McCain’s Supposed Former Civility
Posted on August 1st, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
Joe Conason and David Ignatius are just two of the many observers expressing disbelief at McCain’s alleged transformation from fabled truth-telling man of honor to the candidate he is today, all of which is premised on the bizarre assumption that McCain was once a civil, respectful politician in the past and is now throwing that away in pursuit of power. The most remarkable line comes from Ignatius’ column:
What’s damaging the McCain campaign now, I suspect, is that this fiercely independent man is trying to please other people — especially a Republican leadership that doesn’t really trust him.
Of course, the “fiercely independent” McCain spent the bulk of 1999 and the early months of 2000 (and many years after that) trying to please other people. The difference then was that Ignatius and other members of the Washington press corps were the ones he was trying to please and unironically, accurately referred to members of the media as his base. During the 2000 campaign, he referred to the GOP establishment as the “evil empire,” which seemed perfectly fair and satisfactory to his boosters in the press because they thought this was simply a description of reality and not a slur. Pretty much every “maverick” episode in McCain’s career has involved staking out a position in opposition to his party in the interests of attracting good press and cultivating a reputation as one of the “good” Republicans–the “noble, tolerant” McCain that Conason refers to in his piece–and he has done this by adopting a haughty, self-righteous tone as a champion of reform fighting against the forces of corruption (campaign finance) and bigotry (immigration “reform”) within his own party. By endorsing the worst prejudices about his party held by his party’s political opponents (while enabling some of their genuinely worst attributes in his warmongering), he became renowned for his integrity, just as Republicans have been lauding Joe Lieberman for his character and courage for denouncing liberals, his own party and that party’s nominee in terms that perfectly fit GOP talking points.
Implicit in this self-construction has been the claim that he is one of the reasonable few keeping the irrational masses on the right at bay, and he has built up enough credit with journalists over the years that he can align himself with the worst of the administration’s policies on Iraq and immigration and still be thought of as different from Bush. Indeed, to the extent that his agreement with the administration on many major policies is acknowledged, it is usually framed as part of a story of how the “real” McCain lost his way in trying to satisfy his party, but these accounts often hold out the hope that the “real” McCain might still make a comeback before the end. People will talk about McCain’s poor relations with conservatives and the party leadership as if he had nothing to do with causing them, and as if he had never launched an unfair or disreputable attack on an opponent or another person in his life, when the creation of his “maverick” image has been founded on portraying members of his party and the conservative movement according to the worst stereotypes and exploiting his opposition to these strawman positions as proof of his political courage. That he now approves of taking the so-called “low road” against Obama is nothing new. Indeed, by comparison with the treatment of some of McCain’s other opponents in policy debates, Obama is still being treated pretty easily.
Cross-posted at The Daily Dish
Filed under: politics
24 Responses to “McCain’s Supposed Former Civility”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Beautifully written post, Mr. Larison
So true. The dark side of maverickiness is constantly belittling and selling out your own people.
[…] Daniel Larison has a pretty perceptive piece up that is worth visiting: […]
I don’t think there’s much there. The problem with McCain is that he shared (with the mainstream press) a paternalistic view of the Republican base. The Republican base would never have nominated someone like McCain except that the base isn’t as strong as it once was. And now, McCain sees Obama’s stance on the war (uncomfortably close to yours actually, Daniel) as being mindlessly vacuous that’s probably the genesis of the Britney ad.
Of course you don’t think there’s much there. If by “paternalistic,” you mean contemptuous, I suppose so. McCain has no problem lying about opponents’ positions and imputing the worst motives to his opponents–ask his Senate colleagues if you don’t believe it. His self-righteousness makes him believe that anyone who opposes a measure that he supports is more or less dishonorable, and he treats them accordingly. This is not some new discovery on my part.
If you think Obama’s stance on the war is much like mine, you have been listening to too many McCain ads. As I have been saying, Obama’s position on the war allows for an open-ended U.S. presence in Iraq and possibly no withdrawal at all. If his position on the war is vacuous, then so is McCain’s, which is today rather hard to distinguish from his opponent’s.
