Given John McCain's recent victory in Florida it appears likely that he will eventually be the Republican nominee for President. This has set off a firestorm of debate and controversy over the man and his Senate record. Radio talk show hots, tv anchors, newspaper columnists and everyone else are now busy explaining why McCain will ruin the party and most likely the country if he manages to win the election. Some party faithful are even conflicted over whether to not vote or even (gasp!) vote for a Democract if McCain is victorious in Minneapolis. I find this entire conversation so silly and pointless that I naturally wanted to plunge right in.
For the most part, I don't have a problem with McCain in terms of policy. Anyone who tries to define the term 'conservative' so narrowly that it doesn't include John McCain is doing the Republican party no favors. The fact that he disagrees with Republicans on certain issues (although they are BIG issues) almost makes him more appealing as a candidate, not less. After all, don't we want our congressmen to think for themselves, instead of just towing the party line? I also think that McCain-Kennedy was a good piece of legislation. Immigration law in the U.S. is such a disaster that any improvement should be supported by all Americans.
The failure of McCain-Kennedy helps explain why McCain would not make a good President. Although he styles himself as a modern Henry Clay (the Great Compromiser) the bill failed because he wouldn't compromise on what became the most important issue to so many Americans - building a border fence. And the reason he wouldn't compromise is that he cares more about 'reaching across the aisle' and impressing his friends on the left than he does about the base of his own party. He now claims that he's the best qualified to lead on the issue of immigration because he 'comes from a border state.'
Well, Senator - if you're so qualified, why didn't you listen to the people in your own state when they said they wanted a fence?
Far from being someone who will bring Democrat and Republican together, McCain can be counted on to alienate both. I've watched very carefully as he's crossed the country giving various states his special dose of 'straight talk'. This involves finding an issue that's important to those states and griding it under his heel. In Iowa he says, 'Screw your ethanol subsidies.' In Florida he says, 'Screw your diaster insurance.' In Michigan he says, 'Screw your manufacturing jobs.' And in Arizona he says 'The border fence is a stupid idea, I know better than you.'
I'm not suggesting McCain needs to pander to these states (the way Romney clearly did in Michigan) but isn't there room for discussion? You think Bush and Cheney have been arrogant? Just wait until you see the McCain administation. He adopts hardline stances and then is alarmingly vindictive towards those who criticize or question him.
That vindictiveness was first apparent in 2000 when he lost South Carolina BIG and then accused the Bush campaign of dirty tactics, a charge that has never been proven. This time around, after playing the victim of Romney's attack ads for several months, he did one better with his 'timetables' distortion only two days before the Florida election. That was real hard-ball politics. McCain cloaks himself in the robes of an altar boy only to disguise how he's going to stick a shiv in your ribs.
McCain also demostrates an alarming need of approval by the media and the left. Right now he's busy using the memory of Ronald Reagan to tout his conservative credentials. But the moment he's got the nomination look for him to begin distancing himself from the right and saying 'Hey, don't associate me with that gaggle of gay-bashers, polluters, and abortion clinic bombers. I'm a maverick, I'm my own man.' I'm convinced his position on Global Warming and ANWAR represent his desire to be included in that 'enlightened' group of environmentalists. He may end up as a President hated by both Democracts and Republicans.
Finally, McCain demonstrates all the self-absorbed, self-righteous, tendencies of the baby boomer generation (although certainly he represents the best of that generation). He now uses his status as a first-rate war hero to treat others with disdain. He acts as though because he was a POW, he is above criticism, that the Presidency is owed to him. Bob Dole and George Bush both served in WWII, but I don't remember them talking about their veteran status HALF as much as John McCain. He was contemptuous of Bush in 2000 for 'serving' in the National Guard. He's now contemptous of Romney because Mitt comes from an privileged family and went to Harvard. In the debates he has this ascerbic manner of winking and chuckling to himself as he talks down to you. If you didn't spend time in a Vietnamese prison camp, you don't rate.
But it looks like he'll win the nomination. Giuliani has dropped out to prevent splitting the moderate vote with McCain. Huckabee, who seems to be running for Vice President, will stay in to split the conservative vote with Romney for Super Tuesday. McCain will lose in November, and I don't know if that's a bad thing. The strength of democracy is balance, and I think it might be time for the political pendulum to swing the other way for a few years.
11 comments:
I LOVE reading your political posts! Maybe you should consider a job as a political commentator or something. I would love daily updates on your political insights. I'm far too addicted to this Presidential race and I love reading other peoples opinions (especially those opinions which seem to coincide so nicely with my own.)
Well said.
I am going to have to let this go, it is to frustrating to watch. I thought that Americans had a distain for Bush, but it seems that McCrazy(I feel no need for explination, rather just an acknowledgement of my pettiness)would be more of the same, but perhaps not so hopefull.
You know, with none of those jobs returning to Michigan, 100 more years of Iraq, Its odd that the wheels haven't come off the 'double talk express'.
Okay Shane but if you say that you are now going to throw your support behind Obama, I'll puke. If I hear one more person say that Obama can bring change I'll poke my eyes out. Please!
Kim - It appears that you and I have more in common that I originally thought - we both love listening to me.
Heather - The problem is that you're looking for substance in a process designed to offer only flair. Obama is a rock star, and he will eventually be the Democratic candidate. I'd prefer to see him in an general election this year rather than down the line.
