Brooks Versus McCain

I was pretty unconvinced by David Brooks Tuesday column about Iraq (watch me gripe here) but it did involve the innovative argumentative tactic of conceding that "The big change in the debate has come about because the surge failed, and it failed in an unexpected way." Under the circumstances, and since Brooks has historically been a big John McCain booster, I wonder what his take is on this exchange from the GOP debate:

McCain was ready and eager to stress his muscular position in favor of the "surge" in Iraq, and he had plenty of opportunity to do so. The key moment came after Romney said the surge was "apparently working," and McCain challenged him. "No, not apparently, it's working," McCain responded sharply.

To me, this is McCain, formerly the thinking man's mindless warmonger, acting like a petty goon. But Fred Barnes sees McCain helping himself with these comments while "Mitt Romney hurt himself." It seems like a really weird mentality on the right.

Comments

Well, you explained this a few posts below, on the Supply Side issue. The GOP base and politicians don't really mind lies, as long as they reinforce existing prejudices. See also this Mindhacks post:

[I]f false information is presented early, it is more likely to be believed, while subsequent attempts to correct the information may, in fact, strengthen the false impression. …
[W]e [probably] tend to think information is more likely to be true the more we hear it. Negating a statement seems just to emphasise the initial point. The additional correction seems to get lost amid the noise.
One particularly pertinent study [pdf] not mentioned in the article, looked at the effect of retractions of false news reports made during the 2003 Iraq War on American, German and Australian participants.
For example, claims that Iraqi forces executed coalition prisoners of war after they surrendered were retracted the day after the claims were made. The study found that the American participants’ belief in the truth of an initial news report was not affected by knowledge of its subsequent retraction.
In contrast, knowing about a retraction was likely to significantly reduce belief in the initial report for Germans and Australians.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | September 6, 2007 2:52 PM

McCain also showed a bullying side. Apparently, if you can stand up to Mitt Romney, you can stand up to Iran.

Posted by American Citizen | September 6, 2007 3:48 PM

I wonder what his take is on this exchange from the GOP debate

I assume he'll let us know as soon as Bill Kristol tells him. You could always ask Douthat or Salam, as it's a fair bet that they're in on that call, too.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 6, 2007 3:59 PM

I don't see how McCain helps himself by reinforcing the fact that he has become a cranky old man. There is good reason why most people don't want a really old person to become President.

Posted by blah | September 6, 2007 4:00 PM

I recognize this "really weird mentality": It privileges the party line over reality. The Bolsheviks even had a proud name for it: partiinost (an abstract noun--"partyness" is a virtual ringer of a translation...).

Posted by elle loco | September 6, 2007 4:10 PM

Of relevance: Manhattan Institute hires Judy Miller.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | September 6, 2007 5:03 PM

The wingnuts who aren't complete morons understand that WAR4EVAH! is going to be political suicide a year from now. Smell the queasy coming off of Ramesh:

Romney on Iraq [Ramesh Ponnuru]
I find the reaction to his remarks last night a little dismaying. Do conservatives really want to tie themselves to the position that the surge is not only working, but that there can be no doubt on the score and that anyone who acknowledges the existence of doubt is a heretic? As for Romney's looking forward to a possible troop drawdown—something Bush has also done!—what's our bottom line there? Do we want troops there forever? Is that what conservatives should want Republicans to campaign on next year?

You gotta wonder if Ramesh even reads the crap posted by the Steyns, VDHs and other war maniacs posting on the Corner. I imagine there will be an embarrassed silence for a few hours as everyone pretends not to notice his apostasy. Then tomorrow or in a few days Ramesh will lash onto a figleaf somewhere out in medialand and return to the fold... "O'Hanlon's refutation of the GAO report really is devastating, renewing my optimism in the war effort and it's viability as winning issue for the GOP in 2008." Or maybe the Koolaid really is wearing off. It wouldn't be surprising that the looming prospect of epic, generation-defining electoral defeat would serve to focus the mind.

Posted by pinson | September 6, 2007 7:27 PM

Well, once Bush attacks Iran, it will be clear to all the neocons that, yes, we need troops in Iraq FOREVER. So they really will go back to advocating that.

At least until US forces in Iraq get massacred by the Iranians and the Iraqi Sunni and Shia militias...which will probably happen a week later...

After that, who knows what the neocons will be advocating? Nuking the entire Middle East, probably...

And Chris Ford and SLC will be here pumping the notion, no doubt.

The real question is: what will happen when the US public sees a REAL defeat - perhaps even A LOSS - of the US military in Iraq? Not just more casualties and more expense, but an undeniable DEFEAT. A US military evacuation under fire, leaving behind most of the billions of dollars of equipment the taxpayers paid for, with fatalities in the thousands and casualties in the tens of thousands...

The second and equally important question is: what happens to public opinion of the preceding event if that Iran war is started over some "terrorist incident" either in Iraq or the US?

Does that make the defeat "acceptable" to the US public so that they cry for more Muslim blood, or does it make them realize that the whole thing is a disaster and make them turn on the US government?

I say they go for door number one. We still have thirty percent or MORE supporting the Iraq war and Bush in this country. It won't be hard to get that figure up to over fifty percent if there is another Muslim "terrorist incident" in this country, or even if Bush and Cheney manage to point the finger at Iran for some US troops killed in Iraq, true or not.

So I don't see any guarantee of "electoral defeat" for the GOP depending on how things go.

Now if Bush unilaterally attacks Iran, and US troops get slaughtered, and gas goes to $5-10/gallon, and the economy tanks - then, yeah, the future of the GOP doesn't look good.

Since the Democrats will be supporting everything right up to the moment when everything tanks, though, I'm not sure their chances look much better.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 6, 2007 9:14 PM

"Romney said the surge was 'apparently working,' and McCain challenged him. 'No, not apparently, it's working,' McCain responded sharply."

Isn't this the opposite of a "Kinsley gaffe" (by which someone speaks an uncomfortable truth and is roundly criticized for not knowing how to "play the game"), since it's a comforting lie (to the GOP base, anyway)?

Or, under the rules of Very Serious Washington today, is that the same thing, as long as the speaker plays into the media-approved stereotype of him/herself?

Ignorance is freedom, I suppose...

(yes, I'm butchering the reference intentionally)

Posted by Chris | September 7, 2007 9:49 AM