I guess in the first instance I more or less agree with you, I’d just say by “contemptuous” you mean paternalistic.
With immigration, the idea is that I am sort of the philosopher king here and xenophobia really is disreputable. Therefore, if you disagree with me, you are probably xenophobic and that’s bad. Obviously, I’m not very sympathetic to that point of view but I don’t think he picked it up for the sake of being simpatico with Joe Conason or David Ignatius.
As far as the war goes, you have been much more reactionary about troop withdrawal than Obama who has been just as vague about that as everything else for the last six months or so. But I think it’s fair to say that neither one of you have said anything about how we’re going to _win_ the war, or even thought much about troop withdrawal in context of the difference beteween winning and losing.
Well: “win the war” as defined how, exactly? Unless I have missed it, neither Bush, McCain, or any of the war supporters has ever defined (a) our enemy, (b) the theater, or (c) our metrics of victory. Once these threshold issues have been addressed — in other words, once we know what the hell we’re talking about — then it might be possible to discuss ways to achieve those goals.
As I understand it — and I don’t claim any deep understanding, just more more understanding than any politician seems to be saying in public — our enemies in Iraq are whichever warlords and gangsters we can’t pay off, along with some Iranian proxies but not several others, and also, a tiny fringe of foreign fighters who have received disproportionate attention.
The theater appears to be Iraq, but specifically Baghdad; on the other hand, the theater is also Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, and potentially Iran as well.
The metric of victory, however, is completely undefined, at least in public, because our goals are extremely unclear. We have to (a) build a sovereign state in Iraq, (b) which is democratically legitimate, (c) and is capable of governing (and providing basic security), (d) yet allows us permanent basing rights and (e) no-bid oil contracts, while (f) rejecting Iranian influence. These goals are transparently self-contradictory, and yet nowhere has it been discussed which goals trump others.
But talking about “winning,” when basic facts about the war are nebulous, open-ended, or self-contradictory, seems rather premature.
A victory in Iraq is where the violence abates and what’s left are the various tribes more or less living in a stable peace.
If that happens the nature of the regime is less important, though obviously not irrelevant. Anywhere on a continuum between an American puppet state and democratically legitimate sovereign government is probably good enough.
Let’s note that the importance of self-determination applies mostly at at the local level. The Iraqi Shia are very wary of Iran. Peace in Iraq will put the lie to the idea that they have to rely on Sadr or Iran or else they’ll be massacred by the Sunni militias or AQI.
By your standards hasn’t America already achieved victory in Iraq? If not, how much more does violence have to decrease before victory can be declared? Or how long do American troops have to remain until centuries-old conflicts are resolved?
What James_Nostack said.
Along with never defining victory, invasion and occupation supporters have strenuously avoided any discussion of the costs of war. Remember, back at the beginning, Gen. Shinseki and Lawrence Lindsey were drummed out of the government for failing to lie about how many troops and how much money, respectively, were necessary to achieve anything victory-esque in Iraq.
So, in lieu of any discussion of costs and benefits, occupation supporters make content-free, but somewhat emotionally powerful, arguments about “surrender” and “victory.”
That’s because they regard world affairs like an eight-year-old watches GI Joe.
(Or like Joe Lieberman watches war movies).
By your standards hasn’t America already achieved victory in Iraq? If not, how much more does violence have to decrease before victory can be declared? Or how long do American troops have to remain until centuries-old conflicts are resolved?
Well, we’ve achieved a lot. The question is, how stable is the current ebb of violence in Iraq? The answer to that question looks a lot different now than it did a year ago. IIRC, President Bush recently announced new troop withdrawals, but that’s mostly flown under radar. In any case, President Bush’s troop movements have always been taken with ultimate victory in mind. The various antiwar factions have never even bothered to consider it, AFAIK.
Well: wait a minute.
The various antiwar factions have never even bothered to consider [ultimate victory].
By your own admission, we will have achieved the “ultimate victory” — that is, the very best we could ever theoretically hope for — when there’s a sovereign state in Iraq capable of meeting its citizens’ security needs (and presumably their other needs most of the time.) As you state, it doesn’t matter whether the regime is an American puppet or democratic (i.e., intensely opposed to the United States’ occupation and other regional interests).
