The Left, McCain And The War
MichaelW on Mar 18 2008 at 11:57 am | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Election 2008, Foreign affairs, MichaelW's Page, Notes on the war
The inestimable Oliver Kamm provides a glimpse at the value our British friends find in a potential John McCain presidency:
Two points about McCain stand out. He’s not a conservative and he’s been right all along about Iraq. These are the reasons I favoured him from the outset for the Republican nomination. Indeed McCain has been more right than anyone on Iraq. He’s stuck to that position despite his conviction, (expressed in Seattle just over a year ago) that, like Tony Blair, he might have sacrificed his political career for Iraq. In The Sunday Times today, Sarah Baxter reports a gracious remark of McCain that “I do miss Tony Blair”.
Oliver quotes this exchange as being particularly noteworthy (my emphasis):
[INTERVIEWER]: In all of the polls, the majority of the American people say it’s time to begin withdrawing the troops. The House is on record saying it’s time to begin withdrawing. The Senate now on the record. You say more troops are the answer. Why?
MCCAIN: Well, I think the surge is a new strategy. It’s not just more troops. It’s a new strategy. The second thing is, polls are interesting. If you ask the American people, “If we can show you a path to success, a way that you can have a government that’s functioning and the military situation under control,” of course they’ll support it. They’re frustrated, and understandably, by the lack of progress in Iraq. And that’s because of the terrible mismanagement of this war that went on for nearly four years.
In addition to opining that McCain should opt for Sen. Joe Lieberman as his running mate over Mike Huckabee, Oliver concludes:
When I had a rather less elevated exchange last week with Tony Benn, he kept on about the anti-war views of the British people. But the British electorate, like the American electorate, is not opposed to war: it’s opposed to defeat.
Even as I agree that both the Brits and Americans would be more supportive of the war if a clear path to “victory” were established, I have to wonder if the Brits’ would be as enamored of McCain if he was more of a true conservative. McCain’s more Continental views with respect to social issues and the government’s role in them, and his unwavering stance on the proper manner for prosecuting the war in Iraq, combine to present to the Brits a politician they apparently feel comfortable with. However, if McCain did hold more conservative positions on topics such as immigration, global warming, and stem cell research, would the Brits be as sanguine about his prescription for Iraq? Somehow I doubt it.
Indeed, the comments at Oliver’s place suggest as much:
I have to disagree with you, Oliver, when you say that McCain is “not a conservative.” He’s definitely a conservative, just not a bigot (usually the two are interchangeable in American politics); McCain is to the right on every issue you cite: immigration, environment, science (he recently promoted the teaching of creation alongside evolution in Arizona schools), and same-sex rights. He also leans to the right on taxation, direct corporate intervention in legislation, and the place of religion in public life. Moreover on each of these issues McCain has compromised or entirely sold out his “maverick” positions in order to attain the nomination, and it is unlikely that once in office he would be able to renege on the promises he has made to far-right groups during the campaign, and definitely not if he wanted to seek a second term. Certainly he is not a far-right figure, but considering that even the Democrats are closer to the British Conservative party than to Labor, that makes McCain rather further right than you suggest. McCain may well be correct (or more correct) than Clinton or Obama on Iraq, but he would be a disaster for America’s domestic politics, which might well be more important in the long term for the fight against terrorism and al-Qaeda.
In other words, McCain’s domestic policy positions are much more important than his stance on Iraq. Brits who find him less than stellar in that regard, aren’t going to be very persuaded that (a) the war in Iraq is susceptible to any positive outcome, or (b) that John McCain has the proper policy for it, or (c) that his Iraq war policy is at all beneficial. And I think that holds true on this side of the pond as well. Many on the American left would agree, I think, that however left of the GOP base McCain may be, he’s still the wrong choice on domestic issues. There is almost no position he can take on such issues that will change their mind on the war.
To be sure, Roland Dodds (also found in the comments) argued back in January that the left should support McCain precisely because he stuck to his guns on the “surge”:
I have made it clear on this blog and in conversations with friends and family that my vote will go to the candidate that supports the fight for democracy in Iraq, and will not abandon the Kurds to be slaughtered yet again. I can forgive some of McCain’s decisions throughout his career and the way he has pandered to religious conservatives in recent months, and I can effortlessly when I consider what democracy promotion will look like if someone like Obama or Edwards is elected.
