The Real McCain

Former John McCain superfan Jonathan Chait has had enough and pens a hilarious column arguing that his further hero has now gone "to the dark side." I'm a little uncertain as to what's changed Chait's mind since he was arguing about a year ago that McCain's rightward shift was fake and the "real" John McCain was the liberal one he discerned back in the day.

For my money, I regard it as unlikely that a US Senator experienced two ideological conversions during the 2000-2005 period. The best sense I can make of McCain is that outside of his fanatical commitment to militarism, he doesn't have especially strong views on anything. One thing he's never been is the kind of politician I would be enthusiastic about. In Chait's original pro-McCain article, he wrote "After the Democratic Leadership Council's Will Marshall met to court him, McCain remarked, 'I was struck by how much we were in common.'" That I found plausible. The kind of Democrat who, like Will Marshall, loves militarism, doesn't care about economic inequality or poverty, and regards "social issues" as primarily an electoral headache rather than causes worth fighting for probably did have a lot in common with McCain's 2001-2003 era persona.

If I were the kind of conservative (as most soi disant conservatives these days seem to be) inclined to regard "neo-Reaganite" foreign policy as an important plank of conservatism, I think McCain would be my favorite of the three stooges, since his commitment to that seems quite firm and principled. McCain's made it clear that he doesn't like cultural conservatives but he's almost invariably been willing to vote the way they want. His thinking about economics seems confused more than anything else, but he'd probaby veto anything Democrats wanted to do that involved spending money.

Comments

I'll repeat what I said over at Ezra's:

I dunno if anyone has made the comparison yet, but McCain is re-running the history of Bush the Elder in the '80 and '88 campaigns. Do the first campaign standing as a reality-based candidate in opposition to right-wing bunk, lose, and then do the second campaign embracing the exact same right-wing bunk you previously ran against.

Posted by Petey | March 10, 2007 7:15 PM

What was McCain's motivation for McCain/Feingold then, Matthew? A lot of non-frothing conservatives will always hold that legislation against McCain, and surely he must have understood that.

Posted by Jackmormon | March 10, 2007 7:18 PM

Jared Jeffries should win an award as The Best Basketball Player Who Has
Zero Aptitude for the Game of Basketball.

Posted by Petey | March 10, 2007 7:20 PM

I liked McCain in 2000 and I am totally disgusted with him now. I disagree that he has never stood for anything other than militarism. He used to speak as plainly as anyone about the corrupting influence of the campaign finance system. You'll never hear another word out of him on that topic now as he has completely gone to the dark side. He was one of the few conservatives one might hope to have a real conversation with where hte facts weren't malleable. That is clearly no longer the case. I think he has really shot himself in the foot with this ass-kissing and that he might have had a better shot had he not so transparently changed his persona.

Posted by Raindog | March 10, 2007 7:34 PM

I wouldn't say McCain is only committed to militarism. He has been a champion for campaign finance reform, which is part of the source of conservative hatred for the man. Despite is own spotty ethical history, he fancies himself a Teddy Roosevelt-type with conservative sympathies (amended to appeal to the modern Republican base). He wants to clean government, protect the environment, regulate campaign finance, and impose America's will on the world.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | March 10, 2007 7:38 PM

Petey, you're underselling Bush 41. He ran both of those campaigns in 1980, one for President, one for VP.

Posted by DonBoy | March 10, 2007 7:53 PM

What was McCain's motivation for McCain/Feingold then, Matthew? A lot of non-frothing conservatives will always hold that legislation against McCain, and surely he must have understood that.

The press would never have allowed McCain to get past the Keating Five without McCain-Feingold. He was always running for president.

Posted by ? | March 10, 2007 8:35 PM

1) Matt: I think this doesn't get the neo-reaganite where he wants to be. While you're basically right, I don't know that a neocon could count on McCain to vote against Democratic spending bills if they're immensely popular. Further, he certainly won't further the cause of social conservatism anymore than through a handful of nominations

2) Jackmormon: McCain-Feingold was about McCain trying to distance himself from the Keating 5 scandal. It also allowed him to seriously limit the ability of governors to raise money to then transfer to a Presidential campaign, giving him a leg up. Finally, it helped lock in the "moderate" press. That wasn't about principle - it was about sacrificing a tiny sliver of the Republican base to neutralize most of the threats that he faced.

Posted by MDtoMN | March 10, 2007 8:41 PM

He used to speak as plainly as anyone about the corrupting influence of the campaign finance system.

