« ¡Obama! | Main | The Difference? »

Honor Bites Back

02 Feb 2008 11:23 am

Yuval Levin offers what is, I think, an insightful analysis of the problem with John McCain's approach to domestic policy issues and, indeed, I'd say all issues:

On domestic issues, McCain’s problem is not that his views are too far from the public’s. It’s that he simply doesn’t care about any of the issues on the table. In fact (as I argue in next week’s issue of National Review) McCain doesn’t actually seem to care about any political “issues” at all. He is moved by honor and country, and this has driven him to be passionately active on a few domestic fronts, but for different reasons than those that motivate just about every other politician. (A misunderstanding of this point has, I think, been behind much of the often excessive distress at McCain’s apparent ascendancy in some quarters of the right this week). And he has not found a way to understand, say, health care in terms of honor, honesty, or character. So even though his campaign has offered a very strong conservative proposal for health care reform, McCain seems incapable of talking about it as though it were even remotely significant.

Ross agrees and says it's "another difficulty with a politics that takes "national greatness" as its touchstone and heroism as its defining virtue - it breeds a disinterest, or even an impatience, with the more quotidian (but nonetheless crucial) aspects of policy and governance."

But, look, the problem's worse than that. For a good long while now the Republican Party has been pushing an approach to economic policy that is contrary to the interests of most Americans. So how do they win office? Well, primarily by being a political party that's appealing in lots of other ways -- foreign policy and cultural hot-buttons, yes, but also a lot of stuff about character. In particular, character arguments were central to George W. Bush's critique of Al Gore and John Kerry and, indeed, were about all there was to Bob Dole's 1996 campaign. This has tended to work well as a tactic because the press is a great venue for transmitting character attacks but a terrible venue for transmitting issue attacks because reporters mostly don't understand issues and even when they do they pretend not to.

It's been an effective political strategy. But one thing it does is open the door wide open to someone like John McCain who really and truly doesn't seem to have opinions about policy questions. The very same conservative opinion-mongering institutions that are so frightened of McCain are the very ones that played a key role in shifting the conversation in 2000 and 2004 to the politics of honor and character. And so they get McCain and they really lack the context to make the point that it's a problem that his thinking is so muddled and unclear.

Share This

Comments (35)

He's also really old, and has been waiting many many years for his chance to run for president on honor, character, integrity, "straight talk", etc. I don't think he can even feign interest in non-military or non-honor issues at this point. And he acts as though he shouldn't have to. This nomination is his due. He's OWED it by the right that destroyed him in 2000 and then needed him in 2004 to pretend that he didn't think Kerry would be a better president. He did his political duty these last seven years, even backing off Bush on the issue of torture, of all things. If the right fails to support him, he'll probably kill someone.

This gets to my point on the who is the better Republican candidate from the Democrat perspective, McCain or Romney? I have been strongly in the McCain camp simply due to the fact that despite the "I love war" nature of him(very bad), his policy convictions don't appear very strong. With a Democrat controlled Congress and a history of at least considering listening to and working with, not only the other side but, to Republicans, the most fringe elements of the other side(Feingold, Kennedy, Clinton), there is a chance for progressive policy interests to make some headway. And if McCain continues to be blugeoned as he is by the wackos on the right he will have won the nomination without their support and won't necessarily feel obligated to govern to please them. On the contrary it will have been moderate elements that he will feel committed to. As for Romney.....

I could end that discussion by just plainly stating that if Hugh Hewitt, Limbaugh, Michael Reagan, Beck, Hannity, Ingraham, Levin, my goodness what a sycophantic bunch, want Romney THAT bad it can only lead to a continuation of the disastrous economics of the Bush Admin. And Romney will solely have those dogmatic war loving, corporatists to thank. And how will he govern? Forget Massachusetts. HE will have achieved the nomination on their backs alone, and subsequently will have validated their fringe views. That is the danger that is Romney. Oh, and the fact that he blows with the wind and has no convictions other than profit...

I think McCain is an example of 'The Curse of the Senate'. As a Senator, McCain can have a specialty-- and he can let other Senators, e.g., those who for one reason or another have opinions about health care, worry about health care. He can be temperamental, he can be a bad manager, he can deviate from party orthodoxy without any actual reasons besides impulse and orneriness. All this, and still be an OK Senator... but-- not all this and still be an OK President.

