Why Obamacons, Not Hillarycons?

Vanishing American has rebutted Richard Spencer’s weak “Obamacon” argument that relies on antiwar conservatives being thought of as a kind of “swing vote”. I thought it would be obvious that Spencer is not arguing from a truly “nationalist” or pro-white point of view, but more of an antiwar one.

If that’s not clear, one may refer to Spencer’s prior article with its categorization of “Obamacon” arguments, not all of which are as weak as Spencer’s own. In support of the argument from “White Pride Delirium”, he links to a thread at Vanguard News Network. Now TakiMag obviously doesn’t link to white nationalist sites — especially something as hardcore as VNN – for any other purpose than to say, “This is what the real kooks think.” Spencer could have linked to a somewhat more “civilized” source, like AmRen, where similar but better-presented arguments had been put forth, but he linked to VNN, where none of the commenters on the linked thread could write a correct paragraph.

Moving on, VA asks why “Hillarycons” have not been visible. Well, Hillary locks us into the same Clinton vs. Bush polarization that has gone on, where conservatives can blame all problems on the Clintons personally, while avoiding the more fundamental issues, particularly race. Obama puts a black face in front of us, day in and day out, as the representative of liberalism. True, there are “Hillarycons” who wanted Hillary to win while she still had a chance — Auster has expressed such a preference. But that isn’t really a “worse is better” argument. It’s an argument that Republicans will oppose Hillary like they wouldn’t oppose McCain.

It doesn’t take much courage to oppose Hillary, who wouldn’t help to sort out the difference between people who will be intimidated by race-baiting arguments, and those who won’t. We need the “false friends” — MSM voices who are simple Republican partisans and back down from accusations of racism – to be marginalized. That’s why it’s not true that “a better contrarian case could be made for Hillary than for Obama.”

VA continues:

I’ve said before that [Hillary] would definitely call forth a vigorous opposition from the right, and that would be healthier for the right (the real right) than an Obama presidency, since he is treated like not merely a rock star, but as some kind of avatar (in the original sense) or a Messiah.

The “vigorous opposition” that VA correctly predicts is not healthy for the real right, though. It puts our false friends back in a position where they can oppose the liberal president without actually taking a stand against PC. It gives back legitimacy to mainstream Republicans, who ought to be thoroughly discredited. It increases the chance that Hillary would be thrown out in 2012 in favor of a Republican neocon like McCain or Giuliani or Jeb Bush, who would have an impeccable record on the one “important” question (to Republican regulars) – consistent opposition to Hillary as an individual. Whereas if Obama is thrown out in 2012, it might be in favor of a more conservative candidate.

VA asks, “Do we want a President who is the object of a cult?” But this is far from a cult that encompasses everyone. Obama has received the votes of under 30 percent of white Democrats in most states with a substantial black presence. It’s hard to believe he won’t make a few more gaffes like his statement about rural Pennsylvanians “clinging” to guns and religion. I would guess that Obama’s “unfavorables” figure to be very high by the time of the general election. The myth that Obama is a “uniter” has been embraced so fervently by liberal MSM voices in a desperate attempt to make it unquestioned conventional wisdom, even though it is so obviously not true to anyone who sees the data. Obama is a polarizing figure, which is what’s led to the McGovern comparisons. Opposition to McGovernism still wins Republicans lots of debating points. The simple fact is that “cults” tend to generate intense dislike among their opponents. That’s especially true among young voters. Once Obama becomes the candidate of the Ivy League, he automatically becomes a lightning-rod for the anger of those who resent everything the Ivy League stands for.