The Left and John McCain
MichaelW on Feb 03 2008 at 2:35 pm | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Election 2008, Foreign affairs, MichaelW's Page, Notes on the war
In a post at QandO, Billy Hollis explains why John McCain will not be getting his vote. Essentially, McCain-Feingold and Johnny’s continued contempt for the Bill of Rights leaves Billy cold:
This [McCain-Feingold] is THE main reason I cannot vote for the man. Heck, I almost shied away from Fred merely because he voted for it. McCain was the ringleader, the prime mover, the guy without whom it would not have happened.
The fact that McCain feels justified in subverting the Bill of Rights to arbitrarily decide what citizens may say and do makes him unqualified to be the president of these United States.
I pretty much agree entirely with Billy (and Peg) on this. I have great deal of respect for the Arizona Senator, but he truly seems to believe that government knows what’s best for everybody, and he isn’t afraid to use the levers of power to override Constitutional rights.
However, there was something in the comments that just begged for further analysis. Frequent QandO commenter jpm100 cogently observes:
McCain, Iraq, and the Left’s Hypocrisy
For the past 5 years, the lion’s share of the attacks on Bush and Republicans have revolved around Iraq. They include Abu Garib, no WMDs, lying about WMDs, lying about terrorism ties, Haliburton, Escalation, ad infinitum.
But here we have McCain, who’s one Republican Selling point is his support for the Iraq War. Not just a Supporter, but the Queen Bee of Senate Support for Iraq. Yet the Left relishes his rise as the Republican nominee.
I’ve have to believe this is only because of one or both of two possible reasons.
1) Opposition against the Iraq War was purely politically motivated, a tool to smear Bush with. With US Troops deaths as the anchor, they could attack Bush and recreate the Vietnam era for the Kerry campaign for one. And just generally deride Bush and Republicans.
Yet does any of this negativity get raised by the left when the Queen Bee of Iraq War Support is in line for the Presidency? You’d think they’d go nuts. Instead they support him. Its not even brought up directly. Opposition to Iraq has all been a fraud that was easily jettisoned.
and/or
2) McCain is a such a liberal boner, they can overlook his support for Iraq. This wasn’t the case for Lieberman who they literally kicked out of the Democrat Party. Iraq was all important then.
Liberal’s support for McCain has betrayed their opposition to the Iraq War as a political tool and they otherwise couldn’t give a crap.
I’d say jpm100 sets up the tension perfectly. For all the caterwauling about the Iraq war, it really doesn’t make any sense that the left would even grudgingly show respect for the Republican candidate with the strongest position on the war. Joe Lieberman has received no such respect, and Hillary Clinton is persistently dogged by those who want her to repent openly and with as much self deprecation as possible about her vote for the war. So why would the left give John McCain a pass?
Frankly, I don’t think that jpm100’s suggestions are mutually exclusive so I’ll opt for the “and” in his (her?) statement. The Iraq War is/was a convenient club to bash Bush, and McCain’s affinity for Democrat programs prompts the left to leave him pretty well alone. Added to that, McCain’s penchant for bucking his own party probably softens the left’s stance toward him. However, I thik there is more to the story than that.
I am certain that there are many on the left who simply oppose war for any reason. These would be the folks who were not only against the war in Iraq, but also the war in Afghanistan, the war in the Balkans, and the first Gulf War. A significant portion of this contingent is likely made up of Code Pink types who oppose any and all actions of the United States, which they see as a crony-capitalist state enforcing the will of big corporations at the expense of the working classes. For them, war at the hands of a capitalist regime is the epitome of the rich oppressing the poor, and really no different than medieval Kings sending peasants off to die for them in their never ending quest for more riches.