Let's suppose McCain is the GOP nominee.

Regardless of who gets the nod on the Dem side, I think most of us will agree they're likely to squash McCain in debates on issues of policy. McCain is likely to answer most every question with some reference to honor, character, duty, country, etc.

I think there's a chance it would work against Hillary. He has character, Hillary does not. People will believe that, regardless of the merits of the argument. It's what they want to believe, and to an extent, what the media has conditioned them to believe.

I'm not sure it would work so well against Obama.

Some say John McCain has "character" and "loves his country." I just see a guy who loves John McCain. Guy's always been kind of a jerk.

Sorry buts thats crap. McCain just values national greatness over other issues and that is what scares the conservative establishment. If it comes down to attacking Iran or tax cuts, McCain would attack Iran and raise taxes. He'd move for mandatory national service which is against the idea of only the poor sacrificing. He has the gall to admit global warming exists.

And to top it all off he pissed off the backers of the wingnut welfare gravy train with campaign finance reform.

I think the election will come down to two manifest realities: a bad economy and an unwinnable war. McCain is on the wrong side of both issues. It will be very difficult for him to overcome that fact, irrespective of whether or not the public thinks that he has good character and/or loves his country.

The idea that there's this well-defined thing called "national greatness," and that we all know what it is and can talk about it with the assurance that we are all talking about the same thing, is baffling to me. What is it exactly?

But in any case it ought to be pointed out that the actual policies advocated and pursued by this "national greatness" crowd are in fact destructive of American strength and standing in the world, and so are arguably destroying our "national greatness."

It’s that he simply doesn’t care about any of the issues on the table.


Couldn't that be said of a lot of Senators and Representatives?

National greatness just means nationalism.

This comment thread hasn't really grappled yet with the core of Matt's argument, which is that character-based politics is

a) a strong way to attack in the general election, but
b) a dangerously incoherent way for a political party to define itself.

I think Matt's point is shrewd. You could broaden it out beyond McCain. I think it's why the Bush administration could get so far away from conservative economic ideas, without effective resistance from the right. For much of the base, personal loyalty to Bush trumped economic doctrine.

It's hard to build a coherent domestic policy on this foundation.

This is exactly why McCain is the much harder candidate to beat for Democrats. Keep in mind outside of political junkie circles people get very little news, so the character trait plays a huge role and the Press as we all know is uncinching their belts as we speak for some good 'ol McCain love. Put him and Obama or Hillary in a debate and he'll win on points because the instant one of them actually delves into issues the Press gets bored and instead concentrates on how they look or acted towards each other or how many debate points they scored.

All that aside, I think the age thing will play a large role to McCain's detriment, not overtly, but it will be in the back of everyone's mind.

This line on McCain and on the Republicans is right on the money. The conservative right is upset with McCain exactly to the degree that their politics, their issues, are so secondary to his interests. They want their issues fronted by the culture of honor, character, and the patriotic warrior. G.W. Bush was just close enough to this on the surface (only) to carry it off against weak characters. Actually Gore was not so weak in character as weak in self-presentation of character. Bush is the opposite, or was. Now he is weak in both aspects of it.

"For a good long while now the Republican Party has been pushing an approach to economic policy that is contrary to the interests of most Americans."

That's a reductive narrative that papers over a complex set of issues. Its a narrative that I, as a progressive, find persuasive. I find it particularly persuasive because I think its true that the Republican Party advances economic policy that is contrary to the interest of Americans.

However, progressives risk a dangerous political miscalculation if we equate the consequence of Republican policies with their electoral appeal. It assumes that the way we perceive Republicans is the way the electorate percieves them.

If the electorate perceived Republicans like progressives do, they'd be progressive and the Republicans would loose their power. But that's manifestly not the case.

Re: ...because reporters mostly don't understand issues and even when they do they pretend not to.

Theorem for you: in their published work, reporters will understand an issue right up to the point where they can no longer confidently maintain an impression of political innocence or, if you will, utter non-alignment. Past that point, issue understanding will usually give out. "Critics say..." and "supporters contend..." then take over.

So what do enlightened readers of matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com do when they find themselves trapped in a country that they agree has through a not-so-bright press elevated "character" over issues in presenting political coverage to an even-less-bright population?

