« Yeesh | Main | More, More, More McCain »
August 05, 2006
That Old Hammer
There's been lots of good discussion about whether we should fear John McCain, and I'd have to dissent with Ezra and say that I'm not all that worried. Oh, I'd be worried if Hillary were still the likeliest nominee, but I don't think that anymore after they changed the primary calendar. John Edwards can swing the populist sledgehammer better than anyone else in American politics. And whatever else McCain may be armored against, it's that old hammer that can shatter him.
McCain has voted against the most popular issue in American politics -- increasing the minimum wage -- every time it's been successful. (Polls show 83-14 and 82-6 majorities in favor of an increase.) He's supported CAFTA and all the other free-trade-agreements-that-aren't. He strongly supports privatizing Social Security and cutting taxes for rich people. Like Rob, I think McCain looks like Bob Dole -- just another old patrician war hero from the Senate who loses to a charismatic working-class Southern Democrat.
It's a sad fact about our country that most voters won't be turned off by the things on Shakes' list. A country that could elect George W. Bush isn't going to be put off by the teaching of intelligent design in schools. But stuff like that is still useful. Due to McCain's rare high-profile defections from the Republican party line, lots of smart liberals have projected their bipartisan fantasies onto him. They're not a huge part of the electorate, but part of the rationale for McCain's candidacy is that he's the Republican who can chip off some of this solidly Democratic group. One thing that has to be said about smart liberals is that they're more engaged with politics than your typical populist swing voter, and it's likely that an understanding of McCain's non-maverickness will be more widespread among them by 2008 than it is now. So keep telling your friends about McCain's weird right-wing views. (Really, go around and do it. It's quite fun, because people are very surprised and will use amusing foul language when you puncture their McCain illusions.)
And how does anybody expect to maintain a bipartisan reputation into an election? You have to address a very broad spectrum of issues, including those where you have firm conservative positions. In general, you're tied down to the positions of your political coalition. McCain's bipartisan rep is largely the result of the fact that he keeps a low profile unless he's doing something moderate, so the media ignores his conservative votes. So nobody pays attention when he casts his wildly unpopular Ebenezer Scrooge votes on economic issues. This dynamic will change when he's running for office and a mill worker's son with serious populist cred is running around the country telling everyone how he kept voting against working people.
August 5, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
Like Rob, I think McCain looks like Bob Dole -- just another old patrician war hero from the Senate who loses to a charismatic working-class Southern Democrat.
You're insane. First of all, for what value of "patrician" is Bob Dole patrician? Second, you're crazy if you think most people are going to compare pretty, rich, and blessed Edwards to war-injured, off-color McCain, and choose Edwards as the guy who overcame the most obstacles. Most people have a nascent notion of a natural aristocracy--of the way in which the world works better for some than others--and the first time they identify it is in middle school or high school, when they note that life seems easier for the good-looking, the athletic, and the smart.
And this is from someone who might be coming around on Edwards.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Aug 5, 2006 12:15:09 PM
Do you remember his response to Clinton's state of the union, when Dole talked about how under Republican rule you could close the doors of your children's rooms at night, and know that they were secure from wasteful government programs and bothersome regulations? That's what I'm talking about.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Aug 5, 2006 12:24:50 PM
Dear Neil: There is only one problem with your logically coherent narrative-its basis. John Edwards will not be the Democratic nominee.
Posted by: JMG | Aug 5, 2006 12:28:38 PM
I saw McCain on Dec. 7 and he was surrounded by 90% Democrats. McCain said about running for President, "The question is, in which party." Oh the Democrats went crazy. They were so happy.
That's why Rush Limbaugh calls McCain a Democrat. McCain will not win the Republican primary but maybe he could win a Democratic primary. Lucky for Democrats Republicans can't run in their primaries so Democrats can win something.
Posted by: Ron Greiner | Aug 5, 2006 1:05:47 PM
The discipline which Limbaugh exerts upon his followers is one of the under-reported stories of the right-wing insurgency. Limbaugh used to take a lot of calls from Perot fans, Buchanan fans, and McCain fans--only to dissuade them from these various heresies as sternly as possible. Limbaugh's politics are probably as close to Buchanan's as anyone's, but in 1996 he saw that the Republican Party's fortunes--and his own within the party--were best advanced by his support of Bob Dole.
Limbaugh and the handful of others in a position similar to his will realize the same thing about John McCain: he's the safe bet in a year in which the safe bet is the way to go. Supporting George Allen (no doubt the candidate closest to Limbaugh's heart) would be too risky after 8 years of Bush, as Allen reminds people of George W Bush far more than Jeb does.
Posted by: kth | Aug 5, 2006 1:24:39 PM
"First of all, for what value of "patrician" is Bob Dole patrician?"
It's an interesting question.
I understand what SCMT is saying, in that Dole was not born to privilege. But when Neil used the word to refer to Dole, I fully understood what he meant.
The word has political connotations of stiffness and formality in style. It's the opposite of stylistic populism.
Clinton and Bush the Younger were stylistic populists. Kerry, Dole, Bush the Elder, and Dukakis were stylistic patricians.
But in the classical sense of the word Clinton, Dole, and Dukakis are all plebeians, while both Bushes and (sorta) Kerry are patricians.
Of course, since I think style is an incredibly important factor in Presidential politics, it's the stylistic aspects of the word that interests me more than the classical aspects.
