Categories
Domestic issues Election 2008 Foreign Policy Iraq McCain Politics The War on Terrorism

A Moderate Reputation: Explaining McCain’s Changes of Heart

McCain
Image by Wigwam Jones.

[digg-reddit-me]The purest treasure mortal times afford
Is spotless reputation.
That away,
Man are but gilded loam or painted clay.
-William Shakespeare

John McCain has a reputation as an independent, a moderate and a maverick. This reputation is his greatest asset – far more important than his speaking ability or war record or anything else. It is the reason he was the Republican best positioned to keep the White House with the political tide clearly favoring the Democrats.

He built this reputation over many years by repeatedly taking stands against his party in the 1990s – on campaign finance reform, on tobacco legislation, and on pork spending – and in the early years of the Bush administration – on torture, on tax cuts, and on immigration reform – and by then staking his presidential campaign on the issue of Iraq against the political zeitgeist. But since his political near-death experience this past summer, McCain has either softened his opposition to the Republican Party line or embraced it, potentially destroying this reputation. The famous aphorism states: “Good will, like a good name, is got by many actions, and lost by one.”

So, there is a great deal at stake when the question is asked: Why did he change his positions?

For those who do not wish to give McCain the benefit of the doubt, the answer is obvious: he is pandering to win an election. For those who do wish to give McCain that benefit, the answer is less clear. Generally, the defenses of these changes in position range from denying there has been a change to explaining in various ways how the change shows consistency to a whole hodge-podge of other excuses.

As someone who was an admirer of Mr. McCain’s in 2000 and through the early years of the Bush administration; as someone who talked to and emailed all of my friends asking them to support McCain in his primary fight in 2000 ((I also was a fan of Bill Bradley.)) ; as someone who believes that politicians are politicians even if their reputations are golden ((This includes Barack Obama – my favored candidate this go-round.)) – I see three plausible and non-exclusive explanations for McCain’s change that are consistent with his appeal, his reputation, and his career.

1. McCain’s Last Chance for Glory

Coming into the 2008 race as the establishment candidate, McCain saw his last chance to become president slipping through his fingers, because of his unorthodoxy.  He who had once described himself as the unrepentant champion of lost causes, decided to reconcile himself to the Republican base and reject these initial stands, these bases on which his reputation was built. This is the explanation that both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have offered up:

“There was a time when some Republicans like John McCain agreed with me,” Obama said, of his calls to roll back Bush’s temporary tax cuts for the richest Americans instead of making those tax cuts permanent.

“There was a time when Senator McCain courageously defied the fiscal madness of massive tax cuts for the wealthy in the midst of a costly war,” Obama said.  “That was before he started running for the Republican nomination and fell in line.”

2. Unprincipled Moderation

McCain was never truly a conservative in the Burkean sense or a man of strong principles, but merely a political moderate who has been constantly seeking the center ground, no matter how far the center shifts. During the Reagan years, McCain comfortably held the right-center. After Bill Clinton’s election, McCain operated in the left center. In 2000, with a mainly pragmatic liberal consensus, McCain campaigned as a moderate liberal. As Bush pulled the country right, so McCain went – but this time with a bit of a lag. McCain’s response to Bush’s radicalism is to accommodate it. Now, running in a Republican primary, McCain has adapted – and running for president in the general, he will again. His “principled stands” were merely accidents of history, or perhaps occasionally orchestrated stands to enhance his reputation.

3. Manichaeism

McCain has always sought enemies in his career – and has organized all of his political positions by who he saw as the most serious enemy. The Soviet Union provided the first threat which ordered all of his political priorities, and so he entered Congress as a self-confessed ideologue, a “foot soldier” in the Reagan Revolution. He was a conservative Republican. With the fall of the U.S.S.R., he needed to find a new enemy. By the mid-1990s he settled on corruption in Washington. He backed campaign finance legislation to limit the influence of the lobbyists and big money contributors; he championed the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to eliminate pork spending ((A victory which was overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in 1998.)) . Identifying another enemy he pushed to increase cigarette taxes to fund anti-smoking campaigns with the backing of the Clinton administration. When he launched his 2000 presidential campaign he said his goal was to “take our government back from the power brokers and special interests and return it to the people and the noble cause of freedom it was created to serve.” In a perfect encapsulation of his fervent yet ironic crusade, he compared his campaign to Luke Skywalker attacking the Death Star of special interests (including the Religious Right and the Republican establishment.)

After September 11, McCain had found a new enemy that was greater than the corruption of the political process and he was willing to put aside all of his domestic agenda to focus on the new enemy. So, McCain’s changes in position reflect his changing ranking of enemies.  He is willing to compromise all of his past positions because they are insignificant in the face of islamist extremism.

