February 04, 2008
Activism, treason, and other political solemnities
A lot of people -- not including me and my fellow politically-irrelevant Pennsylvanians -- are voting tomorrow, and it is natural for them to be ferociously debating whether Romney or McCain is a better choice. In a number of blog posts, I've said that even though I am very uncomfortable with him, that I prefer McCain slightly. I like McCain's outspokenness and his Maverick streak, even though I don't agree with a lot of the stuff he has said -- and I can never forgive McCain-Feingold. I loved the way he tore Michael Moore a new one, for example. (And when James Wolcott slammed McCain as a "seething nest of proto-fascist impulses," I felt sweet stirrings in my proto-fascist heart.)
Despite my problems with him, I also warmed to McCain considerably when his name was booed at CPAC. At the time I would have loved it had he thumbed his nose at them by actually being there. All he'd have needed to do would have been to smile and wave, and the effect would have been like John Wayne smiling and waving at a peace rally. Anyway, this year, McCain may get a chance to maliciously smile and malevolently wave at the activists who find his presence so galvanizing:
Romney is trying to do just well enough Tuesday to give conservatives the time and incentive to mobilize against McCain, who has always had tense relations with party activists.Ugh.
Not only does the thought of going against the express wishes of Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham make me want to wet my pants, I absolutely hate confrontations. And showdowns. What might they have in mind? Will McCain be loudly booed by the crowd that cheered Ann Coulter's fag remark last year? What might that do for his chances with middle America?
At the risk of sounding like the "sociopath" that Amanda Marcotte said I was, I have to confess that I actually find Ann Coulter more offensive than I find John McCain. Doubtless that makes me a "traitor" to the "principles" of CPAC, whatever they are. (I don't want to read them right now.)
And while we're on the subject of treason, as someone who has repeatedly switched parties myself, I don't mind the fact that McCain entertained the idea. I also liked the reasons he gave for rejecting the offer to become Kerry's running mate (which pissed off Kerry big time):
Kerry's courtship of Senator John McCain to be his running mate was longer-standing and more intense than previously reported. As far back as August 2003, Kerry had taken McCain to breakfast to sound him out to run on a unity ticket. McCain batted away the idea as not serious, but Kerry, after he wrapped up the nomination in March, went back after McCain a half-dozen more times. "To show just how sincere he was, he made an outlandish offer," Newsweek's Thomas reports. "If McCain said yes he would expand the role of vice president to include secretary of Defense and the overall control of foreign policy. McCain exclaimed, 'You're out of your mind. I don't even know if it's constitutional, and it certainly wouldn't sell.'" Kerry was thwarted and furious. "Why the f--- didn't he take it? After what the Bush people did to him...'"In that respect, McCain reminds me of Lieberman, and I like Lieberman. Or is that not allowed?
Bear in mind that when I say "like" I do not mean that I like Lieberman's positions, many of which I am sure would horrify me. But presidencies are not all about what positions on issues a candidate may have taken at one point or another in his career, nor are they about particular comments. More than almost anyone in politics, McCain has an unusual combination which accounts for much of the personal hatred of him, and which makes him a political hybrid.
I do not use the word "hybrid" in the normal political sense, though. McCain combines two traits which are rarely seen in combination. Like most politicians, has the ability to be a political chameleon changing colors and tailoring the appearance of his positions in a manner calculated to appeal to whatever crowd he is trying to please at a given time. But that is combined with a trait which is very risky in a politician -- he shoots from the hip and says things seemingly without any regard for the consequences. Moreover, he does this without any apparent sense of shame, and instead of being apologetic the way most people would be, he'll just blithely move along as if nothing happened.
And even when he is forced to apologize (as he was to Falwell and Robinson) his apologies seem as insincere as a POW's phony confession under torture. This Star Wars analogy gave me a chuckle:
Under growing fire over his recent attacks on leaders of the Christian right, Senator John McCain apologized yesterday for remarks the day before in which he characterized Pat Robertson and the Rev. Jerry Falwell as ''forces of evil.'' He said those remarks had been intended as a joke.Now, having just doubted the sincerity of the above apology, I have to ask myself, why I am not more horrified?