Posted by: Petey | Aug 5, 2006 1:31:49 PM
Limbaugh does have influence, but he has been eclipsed by the likes of Dobson and Perkins. And if there is a candidate that kowtows to the fundie line better than McCain - and there will be - then McCain will not get their support.
There's no reason to fear a candidate in a general election when that candidate's chances of even making it to the general election are miniscule.
Even if McCain were to somehow win the primary, Senators are easy to pick apart. McCain has a reputation as a maverick, but even Bob Shrum could find a few votes that give the lie to that notion.
Well, maybe Bob Shrum could find it.
Oh hell, let's just hope McCain loses the primary.
Posted by: Stephen | Aug 5, 2006 1:35:40 PM
Oh, I'd be worried if Hillary were still the likeliest nominee
There is no likeliest nominee. I'd give even odds that the nominee will be someone who isn't even on your list of candidates yet. Think Bill Clinton in 1990, Jimmy Carter in 1974.
Posted by: Mike | Aug 5, 2006 1:46:16 PM
Governor Vilsack of Iowa is a good guy, kinda. Vilsack and Hillary run the Democratic Leadership Council www.dlc.org Vilsack was the first Governor in America to get HSAs passed as a new option in Iowa Medicaid. So Vilsack can run on a health care agenda where no other Democrat can. Vilsack could possibly do well in Iowa, the first vote. Everybody knows Senators can't be President.
But Democrats don't like Democrats from the Midwest. Former Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE) said, "In Nebraska I'm a Liberal and in New York I'm a right-wing-nut case." Bob Kerrey said about the option of tax free PSAs to save Social Security, "It looks like Bush is targeting wealth to the poor." Kerrey was the Democratic Governor of Nebraska. Run Kerrey and nobody would beat him on the war issue, he is the best the Democrats have.
Posted by: Ron Greiner | Aug 5, 2006 2:04:00 PM
Clinton and Bush the Younger were stylistic populists. Kerry, Dole, Bush the Elder, and Dukakis were stylistic patricians.
I don't want to get into semantic debate, but this is wrong, too. Kerry and Bush the Elder are stylistically patrician. Dukakis was a robot, and his lack of affect defined his style. Dole was taciturn and wry, and is stylistically American Gothic (or Midwestern, if you prefer).
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Aug 5, 2006 2:21:27 PM
"Dukakis was a robot, and his lack of affect defined his style."
Yup. But I'd argue that robot-ism and stiffness correlate strongly with a stylistic sense of patrician-ness.
"Dole was taciturn and wry, and is stylistically American Gothic (or Midwestern, if you prefer)."
Yup, again. But I think you're touching on why Midwestern candidates have such a hapless record in Presidential elections.
In the way Neil was using the word "patrician", it can be half-seriously defined as "someone who doesn't drop their G's."
Upper-midwestern candidates are indeed different than New England candidates in many important ways, but they read similarly in some important ways too.
Posted by: Petey | Aug 5, 2006 2:37:58 PM
Stephen: I would include Dobson in that short list of right-wingers who can deliver. I'll bet anyone $5 that, if Dobson/FOTF endorses anyone in the primary, it will be McCain. If it were a simple matter of the fundy-est candidate, Gary Bauer would have done much better than he did. But they have to balance ideological fidelity with electability.
Let X = adherence to right-wing agenda, and let Y = probability of winning in the general election. McCain's XY score dwarfs that of any of the other suspects (except maybe Jeb Bush). By contrast with 2000, the religious right saw not only that George W Bush was almost as electable as McCain (though McCain would have won in a landslide if nominated), Bush was more reliably right-wing. But there won't be anyone in '08 that looks like Bush did (to the right) in 2000.
The case for shorting the McCain stock boils down to two predictions:
- The religious right will insist on someone more doctrinaire.
- The campaign press, which positively squealed over McCain like bobby-soxers at a Sinatra/Elvis performance, will suddenly grow skeptical of him.
Posted by: kth | Aug 5, 2006 2:39:49 PM
McCain's bipartisan rep is largely the result of the fact that he keeps a low profile unless he's doing something moderate, so the media ignores his conservative votes.
Since his run in 2000 -- treated by the media as a cross between the multiplication of the loaves and fishes and a Beatles reunion tour -- McCain has been invisible to the average non-political junkie. He goes into 2008 with his 2000 luster intact, in other words.
And when he did surface, how did he surface?
As recently as March and April of 2004, there was serious talk -- serious enough to require denials from both parties -- of a Kerry-McCain ticket.
And people in places that should have giggled at the prospect, like DemocraticUnderground.com and my county Democratic committee, were ecstatic at the prospect.
I know he's Orrin Hatch 2.0.
You know he's Orrin Hatch 2.0.
But we read things. We don't get our news from 10 minutes a day of network TV, or, God forbid, the radio.
If McCain gets past the primaries, he wins 40 states and 410 electoral votes. Edwards' story is fine and good, but as long as American politics is going to be poker played with dead Moslems as chips -- and it will be for another decade -- McCain wins.
'Great Story + dead brown people' trumps 'Great Story'
And on the tombstone of the Repblic will be "Murdered By A Story Arc."
Posted by: Davis X. Machina | Aug 5, 2006 3:00:14 PM
auto insurace auto insurace
Posted by: auto insurace | Aug 13, 2006 12:27:14 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