To deny Obama's potential to actually do what he says, to offer substance as it were, is to deny the potential of our democracy. Mack S. might wish to dismiss Obama as all show, a "rock star," but then what do we define as leadership in a pluralistic democracy if not the capacity to gain broad ranging popular support? I did some research a while back about Athenian democracy, and I was shocked to find that both Socrates and Plato were dead set against it (no news to Mr. ABD, I'm sure). Why? They were afraid of the rabble, they didn't trust them and Plato famously offered us "philosopher kings": people born and raised to be our leaders, to think for us (aka Romney?).
I'm sorry, call me a romantic, but I'll take populism over coronation, thank you very much. Lets say Obama does get elected based on his "rock star" appeal. What's the harm? We're already in a recession and embroiled in a foreign war with no exit strategy--he could hardly do worse than our current inheritor of the Whitehouse.
Oh, pah-lease...
Your stirring endorsement of Obama suggests two new campaign slogans he might want to adopt:
Obama: A vote for me is a vote for democracy
Obama: He can't possible be as bad as Bush
My critique of Hope-bama has more to do with the system that allows him to shine than it does with the man himself. (Does ANYONE really know much about Barak?) The campaign speeches, two-minute reponse debate formats and the media coverage that communicates them are designed to celebrate cliches and applause lines rather than clear explanation of policy. The primary system itself is just downright silly, allowing a few thousand evangelicals in Iowa to determine the 'front-runner.'
And spare me your talk of 'coronation', especially when Mitt's elite background (and Mormonism) is a major reason that he is so feared/hated by the Republican establishment.
Yes, Socrates was afraid of the rabble. Guess who else was - Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison. There's a reason why only property holders could vote in the original Republic. Our universal system of education today has increased the capacity of the masses to select their own leaders, and rightfully so. But do you honestly believe its produced better leaders than that first generation of Presidents?
So forgive me if I have the audacity to question whether Obama has the experience or capability to lead the world's most powerful nation after two years in the Senate....if I dare to ask what it means to 'pull the troops out now.' I don't require an MBA from Harvard and a CEO background before voting for a candidate for President. I would, however, like to see something more substantial than a mult-ethnic background and an endorsement from Oprah
You'll get no argument from me about the shallowness of the process, but it's shallow only because Americans aren't paying attention. There have been dozens of debates over the past few months, and I dare say that anyone who cared to find out about a candidate is now better able to than at any time in the past.
There's a reason why only property holders could vote in the original Republic. Our universal system of education today has increased the capacity of the masses to select their own leaders, and rightfully so. But do you honestly believe its produced better leaders than that first generation of Presidents?
Wow, I never knew you were such and elitist, but then, you are in academia so I guess it makes sense.
The point with Obama isn't the man himself. What I'm saying is that in a democracy broad support represents a mandate which forces the otherwise entrenched system to adjust in order to maintain relevance/power. For example, consider EVERYONE is now and agent of change in this election. Clinton and McCain couldn't possibly be more political insiders, yet somehow they expect us to vote for them because they can "change Washington." It's laughable, but it all came about because Obama hit a nerve with the American voters and has, your cynicism not withstanding, convinced a large number of Americans that he can actually accomplish his goals.
Now, before you once again dismiss Obama as a rock star, remember that Ronald Regan, the patron saint of all conservatives, was known as the "Great Communicator." Do you really think he would have been able to accomplish what he did without the capacity convince others with his rhetorical skills and personality? I think not.
Obama, therefore, isn't the champion of democracy for his political point of view, but rather that he represents and can harness the broad popular support that is required to do anything other than reelect incumbents in a democracy.
"There's a reason why only property holders could vote in the original Republic. Our universal system of education today has increased the capacity of the masses to select their own leaders, and rightfully so. But do you honestly believe its produced better leaders than that first generation of Presidents?"
I hate to disagree with you Shane (actually, I love to) but Our modern education system is far from giving the masses the capacity to wisely choose our leaders. Come on, we have both taught on the university level and these kids are coming in with barely the capacity to put a sentence together! No, as a whole the masses are much more stupid now then we were at the founding of our country. Back then people actually read the federalist papers and such.
So because the masses are swayed by 2 minute sound bites and empty promises of change we are destined to get a president like Obamba
I'm convinced his position on Global Warming and ANWAR represent his desire to be included in that 'enlightened' group of environmentalists.
So are you taking issue with his belief there are serious environmental challenges that require government action, or his association with others (democrat and republican) that feel the same? Or are you just suspicious of any Romney-esque conversion that leads to change in policy direction? Any particular reason to doubt his sincerity here when it clearly hurts him in his own party, especially among the "less enlightened"?
Quite frankly, I really don't care if McCain believes in Global Warming or not (although I do think his solution would be a disaster). Good for him for taking a principled stand.
The point is that McCain uses this issue to show his contempt for the base of the Republican party and ingratiate himself with those on the left, whose approval he so desperately needs. He says to the media:
"Yes, I'm a Republican. But I'm not part of that illiterate, evangelical, stem-cell blocking, rabble of ditto-heads. And to prove it, let me talk about how much I believe in climate change. I'm more like you guys..."
Which is fine, if that's what he wants. But now that he's running in the primaries he's trying to woo those very people who have listened to him talk down to them for years. That's a tough sell.
Heather - Wow, and I thought I was an elitist! I can't see how anyone could think that the common man of 1776 was more educated than today's joe lunch pail. I would guess most of the population couldn't even read. Your imagined community of citizen farmers who read the Federalist papers while milking the cow didn't exist. It's a fairy tale, although an attractive one.
You're right Shane, it is clearly going to be a tough sell for McCain. Clearly the base of the Republican party wants nothing to do with that condescending, insincere, wolf-in-sheep's clothing.
Post a Comment