But there is another segment of the left that, while more sane in matters political and historical, are absolutely resigned to the idea anything coming from the right is surely motivated by bad intentions (their counterparts on the right are just as certain that Bill and Hillary are evil incarnate, and that they had Vince Foster killed). These are the leftists who always vote Democrat and who only seem to oppose wars when its a Republican prosecuting it. For them, the motivations behind going to war are much more important than the war itself. Since they can’t trust Republicans to have the “correct” intentions, they immediately suspect and dismiss any stated reasons for war, and assume some nefarious and/or selfish reasons instead. Out-of-context statements and extemporaneous missteps by Republicans are seized upon in gotcha frenzies as evidence of the malintentions they all knew were present, yet hidden.
So, maybe the reason that McCain gets such a pass is because, despite his steadfast support for the war, his intentions are not as immediately suspect. Perhaps because of his willingness to buck the party line, and his support for issues important to Democrats, his status as the “Queen Bee of Senate Support for Iraq” can not only be forgiven, but overlooked entirely. Accordingly, because he is trusted by Democrats, the usual tropes that make up anti-war cant are not very useful against him. Similarly, since his belief in using government to organize and regulate people’s lives meshes nicely with Democrat views, he is treated as de facto Democrat.
And therein lies the problem for him among small-government conservatives and libertarians. If that part of the statist left who actually wields power is comfortable with him, then it will be left up to the Republicans in Congress to oppose him. Judging from how they dealt with Bush on matters of government spending and expansion, it’s hard to see how there will be any effective opposition at all. In short, with McCain occupying the White House, there won’t be any adults in charge and you can kiss any attempts to restrain the federal government good-bye.
Sphere: Related Content
Since McCain is the left of the Republican base, I can see where Billy Hollis. I will go out on a limb here and say that I don’t give a damn about campaign finance reform this election: the War in Iraq and the War against Islamism is everything. So if Hollis goes on to say he would never vote for McCain, even if he got the nomination and was pitted against Hillary or Obama, I will have to dismiss him outright as someone not really that concerned with the conflict we are in.
If McCain gets the nod, Republicans should hold their noses and vote for him. I am truly disturbed to go to countless conservative sites and hear people say they would never give a vote to McCain; that it is better to have Hillary or Obama in office than give him the Presidency. It baffles me to hear from these types of idiots, but there they are in droves.
The fight against Islamism is real, and if they think it would be perfectly acceptable to hand that fight over to Obama or Hilary, then they never really believed it was worth fighting for to begin with.
If Republicans want to wait around for Reagan to walk from the grave and “save the part,” then they can sit out the election and “punish” the American people in the name of their superior intellect.
That first sentence came out poorly. What I meant was that McCain represents a left of the Republican vote, and I can see why Hollis would have a problem with him, especially on Finance reform.
Good point Roland. Though there is the feeling (that i’ve heard from glenn reynolds) that the left and media won’t truly get behind this war unless a democrat is running it. I don’t know for sure if that’s true, but I do know I trust McCain very much on the war.
Chris: I think you are right about the country needing a Democrat to now take on the War on Terror to make it legitimate. What I fear is an Obama or Hilary presidency that opts to not fight it at all, and that’s a risk I won’t take.
If Obama or Hilary does get elected however, I do not think it is the end of the world. I hope that the awesome power of the presidency and the situation we face will force them to confront it.
Roland:
Thanks for your comments. I’ve been meaning to tackle them for awhile, but demands on my time have prevented me from giving them the attention they deserve.
You raise the one (and only) reason to take McCain’s candidacy seriously. There isn’t a doubt in anyone’s mind that he would prosecute the war and take on Islamofascists with alacrity. But, alas, that really is the only person-specific reason to support him. So the question is, will a McCain presidency be so much different, with respect to the GWOT, from a Hillary or Obama stint, that voting for him is the only viable choice. I say no, and here’s why:
(1) Hillary: despite all the rhetoric, she will not abandon Iraq. She’s entirely too smart and savvy to do so, which is exactly why she hedges so much whenever she discusses what she’ll do as CiC. Even the netroots know she won’t pull out of Iraq immediately, nor entirely. That’s one of their biggest beefs with her (plus the fact that she voted for the AUMF). With Hillary in place, the GWOT will get the attention it needs (if not what it deserves) and once she owns it … well, I pity the ones who will be on the wrong of her wrath. It won’t be pretty.