The answer is that I like his style. He doesn't seem to take politics all that seriously. The way he handles the attack and the later apology reminds me more of an artist mixing paint than a normal politician.
Interestingly, this works both ways, and McCain seems just as capable of moving along and ignoring things a lot of people would take quite personally.
Here he's accused of ignoring racist attacks on his adopted Bangaldeshi daughter:
Bridget McCain, McCain's youngest daughter, is of Bangladeshi origin. McCain and his wife adopted her from an orphanage run by Mother Teresa. The Bush wing of the Republican Party, the same wing that George Allen belongs to, used Bridget's ethnicity to defeat McCain in the 2000 South Carolina presidential primary.No word on whether McCain cared. I suppose he might have said he cared to one crowd, and said he didn't care to another -- depending on the political exigencies. But I doubt he took it personally.
I'm thinking the man has a very thick skin.
All political considerations aside, I like that. I even admire it.
I say this as someone who hates politics with every bone in my body. The hardball politics that I experienced when I was unfortunate enough to serve as a Police Review Commissioner in Berkeley was enough to damage my psyche for life, and I confess, I do bear a grudge against the activist mentality. The people who take their politics and themselves so deadly seriously that they'll shout you down with insults, keep you up half the night so that they win by sleep-deprivation attrition, chain themselves to buildings and vandalize your car if you disagree with them. Unfortunately, these people are often used as shock troops by the more responsible politicians who find them useful because they drive normal people away. I'll never forget my neighbors complaining to me about a police-related issue (their position would have placed them on Berkeley's McGovern conservative faction), and I urged them to come down and speak up at the public mike session, which was typically dominated by hard core anti-police activists such as Copwatch. Their response was "ARE YOU KIDDING?" and they complained that they might be insulted.
Most people are like that, and it is why activists win.
Politics is disgusting because political activists are disgusting, and the inflexible activist ideology which drives them is even more disgusting.
McCain, by not taking ideology seriously, by seeming to thumb his nose at activists, might be refreshing to those who think politics is disgusting. He might even be appealing to those who are just plain tired of politics.
I have mixed feelings about McCain, and as I said, I'd vote for him or Romney over the Clintons. But if I were a solid McCain supporter, I might hope the activists would yell louder.
The angry middle might hear them.
UPDATE: For all the talk (and I do mean a lot of talk) about McCain thumbing his nose at Republican principles, I'm wondering what the reaction of conservative ideologues will be to this very damning, very recent flipflip by Romney on the gun issue:
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was asked about the assault weapons ban on Meet the Press on December 16, 2007.Via Glenn Reynolds, who's such a gentleman that he didn't mention his own remark in linking to the above.
Well I don't have to be a gentleman about it. Glenn is absolutely right to question the man's sincerity. This just plain stinks.
For days now I've been reading about McCain and his abominable flipflops, and how they indicate a lack of integrity and lack of principle. I share a lot of these misgivings and I don't defend McCain where I think he's wrong. But when I see Romney caught in two major lies -- both going to the heart of the level of his commitment to the Second Amendment -- and both of them recent in nature, I have to ask some basic questions.
McCain is said to be reprehensible, dishonest, and "unpresidential" for taking Romney's "timetable" remarks out of context, right? So why isn't Romney dishonest for saying he got the NRA endorsement when he didn't? And for switching his positions on the AWB barely two weeks apart? It's one thing to downplay what he did in years past as governor, but this is just glaring.
I haven't scrutinized Romney's record in detail, but I hope someone does. It's one thing to slam McCain, and a lot of it is deserved. However even if we assume that McCain is all those terrible things people say he is (a traitor to the GOP, and either no different or even worse than Hillary), it is a fundamental error in logic to conclude that because McCain is bad, Romney is therefore good.
Assuming McCain is a RINO, well, what if Romney is a RINO too? Doesn't that mean anything?
Or is this just a game of "good RINO, bad RINO" with one standard for McCain, and another for Romney?
posted by Eric on 02.04.08 at 10:06 AM
Search the Site
Classics To Go
See more archives here
Old (Blogspot) archives
A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
People Are Not Rational
No Biorobots For Japan
The Thorium Solution
Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera
This war of attrition is driving me bananas!
Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry?
Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression?
Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood