and political consequences, just to -- hopefully -- get a conservative into the White House four or eight years later?
And the damage won't necessarily be undone. Even Ronald Reagan, the most popular conservative to ever serve as president, could not roll back most liberal creations. He never could get rid of the useless Department of Education, for example. Nor could a then-popular President George W. Bush do a thing about Social Security even when he had a Republican House and Senate.
----
And how will Barack Obama's successor undo the damage done to Iraq, the Middle East, the War on Islamic Terror, and the credibility of America's assurances to allies once Iraq slides into chaos as a result of America's precipitous withdrawal from Iraq?
Therefore, as well meaning and sincere as many conservatives are, this mode of thinking -- let the country suffer under a left-wing president, Congress, and Supreme Court and then it will come to its conservative senses -- will likely lead to a downward spiral from which it is hard to see the country escaping for a generation, if it is lucky.
There is one person who can prevent this unhappy future -- John McCain.
He will not raise taxes, the last thing we should be doing in a weakened economy.
He will reduce government spending, and thereby prevent the state from controlling even more of American life.
He will ensure that America wins in Iraq. That will make one of the biggest and richest Arab states the freest of the Arab states. And it will hand Islamic terrorists the biggest defeat they have ever suffered. It will teach potential enemies not to attack America (whether Iraq did so directly is irrelevant to the point). And it will reassure America's allies around the world, many of whom, as in Iraq, risk their lives for America and liberty, that America will never abandon them.
He will appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court and to federal benches, thereby depriving the left of its most powerful weapon in reshaping America in its image.
He may attract enough Hispanic votes (while securing the borders) to prevent that critical constituency from identifying with the Democratic Party, something that would ensure left-wing victories for decades to come.
He will develop nuclear power, environmentalist (read leftist) opposition to which has been morally indefensible. We would all love to have a solar powered or wind powered country. However, on planet earth at this time, nuclear power may be the cleanest source of energy we have. That is why France, not heretofore known as politically conservative, relies on nuclear power for nearly 80 percent of its electricity.
However noble their intentions, conservatives who do not vote for John McCain will be morally complicit in what happens to America during an Obama presidency.
========
Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show and is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness Is a Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is www.pragerradio.com.
Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc.
This news arrived on: 07/01/2008
Printer Friendly Version | Send this page to a friend | Post Comment
Rate This Story:
Great - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Bad
Posted Comments:
07-03-2008 23:25
Darlene wrote:
state of the union
HELLO!!!! have you forgotten who got us into this mess in the first place? if you think fighting this war in Iraq needs to go on indefinetly where will the money come from. We can't support a war that costs this much money without getting money from somewhere. You don't want to raise taxes to pay for it but you don't mind taking my money and then cutting my social security, infrastrcture costs, education etc. yes Virginia there is no Santa, tooth fairy or rich uncle to pay for this.
07-03-2008 09:46
gardenlady wrote:
McCain/Obama
I am not an Obama fan, but McCain (who, by the way) cannot remember what country we are fighting in, will not receive my vote. We need new blood - not another Republican in office. Republicans have made sure that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. We are in a war that was uncalled for and we aren't even looking for the culprit that attacked us on 9/11 and yes, I do remember who we were fighting at first but not now. Oh, and now, we just received updated news that AlQuada is going to bomb us - hmmm - just before the elections again. Has anyone thought that perhaps the Bush Administration (ie Republicans) are in with them? Where has the billions of money gone when the war started and the money was reported missing?
Oh, and if you don't believe in the environment, perhaps you need to look at all the cancer patients in the hospitals.
Oh, and if you don't believe in the environment, perhaps you need to look at all the cancer patients in the hospitals.
07-02-2008 21:25
Linda wrote:
What do you think Obamanation is going to do? He is going to help put us in the one world government. Thats his goal Yes he can!
McCain doesn' look half bad now , does he?
McCain doesn' look half bad now , does he?
07-02-2008 20:12
I wrote:
Obama in the White House
Mr. Prager's observations are not dire. He is being very realistic - and conservative - I might add. Obama's answer to our current economic plight would ensure that the dollar will collapse. A Republican president is the ONLY person who has any chance of getting us out of the mess we are now in. All Democrats know to do is raise taxes and create an even more bloated government.
As for change for the sake of change - that's as stupid and asinine as you can get. That completely leaves any sense of intelligence or thinking rationale out the door.
And the thought about putting a Democrat in office just so the people can see how bad it can get so they will choose Republican four years later - Mr. Prager is right, again, about how there is only so much camage control one man can do. But he neglected to mention that Americans have an extremely short memory. (Remember 9/11? That's why we're in a war in the first place - to keep terrorism off of American soil.) It won't take long for people to forget it was the Democrats who got America in the mess it will be in after a Democratic presidency and will blame it all on the Republicans.
As for change for the sake of change - that's as stupid and asinine as you can get. That completely leaves any sense of intelligence or thinking rationale out the door.
And the thought about putting a Democrat in office just so the people can see how bad it can get so they will choose Republican four years later - Mr. Prager is right, again, about how there is only so much camage control one man can do. But he neglected to mention that Americans have an extremely short memory. (Remember 9/11? That's why we're in a war in the first place - to keep terrorism off of American soil.) It won't take long for people to forget it was the Democrats who got America in the mess it will be in after a Democratic presidency and will blame it all on the Republicans.
07-02-2008 18:29
Darlene wrote:
McSame
I forgot to mention that that right wing controlled supreme court also elected a president for the first time in our history. I thought the people were supposed to vote for the president not have him appointed. why have elections if the court can do it. we could save a lot of money. also if we already have the nominees for both parties selected why have the conventions and waste more millions. it is luducrious to waste millions of dollars for a job that pays $400,000 a year. and we let these people run the country? doesn't say much for their fiscal responsibility does it.
Comment archive | Comment FAQ's
![]() |
![]() |
View Dennis Prager ezine stories by date or visit the complete archive |
Featured Channel: Politics
The ArcaMax Politics channel is one of 70 content categories offered by ArcaMax Publishing on this ... |












ArcaMax Dating