Making fun of Andy McCarthy’s crazed rants has become a bit of a habit of late, but his newest post on Obama must be read to be believed:
On the economy, Ayers is a socialist who was and is dedicated to an anti-capitalist agenda and a collectivist model. He regards Chavez’s Venezuela — a despotic, confiscatory state in which government power suppresses political enemies and individual initiative — as “a beacon to the world.” There is abundant reason to believe Obama shares Ayers’s fondness for anti-capitalism, collectivism, confiscatory policies, and the use of state power to snuff out individualism and punish enemies. What little we have in the way of written and spoken product from Obama is rife with these themes.
Seriously, read the whole thing. The worst part about this nonsense is that McCarthy is literally unable to muster any serious argument against Obama. On every issue, he’s reduced to guilt by association fear-mongering. Now, if you’re part of the “lynch him!” demographic, you’ll probably find this sort of thing persuasive, but I doubt it’s going to appeal to anyone with serious concerns about the future of our country.
All of this says something important about the fundamental hollowness of movement conservatism circa 2008. Instead of raising legitimate criticisms about a fairly conventional left-wing senator (and God knows there are plenty out there), McCarthy is left to sputter on about Obama’s “damning” connections to assorted liberal bogeymen. McCain, of course, is in the exact same boat, having tried to “change the subject” from the biggest financial meltdown in recent memory because he simply has nothing to say on the subject. When conservative politicians can’t articulate an intelligible critique of bog-standard liberalism, it’s time to reconsider our entire approach.