If ultimate victory is stability and security without regard to America’s wishes — then the very best we could hope for was already achieved on March 18, 2003, under Saddam Hussein. By yourif “ultimate victory” is a mirage, then different goals should take precedence. You’re taking “ultimate victory” on faith, destroying two nations in the process and killing hundreds of thousands of people. I kind of think the burden of proof should be on you, especially after 5+ years of this.
(3) You seem to imply that the anti-war folks somehow suffer a dearth of patriotism. The anti-war people simply suffer a lack of confidence in the wisdom of this enterprise, which blithe assertions about “ultimate victory” do nothing to allay.
First of all, let’s unpack your word games around “ultimate victory”. I was not intending to get into an argument of what the ideal Platonic archetype for success in Iraq looks like. In fact in my prior post I just said “winning”. Ie, our troop movements have to undertaken with the goal of winning in mind. Ie, now that it is becoming less and less likely that violence will return to status quo 2006, they can be drawn down. The “ultimate” part just means that the consideration of victory must always remain in the background, against the foreground of troop deployment where antiwar reactionaries want to get them out independent of any other considerations.
Second, the idea of victory in Iraq is not as nebulous as antiwar types would like us to believe. Like I wrote before,
1. “Violence abates and what’s left are the various tribes more or less living in a stable peace.”
2. The subsequent governing regime in Iraq is somewhere “on a continuum between an American puppet state and democratically legitimate sovereign government…”
Given #1, of course some outcomes wrt #2 are preferable to others and I can’t see why you are arguing that this or that is the best that we can hope for, let alone imputing such an argument to me.
Furthermore, even allowing for the ridiculous proposition that the maintenance of the regime of Saddam Hussein is the best that we could hope for, that ceased to be a plausible option sometime in March or April 2003, which is over five years ago
Really, I try hard to avoid the kneejerk dismissal of antiwar types as rank idiots but this doesn’t help.
More important, the bigger issue here is the failure of antiwar partisans to accept any idea of collective responsibility.
It is a fact and a part of reality that the United States overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein over five years ago. There are many people who opposed the war then or at some point since. But to the extent that they want to speak in the name of the United States they’re as responsible for the war as anybody else.
Ie, people want to talk about “George Bush’s war” as if we could bring the troops home for the sake of punishing President Bush while declaiming any responsibility for negative consequences to America that would ensue.
Finally, the “burden of proof” to demonstrate some sort of awareness of America’s interests is on anyone who wants to speak in America’s name. It’s important to note that there’s nothing inherent ly prowar or pro-Administration about this at all, but unfortunately so many antiwar types have failed to do it.
As far as taking victory “on faith”, I don’t think that’s plausible considering the state of the war right now.
Well, we’ve achieved a lot. The question is, how stable is the current ebb of violence in Iraq? The answer to that question looks a lot different now than it did a year ago. IIRC, President Bush recently announced new troop withdrawals, but that’s mostly flown under radar. In any case, President Bush’s troop movements have always been taken with ultimate victory in mind. The various antiwar factions have never even bothered to consider it, AFAIK.
The level of violence has decreased and you said we’ve achieved a lot, so then how much more must it decrease until you think victory can be declared? Can American troops leave if bombings still happen? How low do the monthly American and Iraqi body counts have to go? Or does the Iraqi body count even matter?
You bring up a very important question: How stable is the current ebb of violence in Iraq? According to Bush and McCain, the surge has been successful. If Bush has announced troop withdrawals and shortened the tour of duty to 12 months, and Bush’s troop movements have always been taken with ultimate victory in mind, then Bush must think the current ebb of violence is fairly stable, right? Otherwise Bush would keep troop levels the same in order to keep the peace, no?
Bush must think the current ebb of violence is fairly stable, right?
I think so. You never know for sure, of course, but people get used to living their lives 1. without fearing for their immediate personal safety, 2. without being able to exact violent revenge on their enemies.
The point being is that the US can draw down their troop levels without bringing them all the way to zero. When we bear in mind the question of what has to be done to make this deployment a success, the answers are clearer than simply trying to defend a difference of opinion from five years ago.