Concluding Thoughts

These are the three explanations that I have come up with consistent with McCain’s career, his character, and his politics. In the end, I think each explanation plays a role – but the dominant explanation seems to be the final one. It most fully explains McCain’s appeal, his reputation, and the timing of his changes. And frankly, it is the reason why I would be most wary of a McCain presidency now, at this moment in history.

Categories
Catholicism Domestic issues Election 2008 Environmental Issues Foreign Policy Iraq Law Morality New York City Obama Politics The War on Terrorism

Pope Endorses Barack Obama in UN Speech

Pope Benedict @ the United Nations

[digg-me]Not quite. But close.

Addressing the United Nations on Friday, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of reducing income inequality; of increasing international cooperation; of respecting the law; of having solidarity with the poor and weak; of opposing (unnecessary) ((I inserted unnecessary here although Pope Benedict did not. Although the pope spoke in this speech of avoiding war, I presume he speaks of this in the context of the “just war” theory that has been accepted by him and the rest of the Catholic Church in the past.)) war; of “giving attention and encouragement to even the faintest sign of dialogue or desire for reconciliation;” of creating “structures capable of harmonizing the day-to-day unfolding of the lives of people;” of the “protection of the environment…and the climate.” And like Barack Obama, though many conservative Catholics are loathe to admit, the previous pope, Pope John Paul II even specifically opposed the invasion of Iraq.

In the past eight years, the Republican party has come to stand for the right of the president to torture prisoners; for rising inequality and acceptance of corporate fraud; for elevating the executive above the Rule of Law and the other constitutionally co-equal branches of government; for ignoring the climate crisis; for refusing to give aid to the poor and weak because of potential “moral hazards” while bailing out big corporations; for preventive war; for refusing to engage in dialogue with our enemies. Pope Benedict’s speech was a direct challenge to the worldview and policies of the Bush administration and an articulation of basic moral principles and basic responsibilities of the state.

Within these principles articulated by the pope, we can easily find the mainstream Democratic agenda, a rejection of the radical policies of George W. Bush, and more specifically, an endorsement of the school of politics that Barack Obama stands for: talking with our enemies; avoiding unnecessary wars and violence; respecting the Rule of Law; reducing income inequality; promoting access to health care; and protecting the environment.

This is the Democratic agenda.

The Pope explained that it is the responsibility of “every generation [to] engag[e] anew in the arduous search for the right way to order human affairs…motivated by hope.” I would call that a pretty good encapsulation of Obama’s appeal – that he represents a new generation striving to find the best way to manage the world and our nation “motivated by hope”.

Jonah Goldberg may call it fascism; Steve Marlsberg may call such efforts to reduce inequality and allow citizens access to basic needs Communism; Rush Limbaugh may call efforts to focus on the real threat of Al Qaeda in the Pakistani/Afghani border “cut-and-run.” But those who listened to Pope Benedict’s address to the United Nations can see that he stands with those the so-called “conservatives” have labeled fascists, communists, and cowards – and the pope understood that the basic moral values he stood for are the essence of what he called “freedom.”

Categories
Election 2008 Foreign Policy Iraq McCain Obama Politics

Andrew Sullivan nails it.

Andrew Sullivan nails it.  He compares whether Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama would better be able to withdraw troops from Iraq, but then issues this damning and dead-on projection of a Ms. Clinton presidency:

The one thing I do know is that Clinton would be paralyzed. Unable to withdraw swiftly for fear of looking like a “weak” leader, and unable to unite the country behind staying, a president Clinton would mean the status quo in Iraq indefinitely. She is tough when resisting attacks; she has never been tough and effective in forging difficult new policy. On that score, she is merely ideological and brittle and unpersuasive. Like Bush.

Categories
Excerpts from my Journals Iraq Politics The War on Terrorism

A harsh judgment

Excerpts from my Journals
[Dated July 16, 2003.]

If we find W.M.D. in Iraq, but lose Iraq, Mr. Bush will not only go down as a failed president, but one who made the world even more dangerous for Americans. If we find no W.M.D., but build a better Iraq – one that proves that a multiethnic, multireligious Arab state can rule itself in a decent way – Mr. Bush will survive his hyping of the W.M.D. issue, and the world will be a more hospitable and safer place for all Americans.

Thomas Friedman in the New York Times.

Categories
Election 2008 Foreign Policy Iraq McCain Politics The War on Terrorism

Is Joe Lieberman acting as a “stealth Democrat”?

Find out.

Categories
Election 2008 Iraq McCain Obama Politics The War on Terrorism

Steve King: Obama will be a savior to Al Qaeda

[digg-reddit-me] Representative Steve King, Republican from Iowa, yesterday stated:

Obama will certainly be viewed as a savior for them [referring to Al Qaeda]…

I will tell you that, if he is elected president, then the radical Islamists, the al-Qaeda, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror.

