Maynard Waxes Disagreeable
Whether you agree or disagree with me here (and I do not insist upon agreement), I think a few contrarian words need to be said. I’ll be brief…
Tammy has listed John McCain’s faults, and I’ll agree with most of her gripes. But I’m seeing something of a knee-jerk reaction from the Tea Partiers; a tendency to excessively pile onto McCain. This is unwise. I think we’re in danger of losing sight of the big picture.
The two greatest perils the nation faces (aside from general political dysfunction) are a sputtering economy and a treacherous international situation. In addressing both of these issues, John McCain has a long history of being on the right side, and of advocating positions that were validated by subsequent events. That’s the true test of the man you trust to make decisions.
With respect to fiscal policy: Unlike the majority of the political class, McCain has always been vocal about the perils of government waste and mismanagement. He was one of the voices sounding a clear warning before the mortgage collapse. And McCain has criticized unsustainable spending and inappropriate controls regardless of whether they were advocated by the Republicans or Democrats.
On global strategy, McCain likewise has a long history of being on the right side of strategic thinking. For example, you’ll recall he went out on a limb in active support of the troop surge in Iraq, at a time when others were proclaiming the move a failure or being lukewarm in their acquiescence.
That’s why, in spite of my gripes, I regard McCain as a friend rather than a foe. People like John McCain will keep the government relatively small and the world relatively safe. In an era of political dysfunction and Federal lunacy, that’s an agreeable deal.
The foregoing issues of national interest is half of the equation. The other half is how the Tea Party movement’s treatment of McCain will impact on its own survival.
Reform movements are often short-lived. Ross Perot had an interesting run with his candidacy and the new “Reform Party”. Perot brought some positive focus to the debate, with his plain-speaking economic comments that may have helped pull the mainstream candidates somewhat closer to the real world. But ultimately the Reform Party didn’t have the political savvy to match its heart. It squabbled and split and became irrelevant. This is a cautionary example.
I put this warning to you: If the Tea Party cannot work with people like John McCain, then it will follow the Reform Party into oblivion. It’s not a question of loving McCain or endorsing his every decision; instead ask whether he’s a man you can share enough common ground with to work with.
I think Sarah Palin understands this, which is why she endorses McCain and has not bolted from the Republicans. Palin knows the wise course is to work with McCain and encourage him to work with her, rather than to fission the movement and fight among ourselves.
Did I hear you lament my advocacy of “compromise”? I’m often hearing “compromise” used as a dirty word, and indeed I sometimes regard it that way. But the fact is, it’s a compromised world. I don’t like it, but I accept the minority status of my own thinking. There’s no way I’m going to get my political wish list implemented. Under the circumstances, I’d be foolish to hold out for the “best” solution, because it isn’t going to happen. At times, “best” is the enemy of “better”.
During World War II, America allied itself with Stalin, who was arguably no less evil than Hitler. It was an ugly situation, but to do otherwise would have allowed the Nazis to consolidate control over Europe and Asia. We saved the world with our unholy alliance, and thus lived to dispute another day.
There is more hope for America with John McCain remaining in the Senate and on good terms with Sarah Palin than if he is ejected. Sure, you should have your disputes with McCain, and encourage him to adjust his positions. But if we’re working with the McCains of the world, we’re in a vastly better position to achieve results. It would be a grave mistake to regard John McCain as an enemy.
Well put Maynard. I feel that Sarah Palin is more likely right than wrong, based on HER track record. I think she is seeking to bring him back toward the light a bit as well, and in doing so is displaying the qualities of tolerance, gratitude, and loyalty.
She knows him on a personal level better than any of us likely ever will. It seems to me that he has shown the capacity to correct his course as well. No one is totally right all the time.
You can’t defend the indefensable. Note! Amnesty, McCain/Kennedy, McCain/Feingold to name a couple of the indefensables. I am affraid liberal McCain never met a radical Democrat he didn’t like.