A - Keep saying, in as many different ways, places and as often as possible that the not-so-brightness of the press is a structural political problem for the country. Hoping that once this becomes the conventional wisdom somebody will figure out how to fix it.

B - Act as an alternative press, since the blogosphere is already staffed with smart people who understand policy and have this alternative press compete with and defeat the not-so-bright press until the even-less-bright general population takes all of its news from the bright-enough blogosphere and thereby makes good decisions

C - Find bright-enough politicians who are also able to win character contests when facing opposition selected solely on the basis of their ability to win character contests

Somebody needs to convene a conference to devise solutions to this vexing problem facing this once-great nation.

I've long reviled McCain because of his policy positions (such as they are), his flip-flops, his narcissism (no wonder he's so close to Lieberman, it takes one to know one), and the fact that so many smart Dems and Independents seem to thoughtlessly buy into his press-fanned shtick about "character" and "honor" and "principle." I recall having huge fights with my Berkeley-educated Jewish lefty wife about McCain in 2000 and even last week a friend of mine - an Ivy-educated, Upper West Side born-and-bred feminist liberal who follows politics closely -- claimed she'd vote for McCain over Clinton. I said sharply, "Do you want to see Roe v. Wade go down?

"Well, um, no," she said.

"That's what will happen if McCain gets elected."

My bottom line: if a candidate (or his advocates) keeps telling you over and over and over again about the nobility of his character, his unadulterated sense of honor, his peerless principles, then clearly he's lacking in those areas.

Our press is so fucking brain-dead. Depressing.

"They want their issues fronted by the culture of honor, character, and the patriotic warrior."

Which was Reagan's trick. Reagan's other trick was to get them to come along when he strayed from their issues, which wasn't often, and they could always count on a Welfare Queen-ism when he went off the rez. I believe the term is Red Meat, and McCain doesn't dish per Fox News Planet expectations.

The GOP has also been pushing an unpopular domestic agenda: repeal Roe, remove the filth from those highly-rated TV shows, etc. by proclaiming how religious they are. Hence Huckabee.

But all of that lack of interest in domestic issues fits with traditional conservative/Republican Federalist Society type attitudes towards Federal government not trying to do much more than defense of the country.

Which is why I don't get why the Anne Coulter/Rush Limbaugh types and so many Reagan lovers hate him so much. I am at a loss to figure out what precisely makes him such a "liberal" to them. Every conservative is going to certain issues outside defense where they think the Federal government should be involved, why is he so different? What things did he betray them on that makes the dislike so virulent? Is it that he teamed up with Dems to sponsor bills? Then they are really against things going more towards bipartisanship, they'd like to keep their Manichean world? If that's the case, it's crazy picking Mitt Romney as the favored alternative, governor of a blue state. I just don't get it.

Re: The very same conservative opinion-mongering institutions that are so frightened of McCain are the very ones that played a key role in shifting the conversation in 2000 and 2004 to the politics of honor and character.

In what way were either of those elections about character and honor? The swiftboat attack on Kerry maybe, but only in a negative sense (one partly matched by the faked military records dissing Bush). And 2000? Not at all, unless you count the last minute revelation of Bush's DUI. And let's remember that Bush's approach in 2000 did not in fact work: he was the loser of the popular vote. And the election of 2004 was about one major issue (national security) and perhaps one minor issue (gay marriage). That's what reelected George W Bush.

it isn't something new since 2000 - in 1996 Dole got the nomination because he was "due", he was an old guy, a war hero, and he ran on character - and got very little traction from it. Once you get away from the hot-button cultural and national security issues, there really isn't much reason for anyone to vote Republican unless you can successfully demonize someone. But running a "positive" (relatively speaking) campaign based on character? There's nothing there.

The media has been openly fellating McCain, have been for years.

1. Normally, the press reacts highly negatively to someone who wraps themselves in a flag as an excuse for all their character flaws and bad policy choices. Who takes refuge in patriotism whenever they are held to account for something.

2. Their reaction in media, if a 4-Star swaggered up to them and said only Americans who have had come from professional military families and had full military careers counted as Real Americans - and all other Americans tainted with careers about money, or trivial professions like teaching, plumbing, sales - are less brave and worthy from "ducking" the seeking out of war - would be immediate. "Just Who The Fuck Do You Think You Are, General. Shove You And Your Pretensions Of MOral Superiority!!!