Koz, I appreciate your time.
I do not, however, appreciate the imputation that those opposed to the war are in some way less “responsible” than the war’s supporters, given that the tragedy of the last five years was foreseen by millions of people. I have rather a lot to say about this, but will refrain in the interest of civility. Plus, I don’t see how such an argument gets us anywhere, however, so perhaps we should agree to disagree.
Given your preference for an abatement of violence and a stable government, what is wrong with the following outcome:
1. A partitioning of northern Iraq to create Kurdistan or some similar entity
2. Installing Muqtada al-Sadr as the head of an officially Shia polity in Iraq, given his popular support, his ability to provide security to his people, and the ability of affiliated groups to provide social services. We could condition the receipt of financial aid and weapons on a ceasefire with Sunni guerrilla groups
3. With a federated Iraq, provide financial support to various Sunni groups conditioned on honoring a ceasefire with the Shia-led central government.
Given that much of our involvement in Iraq consists of supporting a puppet government hated by nationalists of all three groups, why can’t we simply pull down that tent pole and leave?
Any solution to this problem has to somehow deal with the fact that the Kurds want independence, the Shia want to run the country free from outside interference, and the Sunni want safety from reprisals. It’s easy enough to reconcile them in the short term, but they are pretty much at cross-purposes on any longer time frame. Can you find a different way to reconcile those interests?
If one accepts the statement that progress over the last 5 years has been less than all we could hope for, one explanation might be that reconciliation between those three sets of opposed interests is not very closely connected to adjustments in American troop levels.
I suspect the end-game in Iraq does not differ materially from the points outlined above. If so, it seems this could be achieved in a very quick time-frame, after which an American presence would become superfluous.
A victory in Iraq is where the violence abates and what’s left are the various tribes more or less living in a stable peace.
The level of violence in Iraq has obviously decreased, and you said we’ve achieved a lot.
Apparently you and Bush think a decent level of stability has been reached so that troop numbers can be decreased.
So by your own logic, you should declare victory.
If you cannot bring yourself to do this, then I want to know what it will take for you to think we have acieved victory in Iraq? Does Bush have to say it to make it so?
James,
There’s a few things that need to be kept straight here. First of all, the idea that Sadr has legitimacy among the Shia, whereas the official Iraqi gov’t is an American puppet state has at best a tenuous relationship with reality. In fact the WSJ just yesterday I think had a frontpager about Sadr and the fact that he’s folding his hand. Like what you usually see when you scratch a terror group, you get a bunch of gangsters. And in Sadr’s case, gangsters that serve no one’s purpose except Iran.
As far as the Kurds go, the Turks won’t allow Kurdistan as a sovereign nation.
I would prefer we make Kurdistan an autonomous province of Iraq. Put the Middle East version of Ramstein AFB there. Represent to the Turks that we’ll help end terrorism by the PKK. Defeat Iranian influence over the Shia part of Iraq, and as the violence continues to abate, draw down the American forces there.
I’m sure there’s problems with my idea too, but in any case the most important thing to bear in mind is that even though we might the most powerful actor in the theater, we are only one actor. And there are limits to what we can do.
I accept that the progress over the last five years has been less than what we hoped but I don’t think it has much to do with your factors since they have only recently materialized.
If you cannot bring yourself to do this, then I want to know what it will take for you to think we have achieved victory in Iraq?
I’d say we’re winning rather than we have won. Really the biggest hesitation I have isn’t the lack of imprimitur of President Bush, but the emotional anxiety of the whole subject.
Regardless of what we call it, I expect that we’ll draw down some more troops later this year, but not eliminate our presence there for a while, under either President McCain or President Obama.
I wish the Bush aministration had been as cautious as you are about letting emotional anxiety cloud their judgment in the build up to the war in Iraq.
It’s strange that you refuse to declare victory but are comfortable with troop withdrawals. Usually troops are removed from a battlefield after victory or defeat, and I assume you don’t think we lost the war in Iraq. Or have you changed your mind, now that word has leaked about the Bush administration’s likely acceptance of a timetable for withdrawal?