Despite a rebuke from Mr. McCain, Mr. King is standing by his remarks.

Mr. King did promise later that if

…we elect Obama to the presidency and he declares defeat, if they don’t dance in the streets, I will come and apologize to you and everybody in America.

We’ll have to remember in November –  after Mr. King loses his seat in Congress as he deserves to –  to rub this trash in his face.

Mr. Obama, of course, retained on the high road but rightly pointed out that our intelligence agencies have reported that in fact the Iraq war has played into Al Qaeda’s hands.  He then scoffed:

But I have to say that Mr. King and individuals like him thrive on offensive or controversial statements as a way to get in the papers, so I don’t take it too seriously. I would hope Sen. McCain would want to distance himself from that kind of inflammatory and offensive remarks.

I’m sure we’ll see much more of this in the coming campaign – no matter how much Mr. McCain condemns it.  This is sure to be one of the right wing propaganda machine’s main talking points against Mr. Obama (or Ms. Clinton).  Although Mr. Obama’s response was adequate, I’d like to see a stronger response from him, and for him to pivot to his forward-looking strategy.  Something like this:

I applaud Senator McCain for condemning these attacks.  As I have said many times before, the Senator has a distinguished record of public service and he has, as I have, committed himself to running a clean and issue-based campaign.  I have many disagreements with Senator McCain – one of which is about the strategy America must pursue in the War on Terrorism.  Men like Representative King degrade our politics by trying to turn disagreements about strategy into virtual treason.  I believe the best way to attack Al Qaeda is to focus our military and intelligence resources on Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Al Qaeda and Bin Laden are still hiding nearly seven years after they attacked America on September 11.  Senator McCain disagrees, and I respect that.  But both of us want to protect American lives and interests – and whichever of us wins the coming election, we will do whatever we must to protect the United States – and Al Qaeda knows that.  Congressman King should be ashamed that he is trying to play politics with national security.  Republicans are not the only people who are fighting to protect American lives – there are intelligence officers, soldiers, diplomats, and politicians who are Democrats, Republicans, and independents.  As Americans, we must unite in the face of the evil of organizations like Al Qaeda – and those who seek to divide us against ourselves, to portray our political opponents as friends of terrorists – they only serve to distract us from the real challenges we face.  I would call on any Democratic office holder to withdraw from the Democratic party for comments like that.  But I am thankful that Senator McCain has condemned these remarks as he has.

Categories
Foreign Policy Iraq McCain The War on Terrorism

Man, there’s a country where they have great tactics to prevent suicide bombings

Yglesias on the difficulty in coming up with effective policies for Iraq’s problems:

…there’s really nothing we can do to stop sporadic bombing attacks. It’s not, after all, that you look at Italy and say “man, there’s a country where they have great tactics to prevent suicide bombings – Iraq should really implement those.” Rather, you don’t see suicide bombing where you don’t see would-be suicide bombers and that’s not the kind of outcome a foreign military force can produce in Iraq. So things will probably get worse again, but not as bad as they were at the very worst times.

I think that about sums up where we are – and what we can accomplish.  I understand that Mr. McCain’s answer to this problem is a century of occupation – if that’s what it takes.

Categories
Iraq Politics The War on Terrorism

Passive support for al-Qaeda

The National Review continues to push the long-discredited understanding of the Iraqi insurgency with this article in the current magazine describing:

a realistic and detailed picture of the enemy … in Fallujah… — “an insurgent global all-star team” that included “Chechen snipers, Filipino machine gunners, Pakistani mortar men, and Saudi suicide bombers.” The insurgents were not ordinary Iraqis fighting for their freedom against an invading power — but international Islamic militants supported by al-Qaeda.

The U.S. government estimates [pdf] that the insurgency in Iraq is made up of approximately 4% to 10% foreign fighters. This was widely reported in 2005 and 2006.

Keeping with the “fair and balanced” approach to news that let’s “you decide!” ((Aren’t FoxNews and the National Review basically the same thing?)) , the article concludes:

I’ll leave it to you to decide where passive support for al-Qaeda still persists.

Categories
Election 2008 Foreign Policy Humor Iraq McCain Obama Politics The War on Terrorism

Like Hope, But Different

I appreciate Senator John McCain’s frankness. Especially in contrast to the political styles of Senator Hillary Clinton and President George W. Bush.

Categories
Election 2008 Foreign Policy Iraq Obama Politics The Clintons

David Brooks: Bush Administration Thinks Hillary Will Protect Their Legacy


via Andrew Sullivan.