Maynard, you are right on all counts. And I’ll add another reason to like him–he picked Palin. 🙂
I will fully support John McCain –in the general election if he makes it that far. Until then, I’ll trust my eyes and ears regarding the interpretation of his votes and policy stances over the years. I understand that he is usually great on fiscal issues, and foreign policy, but he has shown major lapses there (bailouts, interrogations, and Guantanamo). I know Sarah Palin supports him, but I think we can make this decision for ourselves. If we support McCain in a primary just because of Palin’s support, then we have put our full decision making capacity in the hands of one person who is not ourselves. That sounds like something that the Obamorons would do.
It was one of those old greeks, I forget which one, Plato, Aristotle or Socrates, who said something about the best type of person to be a leader. A young person (though he said man) isn’t good because lack of experience will cause rash decisions which don’t see the long term view that experience gives. A old person isn’t a good choice because experience and long life will show him (or her) that nothing works for long. The ideal is someone old enough to have experience , but young enough to believe that there are solutions.
I get a sense with McCain that he doesn’t really think anything matters. He has seen too much, been through too much, and yes, served our country with honor and distinction, but I can’t shake the feeling that he knows peace is always only temporary, and even if we achieve the very best of our goals, in the long run it won’t change anything. Better to get along and push the hard choices down the road. I wish he could just retire with honor and mentor those who are waiting in the wings to learn from him how people of character should behave. He has much to give, but I do not think his role is remaining, for a lifetime, in the Senate.
I see what you’re getting at here, but it’s like what children eventually learn, too, “Why clean up my room? It’s just going to get cluttered again.” The answer is, keeping things maintained in a healthy, orderly way takes effort. Yes there’s always some chaos that messes things up again, but if nobody cares to “clean things up” then the mess just gets worse and worse, rather than maintaining an “as good as it gets” level of disorder.
john mccain’s abysmal campaign for president and inability to man up and go at urkel as the little socialist wingnut fascist deserved is the main reason we are in this perilous perilous situation- on the brink of losing our constitution, bill of rights and the stability our country brings not only us but the entire world. the guy has a lot to answer for. he deserves a lot of blame as does the republican party, the much larger entity that allowed for rinos like mccain and sat around in control of congress doing nothing much but advancing feel good liberal folly, being the one’s who compromised incessantly while getting naught in return.
barry was the bouncing baby boy from the union of the democrats and republicans to subvert the constitution and the rule of law to enrich and empower their own sweet selves.
maybe no one could have beat urkel but that’s no excuse for not giving it your all when the country was in the balance. mccain opining that we had nothing to fear from an obama presidency…. comes to mind. yeah nothing to fear but the collapse of the country, the destruction of our democracy and a big mushroom cloud over israel. nothing to fear. if you don’t love the country enough to want to fight against that you do not deserve to be president or congressman.
so mccain’s a tool and the poster boy of what we need to rid our government of for sure but he was a product of the GOP and our broken political hack system. in a way we’re all to blame for letting these boys and girls slide for so long, for not appreciating our duty as citizens to be vigilant and informed. we enabled the john mccains- so a lot of the flack heaped on juan is probably a tad tainted with projection. that said we have to work with what we have to defeat the beast . hayworth or mccain- i think either is preferable over a democrat. the people of arizona will decide.
i can’t fault sarah palin for her support of mccain though- if someone can’t show loyalty to their political allies and friends how can they show loyalty to the people they are elected to represent? her loyalty however did not come at the price of sacrificing her values- just contrasting her speech in support of him verses her speech for bachmann bears this out.
mccain seems to know he did something unspeakable to the pooch and has been changing his tune on many issues. at least the guy even to save his hide gets it.
Look, I do not believe that 100% conservatism is necessary to support someone (which is why I would support Palin over 99% of people for President). However, I do think that a person’s main responsibility when endorsing someone is not to care about their political allies, but rather care about their families and personal values. Politicians should in all cases-but sadly rarely do-choose the person in the race whose beliefs most match up with their own (after all, the country is at stake).
