Comments on: Only McCain… http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/31/only-mccain/ n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:04:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: jetan http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/31/only-mccain/comment-page-1/#comment-16657 jetan Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:42:43 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/31/only-mccain/#comment-16657 Along the lines of Charlie's comment, a McCain presidency will face something very close to "super-majorities" in Congress. Therefore his constitutional power will be nearly zip. He will also have almost no moral authority whatsoever as 50% of the electorate will be quite pissed off. His budgets therefore die the death of a thousand cuts (or, more likely, a thousand earmarks) right from Day One, His requests for military funding....gosh, I don't think you even need to be filibuster-proof to kill those. Congress just fails to act. He can scold, of course. The point I am trying to make is that McCain will have a challenging time even appearing to be relevant, at least in the absence of an attack. As to the "only Nixon" rap, it seems to me that McCain, or any President, is going to have to get out of Iraq "purty ban soon". So I can certainly see McCain giving a Peace With Honor speech as he heads for the exit. Along the lines of Charlie’s comment, a McCain presidency will face something very close to “super-majorities” in Congress. Therefore his constitutional power will be nearly zip. He will also have almost no moral authority whatsoever as 50% of the electorate will be quite pissed off. His budgets therefore die the death of a thousand cuts (or, more likely, a thousand earmarks) right from Day One, His requests for military funding….gosh, I don’t think you even need to be filibuster-proof to kill those. Congress just fails to act. He can scold, of course. The point I am trying to make is that McCain will have a challenging time even appearing to be relevant, at least in the absence of an attack.

As to the “only Nixon” rap, it seems to me that McCain, or any President, is going to have to get out of Iraq “purty ban soon”. So I can certainly see McCain giving a Peace With Honor speech as he heads for the exit.

]]> By: Daniel Larison http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/31/only-mccain/comment-page-1/#comment-16648 Daniel Larison Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:06:37 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/31/only-mccain/#comment-16648 That's a fair point about Clinton. What I was trying to get at is that this argument is always used when it involves making concessions and the credibility needed to make concessions. It is not usually the way we talk about advancing a policy agenda or a specific course of action, or else we would wind up saying preposterous things like, "Only Mondale could have cut your taxes" or "Only Ron Paul could bomb Iran." Maybe that's beside the point, but it is curious to me that we don't apply the "only Nixon" logic to areas other than these sorts of concessions. That’s a fair point about Clinton. What I was trying to get at is that this argument is always used when it involves making concessions and the credibility needed to make concessions. It is not usually the way we talk about advancing a policy agenda or a specific course of action, or else we would wind up saying preposterous things like, “Only Mondale could have cut your taxes” or “Only Ron Paul could bomb Iran.” Maybe that’s beside the point, but it is curious to me that we don’t apply the “only Nixon” logic to areas other than these sorts of concessions.

]]> By: kenb http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/31/only-mccain/comment-page-1/#comment-16641 kenb Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:38:17 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/31/only-mccain/#comment-16641 Re the "only Nixon" argument: assuming I understand what you mean by "the reverse logic", reversing the issue means reversing the constituency, so you'd need to look at liberal concerns instead, and I think that sort of logic has been applied often enough. Certainly the theory has been advanced that only Democrats can roll back popular and/or established social programs. The example of Clinton and welfare reform is interesting in this regard -- even though he wasn't particularly loved or trusted by the activist left and didn't get their support, he was able to pull in enough Dems to make it happen. My sense is that a Republican president, even a centrist one, would've had a more difficult time getting it through. Re the “only Nixon” argument: assuming I understand what you mean by “the reverse logic”, reversing the issue means reversing the constituency, so you’d need to look at liberal concerns instead, and I think that sort of logic has been applied often enough. Certainly the theory has been advanced that only Democrats can roll back popular and/or established social programs.

The example of Clinton and welfare reform is interesting in this regard — even though he wasn’t particularly loved or trusted by the activist left and didn’t get their support, he was able to pull in enough Dems to make it happen. My sense is that a Republican president, even a centrist one, would’ve had a more difficult time getting it through.

]]> By: Charlie http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/31/only-mccain/comment-page-1/#comment-16629 Charlie Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:51:24 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/31/only-mccain/#comment-16629 Another point: most likely the Democrats will have comfortable majorities in the House and the Senate. So a President McCain could get a lot done by working with Democrats in Congress, pursuing slightly left-of-center goals that would win the support of liberal Republicans and most Democrats, etc. I'm not sure, as a President McCain prepared to govern, that he'd be too worried about "reconciling conservatives" to anything. He has little in common with conservatives politically and clearly despises many of them personally. I think Mickey Kaus has pointed out that a President McCain and a Democratic legislature might be the combination most likely to produce higher taxes, more regulation, inaction or amnesty on immigration, etc. In exchange for cutting those deals with Democrats on domestic policy McCain would want a free hand in foreign policy. Presumably the Democrats would be happy to grant him that, so they could use the ensuing disasters to argue against a second McCain term. And, in any case, when it comes to foreign policy and espionage the US president is an elected tyrant, so it won't really matter what Congress thinks of those issues. All of which is a long-winded way of saying that I'm not convinced by pro-McCain arguments along the lines of, "Yeah, examined in isolation McCain is terrible, but imagine all the wonderful things that will happen when we release this creature back into its natural Beltway habitat." Another point: most likely the Democrats will have comfortable majorities in the House and the Senate. So a President McCain could get a lot done by working with Democrats in Congress, pursuing slightly left-of-center goals that would win the support of liberal Republicans and most Democrats, etc. I’m not sure, as a President McCain prepared to govern, that he’d be too worried about “reconciling conservatives” to anything. He has little in common with conservatives politically and clearly despises many of them personally.

I think Mickey Kaus has pointed out that a President McCain and a Democratic legislature might be the combination most likely to produce higher taxes, more regulation, inaction or amnesty on immigration, etc. In exchange for cutting those deals with Democrats on domestic policy McCain would want a free hand in foreign policy. Presumably the Democrats would be happy to grant him that, so they could use the ensuing disasters to argue against a second McCain term. And, in any case, when it comes to foreign policy and espionage the US president is an elected tyrant, so it won’t really matter what Congress thinks of those issues.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that I’m not convinced by pro-McCain arguments along the lines of, “Yeah, examined in isolation McCain is terrible, but imagine all the wonderful things that will happen when we release this creature back into its natural Beltway habitat.”

]]> By: kitstolz http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/31/only-mccain/comment-page-1/#comment-16610 kitstolz Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:03:31 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/31/only-mccain/#comment-16610 All true, but especially the climate change part. If McCain was an overwhelmingly popular figure in his party who had a change of heart, as Reagan did on Russian nukes, that would be one thing. But when a high percentage of McCain supporters consider global warming a hoax, and are voting for him only because he is the standard-bearer, there is no reason to think his advocacy would have any effect whatsoever. All true, but especially the climate change part. If McCain was an overwhelmingly popular figure in his party who had a change of heart, as Reagan did on Russian nukes, that would be one thing. But when a high percentage of McCain supporters consider global warming a hoax, and are voting for him only because he is the standard-bearer, there is no reason to think his advocacy would have any effect whatsoever.

]]>