He was still crazy.

Posted by Ed Marshall | March 10, 2007 8:58 PM

The portrait of McCain from Michael "Moneyball" Lewis's excellent "Trail Fever" shows that he just doesn't think about political very much. He only cared about defense until he was one of the Keating 5, then he sincerely tried to do something positive about campaign financing, as misguided and pointless as it was. But since 2000 he's been more craven and pandering than, seriously, any politician that I've ever known. It's pathetic.

Also, any Republican, all of them, will appoint winger judges, etc, because that's their base. There are no good Republican politians, because there are no good Republican voters. Their base is fucked up.

Posted by chris | March 10, 2007 9:29 PM

Sorry about the typos.

Posted by chris | March 10, 2007 9:29 PM

You guys mean the Keating Four, right?

Posted by Lettuce | March 10, 2007 9:45 PM

Within the last month or so, McCain was quoted talking (in Seattle, I think) about his pandering changes of position, and he said something like 'You do what you have to do, and whatever people want to hear, I'll say it'. I can't find the link because only the person (in the press, as I recall) he was talking reported it somewhere in a blog, not as a filed story. Anyone have that link?

This attitude explains a lot about McCain. Elections and governing are just a game, to be played without rules of consistency or principle.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | March 10, 2007 10:14 PM

Ah, hah! I found the McCain words I was searching for in comment above - from Maureen Dowd in the NYT of all places:

A Cat Without Whiskers
By, Maureen Dowd
February 24, 2007
SEATTLE

So some guy stands up after John McCain’s luncheon speech here yesterday to a group of business types and asks him a question.

“I’ve seen in the press where in your run for the presidency, you’ve been sucking up to the religious right,” the man said, adding: “I was just wondering how soon do you predict a Republican candidate for president will start sucking up to the old Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party?”

Mr. McCain listened with his eyes downcast, then looked the man in the eye, smiled and replied: “I’m probably going to get in trouble, but what’s wrong with sucking up to everybody?” It was a flash of the old McCain, and the audience laughed.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | March 10, 2007 10:33 PM

When you read that he consults Kissinger, and Kristol- just those two alone...and you realize he's just nuts. He's still back in that tiger cage hallucinating about what he'll do to all the gooks and ali babas, chinks, russkies, and wetbacks from here to there and back again. When was he shot down ('68?, '69?)?- that's where he is- he's adamant that there's no lesson to be learned from Vietnam, much less Iraq- No, Sir. Michael Savage calls him "The Manchurian Candidate" and as lazy and reprehensible a cheapshot as that is...I think there's something to it.

Posted by Trevor | March 10, 2007 11:48 PM

I'm not saying McCain's love affair with campaign finance isn't an attempt to distance himself from Keating 4. I'm just disputing Matt's claim that all he cares about it is militarism.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | March 11, 2007 12:59 AM

Don't start using French terms for which there are easy English equivalents.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 11, 2007 9:26 AM

I still say that if we want this Three Stooges meme to spread -- and we do, we do -- there has to be a consensus, or an authoritative ruling, or a continuing debate on which Stooge is which. Let's get cracking!

Posted by CJColucci | March 11, 2007 11:52 AM

The explanation for why a guy like Chait develops a mancrush on a guy like McCain is psychological. Guys like Chait suffer from severe cognitive dissonance as they are driven by two competing concerns. On the one hand, Chait has basically liberal values. On the other hand, liberal values are disrespected by Republicans and by prevailing opinion among the inside-the-Beltway elite. So what's a poor boy like Chait to do?

A guy like McCain appears to resolve his cognitive dissonance by creating the illusion of allowing guys like Chait to eat their cake and have it too. By projecting liberal values onto McCain, guys like Chait get to at least appear to have at least some of their liberal values while also benefiting from the protection McCain affords them from attacks from Republicans and the inside-the-Beltway elite.

The problem is that they must adopt McCain's militarism in the bargain. If they can't credibly appear to sincerely share McCain's militarism, the whole thing falls apart and they no longer have protection from attacks from Republicans and the inside-the-Beltway elite. This creates a strong incentive for guys like Chait to attack non-militaristic liberals in order to establish their bona fides as authentic McCain men.

Posted by The Fool | March 11, 2007 12:48 PM

MDtoMN: thanks, that does explain it.

Posted by Jackmormon | March 11, 2007 3:03 PM