I like McCain as well as Joseph Lieberman, generally, though I would disagree vehemently on some things they support. Both have supported the idea of a carbon tax, for example, to “prevent global warming”. Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at MIT, in a presentation he gave last fall on the science of GW happened to mention an article in the Claremont Review of Books from last spring about the conflicts between “traditionalists” and “reformers” in the Republican Party, called “The Wilderness Years Begin”:
“Reformers, by contrast, believing that ‘American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government,’ recommend ‘new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety.’ They ‘tend to take global warming seriously,’ according to Brooks, not only on the merits, but in the belief that conservatives ‘cannot continue to insult the sensibilities of the educated class and the entire East and West Coasts.'”
He went on to show that the IPCC’s basis for its GW theory was flawed, using scientific reasoning and evidence, and then asked the question, “So where do we go from here? It is hard to tell, given that to note this constitutes an ‘insult to the sensibilities of the educated class and the entire East and West Coasts.'”
My sense is McCain has more of an affinity for the elite, even though he has at times advocated policies that he thinks would benefit the middle class. It’s probably more patronizing than helpful. I think he appreciates the arguments that intellectuals make, which is not bad in itself, but he tends to take their arguments at face value, rather than having something to offer in return. Secondly, he has his principles, but he tends to take a symptomatic view of the world. For example, when he learned that there were many people defaulting on their mortgages, he decided to offer a policy that would help them stay in their homes, rather than recognizing that the trend of defaults indicated that the housing market was overvalued, that the economy was overleveraged, and that people needed to learn a lesson from this, and rent for the time being. Contrary to conventional wisdom, if he had advocated that instead, and resisted the bank bailouts, he might’ve been elected president. By saying that I’m going against what was my own judgment at the time. I was for the bank bailouts, for the sake of the economy. Lately I’ve been taking a second look at the wisdom of that idea.
By and large I think the reformers are wrong about where the Republican Party needs to go. I would probably disagree with the traditionalists as well, given that I imagine they would make outlawing abortion and gay marriage their main agenda items, and of course cutting taxes. I lean more towards the pro-life side, and I think conservatives make good constitutional arguments about that. What I don’t like seeing is the focus just being on current issues, and “giving people stuff”. I’m more in agreement with Glenn Beck’s view that it’s important for the Republicans to carry out a long-range strategy to pull the country back in the direction of the Constitution. One thing that would be a refreshing change would be to renew arguments about government’s role in society, talking about a new vision for people’s relationship to government–one that is limited, that promotes freedom, and productive financial wealth (as opposed to wealth that’s obtained from promoting illusions). In the meantime it’s important to keep in mind that politicians who aren’t pragmatic about the electorate don’t get elected.
Glenn has pointed to a good long-term solution, that conservatives need to put more effort into changing the culture of dependence. What happened with the education board in Texas, changing the textbooks that get used, was a positive first step.
I don’t know what’s going on with the Tea Partiers as I’m not involved with them, just watching from the outside, but I don’t think they’re in danger yet of going through what the Reform Party went through. The Reform Party was a national third political party that had to adhere to party rules set by statute. We had no idea about the monster we had created. Having formed a national party, it sought definition where there was fractious division. I was part of the RP for a few years, so I saw this from the inside. The basic problem with it and UWSA (United We Stand America), which came before it, is that while we came together around some common issues, there were also significant differences that divided us. Perot was fairly good at sidestepping the divisions (we formed the coalition because of him, so that stands to reason), but even he stumbled into some of them. I think the main conflict we ran into was that the membership had the idea that WE created UWSA and the RP. Perot even used to point that out, but at the same time, he or someone else was attempting to define us. Members wanted to have more of a say, not just follow someone else’s agenda.
What I think is good about the Tea Party movement is it lacks definition. This allows one Tea Party group in one area to pursue different issues from everyone else, and to not feel constrained by some group’s definition of what “being a Tea Partier” is, and determining “who’s in” and “who’s out”.