The War on Terror and the fight for liberal democracy may be nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan to some on the left, but it means something to me. If we surrender freedom to the forces of theocracy and totalitarianism overseas, we do not deserve to call ourselves democrats at home. If our concept of democracy ends at our borders, like Ron Paul supporters would have us believe, then we have sacrificed our comrades overseas for juvenile self assuredness and sciolism.
Both Oliver and Roland make a case for the left to get behind McCain’s campaign based his plan for victory in Iraq, which they see as the correct one. However, the presumption that victory is important to the left is misplaced. Achieving a stable democratic regime in the heart of the Middle East is never going to be acceptable to a good deal of the left who, even if they begrudgingly granted that such an accomplishment would count as a “victory”, tend to consider it to be little more than encouragement for future foreign excursions. Even more troubling for them is the fact that America will have avoided its much deserved comeuppance for its domineering ways. A victory in Iraq translates in to ever more unchecked American imperialism, which the left simply cannot abide.
In my humble opinion, until voices akin to those of Roland and Oliver (and Hitchens) find more purchase amongst the left, anybody and anything that trips up America will be applauded, and any person who speaks up against America will be feted as a hero. John McCain, therefore, may stand out to some on the left as one who can fulfill the role of spreading democracy (and through democracy, peace), and thus as someone whom they can get behind. But I would not expect the left as a whole (or even a large part) to embrace the Senator for these views, regardless of how liberal he may be on social issues. At least not until a majority of them can also embrace American virtues such as free enterprise, self-determination and individualism, which virtues are antithetical to governance for the “common good.” For so long as the needs of government are placed above the needs of the governed, victory for America in foreign lands will be viewed through the prism of the “common good.”
Sphere: Related Content
McCain was “right all along” on Iraq? That’s tall praise… and not too consistent with his public stances:
Unless “right all along” means “we must stay regardless of what happens,” then yeah — he’s been right all along.
I think the “right all along” is in reference to his boots on the ground policy. Regardless of what the anti-war crowd at Reason may want to think, McCain has consistently called for more troops in Iraq. As to whether that makes him “right all along” I’ll leave to others to decide. Clearly Oliver Kamm was persuaded.
It could be, except he has not - not until things began to get truly bad in 2005.
As for the rest… well, the Reason writers have their biases. Just as Kamm does. McCain has been many things, but consistently right about the war is not one of them. Supporting the surge was appropriate, even if it ends up not achieving what we wanted. But to focus on that to the exclusion of the previous four years of floundering is a bit short-sighted if it’s meant to be evidence of McCain’s genius vision (i.e. being right for the wrong reason).
Everyone makes mistakes and bad calls. It is how they respond in the aftermath that matters. Like General Odierno—first one of the main reasons things went south (despite McCain’s public speeches in 2004 that they were not), and now one of the men who best personifies learning and adapting COIN tactics to effectively reduce anti-American violence. McCain’s stances have struck me more as opportunism—to be seen as “totally for the war”—rather than some sort of long term strategic genius… just like every other politician in the Senate.
Also, I have to quibble with something you wrote:
For starters, even the Bush administration has abandoned the idea of a stable democratic regime in Iraq. Is that the only kind of victory we’re talking about? Anyway…
While I don’t doubt some on the left (or the Right, for that matter, if you take Pat Buchanan’s crowd seriously) harbor that kind of a view, it is also an extremist one. Most of the Left mirrored opinions similar to the New Republic—which initially supported the war, then grew appalled at how it was conducted and how so many of its justifications were proved hollow, and then grew into opposition.
Bush had a good 90% approval rating for the war in 2003. That has since dropped precipitously—not because the idea of victory is offensive, but because either a) some feel it is simply not achievable and we only make things worse by pushing for it; or b) it may be achievable but at a price too horrific to contemplate. Then there are the reams of people who have developed a deep mistrust in our ability to force western solutions on non-western cultures, and believe we didn’t have the right to be there in the first place so leaving is the only honorable thing to do.