What holds all suspension of calling McCain out in the media as a Pompous asshole prick using his "super-patriotism" as a last refuge AND as a bludgeon against all rivals, is the second part of the McCain Bio he has milked for 40 years. I SERVED!!! Bow to me! I SUFFERED!! Worship my POW-hood as the highest military feat!

It is the sanctity of Victimhood, enshrined in identity politics, and taken to a new place by McCain alone as the HERO/PWO Victim Who Suffered For All Of US Lesser Folks - that makes McCain untouchable in so many quarters.

*Few Americans know McCain was passed over for executive leadership by the US Navy. He was not promoted to Admiral, but retired, on matters of performance, character, temperment, and adultery.

*That a study of his record shows many instances of lying, deceit, betrayal of principle, of trust, and flipping on issues that belie the McCain self-promotion fluffed uncritically by media.

*Performance: Bottom 1% of his graduating class. He lost 5 jets. Two by pilot error, but was kept on w/o reprimand for hotdoggery by family connections.

*Reports from Hill Staffers and other elected officials are that McCain continues to have significant issues with temperment and anger management originally identified in his military years. And that he is very uninformed on issues outside his Committeework and not very bright. Never selected for a leadership position in the Senate.

*His POW years and the sanctity of his heroism are difficult subjects to deal with because criticism or questioning McCain's version of events is seen as out of bounds. But we do have a possible President ascending into office in part on just his word of his 5 1/2 years in enemy hands, being of the highest heroism..A few POWs have come forth and questioned aspects of his story....and unfortunately for us, the only people with full knowledge of the truth are McCain, the Vietnamese, and the Russians via their KGB getting reports on all the American POWs.

My bottom line: if a candidate (or his advocates) keeps telling you over and over and over again about the nobility of his character, his unadulterated sense of honor, his peerless principles, then clearly he's lacking in those areas.
Our press is so fucking brain-dead. Depressing.
Posted by BryklynLibrul


The press is not brain-dead. They have puffed up McCain the whole time since 2000 as the Bush-underminer, then as the champion against the media-despised Rudy and Romney. But the "game plan" appears to always (because they know McCain flaws they keep from the public) use McCain as a counter to people they hate more - and to finally, if they were lucky, to present him as an unelectable Bob Dole sort to assure Hillary's victory. Then Obama came along and the media is happy that they will have two choices that can destroy McCain with a little media help of dredging out all the bad stuff on him they have kept under wraps.

(The media's favorable treatment of Pastor Huckleberry appears to be also geared to make him the Romney/Thompson slayer by dividing up the conservative vote and giving McCain minority vote "victories" from conservatives. Huckleberry-MaCain move against and to divide the larger conservative vote was a brilliant move.)

"Do you want to see Roe v. Wade go down?

"Well, um, no," she said.

"That's what will happen if McCain gets elected."

BryklynLibrul | February 2

In the last GOP debate that I watched parts of, he strongly promised to appoint more judges like Alito and Roberts.

In the last GOP debate that I watched parts of, he strongly promised to appoint more judges like Alito and Roberts.

McCain has a perfect anti-abortion voting record and says openly Roe was incorrectly decided. For some reason, people seem unclear on this. Perhaps it's the "maverick" reputation, or the fluffing from the press core.

It bears saying again and again that if Roe is stricken down as bad law and overeaching by the Supreme Court deep into emenations and penumbras NOT in the Constitution, abortion does not get outlawed, but becomes a matter for The People to vote on. State by State.

The result is some states would find they have a society morally ordered to the People's will with strict abortion limits, other states, the majority, would have some limits in the end stages of fetal growth but none early on, and some would have no limits.

I consider that a good struggle. As with Dred Scott, the lawyers in robes usurped power, bypassed Democracy - and the Supremes do need limits to their power every bit as much as a Unitary Executive, so the fight to overturn Roe is a noble one, IMO.


Also, let's remember there is a long list of examples of McCain's lack of honesty. It's way past time we all retired that descriptor.

McCain has a perfect anti-abortion voting record and says openly Roe was incorrectly decided. For some reason, people seem unclear on this. Perhaps it's the "maverick" reputation, or the fluffing from the press core.