Regarding McCain, I think Thomas Sowell laid it out well in an interview from 2008 when he talked about changing his mind to vote for him for president. When he thought the matchup was going to be between McCain and Hillary Clinton he said something like, “Given the choice, I wouldn’t know whether to move to France or vote Libertarian.” He changed his mind when Obama got the nomination, but still he said that McCain’s candidacy represented a “decline” (that was his word) in the Republican Party. Even so, he said he’d “rather vote for a disaster than a catastrophe.” The “catastrophe” was/is Obama.
As a senator I think McCain is not a bad choice, though I don’t live in Arizona, so I wouldn’t know how well he represents the state. I’m just going on his principles. For example, I give him kudos for resisting pork projects, even for his own state. In that position he has limited power to do damage. The presidency would’ve been a different matter.
Rather, it was McCain who did not want to work with us, shall we reward him? No.
The comparison of the Tea Party situation to Perot’s Reform Party are like comparing apples to linguini. The bottom line is that Ms. Palin has decided by her actions to profiteer where she can and go with the status quo; she has shown no leadership with respect to the the RNC-Steele problems, the debacle of NY-23, or the Republican Party as a whole (to bring it back to accountability from within). ‘Leading’ is not the same as ‘endorsing’-you and I can ‘endorse’ someone, but we cannot-unlike Ms. Palin- have the access to ‘lead’ the Republican Party as she could have. I will not give cover to her bad judgement for endorsing,verbatim, McCain’s vision of America, which vision I find to be anathema to conservatism.
The bottom line is that Ms. Palin has decided by her actions to profiteer where she can and go with the status quo; she has shown no leadership with respect to the the RNC-Steele problems, the debacle of NY-23, or the Republican Party as a whole (to bring it back to accountability from within).
Don’t worry about the block quote stuff, bachmann2012…It happens…have a good weekend.
I have to disagree with Maynard on principle. John McCain does not deserve our support, PERIOD. McCain is symtomatic of the problems we are facing and with Republicans in general. The McCain you are referencing does not exist. He is unprincipled, he does not hold any standards. He is not for limited government, he is for the continued expansion of government. He is inconsistent on our security, he will compromise on that when it comes to enforcing our immigration laws. Isn’t it odd that he is one where to be found on this issue with Lindsay Graham? For the record, I support open LEGAL immigration. I believe people who want to live in our society should make the effort to stand on THEIR OWN FEET!!! It takes a lot of courage to start over in a new environment. I personally know individuals who have fled Communism, Islamic theocracies, and half baked fascist governments in Africa. They are very successful in this country. In fact, I think they understand America more than most native born Americans.
But when McCain wants to circumvet our own laws in the name of expanding the welfare state, I part company. He does not deserve re-election. Our expectations need to be higher when comes politicians. This is why we are in this mess!! I agree with Bachman2012, I can’t reconcile Palin stumping for McCain. If it’s an issue of Quid Pro Quo, okay. But her speech in Arizona was nauseating!!! It was not true!! Are we going to keep this status quo? The Democrats are counting on this. They know the Republicans are compromisers!!! And they are counting on them to roll over.
I agree vehemently with your post, with a couple of adjustments:
1. I think that if John McCain gets to the general, I’ll support him if he’s the most conservative option (Now THAT’S a scary thought, haha). Overall though, my m.o. is if the R in the race is a solid conservative (unlike McCain), I’ll usually vote for them over a slightly more conservative Independent because the R is usually more likely to win.
2. I actually would consider it worse if Palin’s McCain support were Quid Pro Quo. For me, I want to know what a politician actually believes (so that I can know the true lay of the land when I vote), instead of being tricked by political and endorsement dealmaking.
McCain was infected with the Washington virus that attacks a politician’s already overgrown ego. They believe they are indispensable.
