Nathan Scandella (personal)

The Next "Most Important" Election of Our Lifetimes (Part III)

In my previous posts, I've argued that John McCain would be a poor choice for president on account of sharing some of George Bush's worst qualities. I focused in particular on his lack of intelligence (ditto for running mate), and stubborn-to-a-fault personality. I'll finish up by reiterating the Obama line than McCain's policies look an awful lot like those of George Bush.

We've all heard that McCain has voted with George Bush 90% of the time (while Obama has voted with Bush less than half the time). Notable differences have included torture, global warming, and campaign finance reform. First of all, I think it should be obvious why McCain has happened upon a shred of decency with respect to the torture issue. Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter has helped him sympathize with the gay community. That doesn't mean that Cheney isn't still a miserable individual, and a terrible vice president. Secondly, while torture is an important ideological issue, the President's torture policies have limited effect on the population at large (it's not as if Bush was ordering the torture of hundreds of thousands of people). So, while it's commendable that McCain has taken an ideological stand against torture, that's not an issue that's going to make a difference in the lives of most people, compared with other issues. Similarly, campaign finance reform is a minor issue in the overall scheme of things. McCain's opponent, Barack Obama, has also taken the step of refusing financial support from Political Action Committees and large special interest donors. So, regardless of whether McCain or Obama is elected, there won't likely be a large difference in campaign finance. As far as global warming, McCain and Palin have both said that energy will be the issue delegated to the VP in a McCain administration (presumably because fossil fuels are the only thing Palin has any knowledge about). Palin's Drill-Baby-Drill plan will nullify any ideological concession McCain has made to the existence of global warming. And let's remember that George Bush, too, made campaign promises about curbing carbon emissions during the election of 2000. We know what kind of progress that led to.

So, the few differences between John McCain and George Bush are unlikely to produce visibly different results in a McCain America. But, the similarities are numerous, and important. First of all, McCain subscribes to the same Trickle-Down economics mythology that Bush does. It hasn't worked under Bush, and there's no reason to think that redistributing the wealth "upward" will work in the next four years. McCain also believes strongly in deregulation, as does Bush. The last two months should be conclusive evidence that the private sector cannot be relied upon to do the right thing, in the absence of tight controls. Wall Street has spent ten years finding clever ways to circumvent existing regulations (Credit Default Swaps, for instance). We can't elect a leader who thinks the credit crisis is an isolated incident, or who somehow thinks conservative regulatory policies weren't the primary government failure in this crisis. One difference between McCain and Bush is that McCain has actually admitted that he doesn't understand the economy well enough, while Bush has made no such admission. Nevertheless, both men continue to strut confidently down an ideological path that completely ignores the current, and historical evidence mounting against their core philosophy. McCain, like most in Congress, has pronounced his respect for Alan Greenspan's abilities and ideology. Given that Greenspan has just admitted that recent events show he had a fundamental misunderstanding about the way the world works, maybe we should look to someone with better advisers.

McCain also followed Bush down the road of flawed reforms for Social Security and immigration. So, now we're left with the undesirable status quo in both areas. McCain claims to be the one who can reach across the aisle, and make real progress again, as Bush claimed in 2000. But, the "reach across the aisle" McCain is gone, maybe buried in the same graveyard as former Gov. Bush. He gave up that persona to win the Republican nomination. His relationship with John Kerry is toast. He constantly lobs criticism, not just at Obama (to be expected), but at "Democrats". This isn't the way to achieve bipartisan results. McCain's high-and-mighty, exclusive attitude will be just as divisive as that of President Bush. By contrast, Obama will confine his criticism mainly to McCain and Bush, rather than risk alienating potential allies amongst moderate Republicans. Palin, formerly associated with non-partisan politics, has undergone the same transformation as McCain. She has successfully galvanized the conservative base, but done nothing to promote bipartisanship once in office.

With respect to foreign policy, Bush and McCain seem to be the only two politicians who can't accept the idea that we screwed up in Iraq. McCain is so out of touch that he continues to argue that "he was right" with respect to Iraq, and that it's Senator Obama who "doesn't understand". McCain doesn't seem to notice that the surge has not brought the war to an end, and has not lead to the Iraqi government meeting the milestones necessary to be able to govern themselves without our presence. And the surge has been going on since January of 2007. How long do we give this latest desperate tactic before we acknowledge the hopelessness of the situation? The only success of the surge is a reduction is casualties. Is that enough to declare victory? If the police get repeated calls about domestic violence at a house, would anyone doubt that posting an officer in the living room would reduce the violence? That doesn't mean that when the officer leaves, the violence won't swiftly resume.

Why Obama hasn't repeatedly hammered McCain with a steady diet of "I was right, you were wrong", I'm not sure. The American public is now firmly in opposition of the Iraq war, as are our allies. Obama doesn't need the vote of anyone who foolishly clings to a belief that we've done the right thing in Iraq. Foreign policy is supposed to be McCain's forte. But, he's been dead wrong on one of the most important foreign policy decisions of the last 20 years.

Unfortunately, this is more than just an academic issue with respect to who was right and who was wrong with respect to a past decision. We're in an unstable position in the world. We have several identified security threats (North Korea, Iran, Russia, China, etc.) and a list of allies who are a lot less enamored with us than they were ten years ago. McCain persistently sticks to his guns with respect to not negotiating with hostile nations. Who is he kidding? Is he unaware that stonewalling North Korea and Iran hasn't forced them to do what we want? Does he think he's an angry wife who can guilt her husband into submission by turning the cold shoulder? How immature. We don't have the high ground to stand on to refuse to talk to hostile nations. We need to summon all our diplomatic powers to negotiate the next few years peacefully. McCain strikes me as an angry old man, just looking for someone to pick a fight with. Can you blame him? Probably not. But, that doesn't mean it's prudent to make him Commander in Chief. This is the guy who this decade was still defiantly refusing to stop calling Vietnamese gooks. He later said that he only meant to refer to his sadistic captors. Right; he has nothing but fondness for the rest of the country he was bombing. In which case, maybe he could have thrown in a few qualifying words to differentiate his targets from Vietnamese on the whole. Even if you naively believe McCain's clarification, it actually still matters that he would be disconnected enough with modern social norms to think that he could still continue to talk that way. If he's elected, who is he going to rely on to steer clear of offending half of the world? His running mate, who didn't have a passport until last year? The one who can't even name a periodical that she reads?

George Bush strutted into office with a Texas-sized helping of "Here I am, take it or leave it". That's not good enough. It wasn't good enough in January of 2001, and it's even less tolerable now. If we're not able to ask the world for its forgiveness, we at least need to act like we care what other people think. John McCain has never cared what other people think. That has been both a liability, and an asset for which many people have loved him. But today, if you happen to think like George Bush, then it certainly does matter what other people think. Accepting and understanding other points of view is one of the ways we can keep checks and balances on our own intellect. And voting bad ideas out of office is the way Americans keep checks and balances on the politicians. McCain's ideas are Bush's ideas. Vote them out on Tuesday.

Posted at 04:35PM Nov 02, 2008 by Nathan in Politics  |  Comments[0]