The added bonus with Hillary — the one you won’t get with McCain — is that she will motivate the small-government conservatives within the Republican Party (e.g. the Liberty Caucus). Just her presence in the White House will be enough to clog her socialist works. And, hopefully, maybe it will be enough to push the ball the other way … towards more freedom.
(2) Obama: He’s definitely more of danger with respect to the GWOT. But, as you suggest, once he takes the reins of power he may be less inclined to pursue obviously detrimental courses of action such as precipitously withdrawing from Iraq. He too as hedged somewhat in speaking about how he’ll deal with Iraq. Because he is obviously such an intelligent person (no guaranty, mind you), I have to at least consider the possibility that he’ll approach the GWOT (and Iraq) with the seriousness it demands.
From a domestic perspective, Obama presents a greater problem. He’s an energizing individual, and he’s motivating. An Obama presidency probably means we get that much closer to the Great Society envisioned (and partially implemented) by Johnson, including federally sponsored atrocities like universal health care. But again, as with Hillary, I think that Obama presents a chance for small-government Republicans to flex their muscle. It will be more of an uphill climb against a charismatic and inspiring leader like Obama, but the chance is there just the same.
So, in the end, where McCain vs. any Democrat will be the clear choice for those who are primarily interested in the GWOT, I would suggest that he is not substantively different enough to immediately reject a Hillary presidency, although it would likely be a push compared to Obama. However, from a domestic standpoint, having a Democrat in the White House energizes those small-government types that we need most right now (IMHO). Accordingly, McCain isn’t different enough on the GWOT, and is barely discernible from Democrats on matters domestic, all of which, in addition to what I wrote in the post above, leads me to conclude that a choice other than McCain is the best option.
Just to be clear, Roland, I think you have identified the best reason of all to vote for McCain (or even Romney), but when weighed against all the other issues, I’m not sure that it’s enough to put him over the top.
Regardless of who eventually wins, I can promise you that I won’t be spewing hatred towards that President. I vividly recall the 90’s and the ridiculous bumper stickers that said “Don’t Blame Me. I Voted For Bush” or “He’s not my President.” I though those were appalling then, I think the same thing of the BDS hatred now, and I won’t be a part of it regardless of who wins the Presidency. I have enough respect for not only the institution itself, but for my fellow Americans, no matter how much I may disagree with them, to avoid the lame disassociation from our elected officials that goes on when the “wrong team” wins. If I’m an American (and I can assure that I am), then I have to take the bad with good. If Obama wins the election, he will be my President whether I like or not. That’s how representative democracy works. I can live with that.
Well said Michael.
I do think McCain’s GWOT is different than Clinton’s in a very important way: McCain will not surrender Iraq for political gain, and I think Clinton is much more likely to do what is politically expedient. This will send a message that we are not willing to stick it out for long, and that an insurgency needs only fight it out a few years before the American paper tiger will leave.
Perhaps she won’t, and she may very well end up pushing a hawkish Iraq policy like I hope she truly wants, but I will put my support behind the candidate that I know would sacrifice his popularity and electability to win there.
I am an ex-socialist internationalist, so I definitely don’t come at the election from a conservative perspective. It doesn’t worry me that McCain may not nominate conservative judges or roll back welfare. I honestly just don’t care enough about those issues to have them sway my vote, but I can see why those who take them seriously would have reservations about McCain.
Good point. And a real concern.
Really! I would never have guessed judging from your website: butiamaliberal.blogspot.com
So you’re a big fan of Christopher Hitchens then?
I do like Hitchens, but I disagree with the man concerning Vietnam and religion in society. I think it does play a positive role in our modern world in a number of situations. His short book on the reasons for regime change in Iraq should be required reading for anyone interested in the reasoning behind the war.
I should say that I while I am no longer a socialist, I am still an internationalist. Not that that’s either here nor there,
I wish there were more Democrats like Lieberman in the field actually. He falls a bit closer to where I stand politically, even when I am at my most libertarian.