I saw McCain on some late night show not long after he lost the ’08 election. He was asked how he felt about it. His answer was completely self-centered. He was proud of the campaign he ran, he enjoyed it, he was good natured about the loss and wished Obama well. Probably standard rhetoric but there was something very genuine about the way McCain said it. It angered me because he evidently did not consider that he was the only real alternative to a severe leftwing shift in Washington and that millions of people’s lives were to be drastically affected by the election outcome. It was like a sport or something to him. He didn’t win first prize but it was a good game in his mind. How he even got the nomination is still something that makes my head spin.
We got where we are today because we’re stuck with either/or choices in general elections. We’re finally waking up to the fact that we have to get active before then. I don’t know as much about J.D. Hayworth as I should to unequivocally say dump McCain. If Hayworth has a real chance to win the general election, then I heartily support giving McCain the boot. I think he deserves it. He outright insulted the American people during the amnesty battle. He shouldn’t be allowed to get away with that.
Yes, the notion of a democratic government is reliant on compromise as is all of life. We compromise when we have to because we can’t get 100% of what we think is right. We don’t bend over backwards for the sake of compromising as a virtue in itself. I think McCain sees it differently. He takes great pride in, as he puts it, “reaching across the aisle”. I believe McCain sees that as some grandiose gesture befitting moral excellence. To be seen comprising is akin to the prideful strutting of a peacock. It is a conceit, not a concession. I do not want my political gladiators waking up every morning trying to think of ways to compromise. The stakes are too high now and besides, the Democrats do not reciprocate in kind. I don’t trust a man who thinks more of putting his name on legislation with a Democrat than responding to the sentiments of the people.
Defeating McCain in the primary is just what we need to let career politicians know a new day has dawned. Politics is not a personal sport for egotists. Not John McCain nor any one person is indispensable. Why should we keep a devil we know out of fear of some undefined risk? Elections are frequent. We should put them in and toss them out with great regularity.
Absolutely right on McCain and 2008. He seemed to think he was running against a Bill Clinton-like Democrat rather than the American version of Vladimir Lenin. Also, agreed that McCain’s win in the R primary was 100 times more surprising to me than Barky’s over Hillary. Then again, Ds could vote in R primaries. That needs to be stopped.
Re: Hayworth versus McCain, I support Hayworth because he is more conservative than McCain (on immigration, national security, bailouts, and tax cuts) and I believe that he could win the general election. However, I ask everyone not to get caught up in thinking that Hayworth is a sure fire conservative because he basically was a Bush puppet regarding spending in the early 2000s. He also loved earmarks.
pat, great points, as usual.
being a sports kind of guys, i reach to their illustrations.
great athletes (and great people, i think) are passionate and skillful. they are the first in the gym and the last to leave. they not only are passionate to be the best but they also hate losing. mccain is all too satisfied with getting an invite to the tournament and not winning it. or making a great play by himself while his team loses the game. or saving his job instead of saving his country (with all due thanks for his military service).
what i see in the tea party movement, with the TAMs and IIRC, with palin’s announcement as VP select is “a full passion bucket” (its a UCLA football reference). the repubs were coming back in the polls after sarah was announced. it took mccain to suspend his campaign and halt and eventually kill his new found momentum. he was trying to be too skillful and lost his passion.
what urkel has done is ignite the passion of americans. the libs and statists are not the smartest people in the room. hanging around the TAMs has been an education for me and i am thankful for the insights of you guys. my biggest take-away is this. i think it was buckley who said he’d trust the first 2000 people out of the boston phone book than a bunch of harvard faculty members to lead this country. there is a lot of wisdom out there. there is no need for career politicians. there is a case for term limits. like larry elder used to say, we got a country to save.
rick
I agree with AyeBoots – McCain’s support of amnesty will damage our economy even more than it has already done, & remember McCain/Feingold? An unconstitutional law which empowered entities such as George Soros, the SEIU, & move on.org (to name a few) to influence our elections. I agree that the man was a great war hero, but it is clear he has been in Washington too long & has a case of Stockholm Syndrome.