I’m really just throwing out ideas: there are many reasons for the “left” (which includes many on the right who still don’t believe the war is going well) to oppose the war that do not involve America-hatred. Most of the left doesn’t hate America, just as most of the right doesn’t. It is only the crazies who think that.
And I’m kind of sick of people assuming that opposition to the war and a desire for withdrawal is tantamount to either rejecting victory, or wishing America be destroyed, or any other nonsense. It is simply not true.
Josh, I think you are really focusing on the capillary here. Whether McCain was “right all along” or whatever is neither central to the argument nor an indication of his genius. Kamm (and Dodds) seem to be more swayed by his commitment to seeing the job finished, and finished correctly. As I read them, McCain’s persistent promotion of and support for the surge, despite the constant wash of bad news and in the face of many naysayers, is exactly the sort of commitment they want to see when it comes to freeing oppressed people, and helping them achieve some minimal level of quality in their lives. And regardless of McCain’s consistency, the other choices pale in comparison, in their view.
Fair enough, but a luke-warm “he’s not bad” endorsement is not exactly the sort that persuades others, is it? Keeping in mind what Kamm and Dodds are attempting to do (i.e. get the political left to support McCain), is it really any surprise that they concentrate more on what should appeal to their audience rather than pick nits?
And the honeymoon is over
Really? I missed that news conference.
I don’t think so. And calling it an extremist view doesn’t speak to the number/percentage of people who hold the view. At best it may describe the number of people willing to admit it out loud. As you know, NOVA is populated with a pretty large percentage of the poltical left, and I have not ever heard a single one of them mouth even mild support for the war in Iraq. They lined up against in 2002 (”Why the rush to war!”), and haven’t stopped moaning since.
Uh, no. The highest he ever reached in 2003 was around 70% in April when he declared an end to major combat operations. When the war began his ratings were in the mid-50’s, which is where he finished the year, despite a slight up-tick when Saddam was captured.
I didn’t say that the idea of victory itself is anathema. It’s the idea of victory in a war prosecuted by a conservative that is anathema, because it is in essence a victory for capitalism. That’s the victory that a large segment of the left simply cannot abide. Kamm and Dodds (and others of the “Euston Manifesto” left) may not agree with me on the virtues of capitalism, a free market, and individualism, but they have decided that oppressive, autocratic, totalitarian governments are much greater danger to the poorest in the world than money-grubbing corporations (and their running-dog lackey supporters). I don’t hesitate in saying that much of the left has yet to come around to that position.
There are many thoughtful, well-stated and articulate reasons for opposition to war. I’ve never begrudged that to anyone. But stated reasons and true reasons are not always one and the same. The vast majority of people have not thought as particularly deeply about the war as you and I have. They stake out a position based on rational ignorance. The problem is that for those on the left, much of their thinking is done for them by out-and-out anti-capitalists who would rather see the whole world plunged into turmoil than for capitalism to become more acceptable to the masses.
If you don’t believe me, consider this: what’s would really happen to the middle east if we were able to kick our oil habit tomorrow? Regime collapse? Civil wars? Death, destruction and general mayhem? Is there any doubt that America would be blamed for the economic shambles that would become of the oil-rich baronies? Yet, no one on the left decries these outcomes when fervently pushing for greener, oil-free lives. Why is that?
I’m kind of sick of having to explain that I’m not talking about all anti-war positions. The only assuming here is on your part.
[...] McCain, whose foreign policy genius is his only real selling point this election (given his self-stated discomfort with domestic [...]
“[A]nybody and anything that trips up America will be applauded, and any person who speaks up against America will be feted as a hero.”
This is the “anti-imperialist” perspective today. Just as in the past when Soviet imperialism was excused, ignored, or supported by leftists as a “bulwark against capitalism.”
Marko Attila Hoare, another great Euston left blogger has a piece up about McCain that is definitely worth a look.
I should rephrase my last comment: Marko’s positions are of the “Euston-left” variety, but I don’t know his relationship with the group, if any.