For years, the press has generally decided to draw the "liberal/conservative" line over the abortion issue. If a Democrat is pro-life, he is described as a "conservative" Democrat, regardless of his other views. Republicans who have a pro-choice voting record are always "moderate" or "liberal" Republicans. This narrative has been ingrained in the public consciousness enough that when people describe McCain as a moderate or a "maverick", people instantly start to think that this automatically means there's some flexibility on the abortion issue.

Chris Ford is due for a rude awakening when he learns that the US Constitution contains a Supremacy clause, meaning that legislative acts of the US Congress pre-empt state law. That includes things like, you know, the Partial Birth Abortion Act, upheld by Bush's "strict constructionist" judges.

I can only suspect that if Chris Ford has been hoodwinked by states' rights claptrap, he will gladly support John "maverick" McCain for his principled states' rights approach to abortion.

Links didn't work. Whatever, just google "john mccain constitutional amendment abortion"

"National Greatness' = periodically bombing the shit out of wogs.

My concern about McCain is that some Democrats and a lot of Independents who may have some slight reservations about the woman and the black in the race will pick him, rationalizing that he is a reasonable, moderate alternative who will allow them to sleep better at night. There are lizard brains even in the Democratic constituencies.

The Geezer Campaign is probably McCain's best strategy going forward. "John McCain: He's forgotten more than you remember." Or maybe "Grandpa's coming!" I'm sure the MSM will find many ways to let us know all over again that lovableness is more important than competence. It seems to be their principal standard. What I think I'll enjoy most, though, is hearing and reading all the explanations why McCain's flip-flops don't count precisely BECAUSE he's not serious about any of them. For the war, then against, then for again. For filibusters, then against, then for, now it depends. Immigrants good, then bad, then good again, now half-bad. Torture bad, then not so much, then it depends, then mostly bad. He's just so mavericky about everything that they love him to death.

"For a good long while now the Republican Party has been pushing an approach to economic policy that is contrary to the interests of most Americans. So how do they win office? Well, primarily by being a political party that's appealing in lots of other ways"

I'm sorry Matthew but that is a really lame and characteristically blind analysis. This is the same mistake made by Hacker and Pierson in their book "Off Center". Relatively moderate people like you and Hacker and Pierson are too polite to mention the real elephant in the living room.

IT'S THE LYING, STUPID. IT'S ALL THE GODDAMN LYING.

THEY CREATED A HOAX ABOUT SOVIET MILITARY CAPABILITIES. THEY CREATED A HOAX ABOUT SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS. AND THEY CREATED A HOAX ABOUT WMD AND IRAQ.

They lie all the time with impunity. They are not held to the same standards as Al Gore or Bill Clinton or John Edwards. They are ALLOWED to lie.

Being allowed to lie is the political Ring of Gyges. It allows them to get away with anything. You cannot defeat an opponent who is both willing and allowed to systematically lie.

But for Matt Yglesias and for Hacker and Pierson, this obviously fundamental point never comes to mind.

Propaganda works, Matthew. We live in a society that has been the victim of systematic propaganda campaigns.

Get a clue you little twit. Sing it from the mountaintop. NEVER forget what has happened. NEVER forget to mention it as a fundamental cause. Otherwise you contribute to the psychological denial that our country has fallen into.

There are 1,000,000 dead Iraqis who died because of the propaganda that the Republicans were allowed to spread. You OWE it to them, Matthew, to mention that fact.

Viewed objectively, the world is in a period of relative peace and prosperity. But you wouldn't know it listening to McCain. McCain doesn't have the inclination to be a peacetime president. He'll prolong Iraq and quite possibility create other phony wars. Part of me wants McCain to win the presidency, so if and when these conflicts go sour the Republicans will have no one to blame but themselves. And then we can all watch the edifying spectacle of McCain appearing on national TV all humbled and bewildered, like Bush in early 2007, begging the US public for just a little more patience.

Viewed objectively, the world is in a period of relative peace and prosperity. But you wouldn't know it listening to McCain. McCain doesn't have the inclination to be a peacetime president. He'll prolong Iraq and quite possibility create other phony wars. Part of me wants McCain to win the presidency, so if and when these conflicts go sour the Republicans will have no one to blame but themselves. And then we can all watch the edifying spectacle of McCain appearing on national TV all humbled and bewildered, like Bush in early 2007, begging the US public for just a little more patience.


Comments closed February 16, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.