McCain the Sellout

Having heard this, I think it seems somewhat obvious in retrospect, but I met a smart conservative thinker last night who explained to me the conservative base's fear about John McCain in understandable terms for the first time. Basically, McCain or no McCain this still looks like a bad year for the GOP. If he wins, it's likely to be a personal win based on his persona and tarnishing Obama's persona, in which the Democrats still pick up some House and Senate seats. Next up, it's governing time. McCain's not someone who enjoys a strong personal or professional relationship with John Boehner or Mitch McConnell, and he doesn't owe any great debt to the GOP activist base. Under the circumstances, it's plausible to imagine him striking a bunch of compromises with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi on domestic issue in order to get a freer hand with which to conduct foreign policy.

That does seem plausible to me. On the other hand, it strikes me as an equally plausible story about Mitt Romney who had a much more substantial record of reaching compromises with a Democratic legislature. But if you put a lot of weight on purely personality-driven factors, I can see the particular fear of McCain since by all accounts he just doesn't like the Republican congressional leaders.

That said, a plausible story is just that, a plausible one. Campaign promises are a very imperfect guide to governing, but they're still one of the best guides we've got. The safest thing seems to me to assume that McCain more-or-less means what he says, and that if he wins he'll govern on the platform he just ran and won on.

Comments

This of course presupposes that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have a discernible domestic legislative agenda.

Posted by Marshall | February 29, 2008 2:18 PM

It's called "bipartisanship," and it's in demand by conservatives, it seems, only when Democrats have political control.

After years of being told to go **** yourselves, aren't you glad Dems feel it's better to govern then to get even?

Posted by zic | February 29, 2008 2:19 PM

It's called "bipartisanship," and it's in demand by conservatives, it seems, only when Democrats have political control.

After years of being told to go **** yourselves, aren't you glad Dems feel it's better to govern then to get even?

Posted by zic | February 29, 2008 2:19 PM

It's called "bipartisanship," and it's in demand by conservatives, it seems, only when Democrats have political control.

After years of being told to go **** yourselves, aren't you glad Dems feel it's better to govern then to get even?

Posted by zic | February 29, 2008 2:19 PM

It's called "bipartisanship," and it's in demand by conservatives, it seems, only when Democrats have political control.

After years of being told to go **** yourselves, aren't you glad Dems feel it's better to govern then to get even?

Posted by zic | February 29, 2008 2:21 PM

What conservatives fear is that McCain will raise their taxes. They fear he will decide that "honor", in the form of endless war, requires "sacrifice" from everybody -- and the rich have nothing to sacrifice except their tax cuts.

-- TP

Posted by Tony P. | February 29, 2008 2:26 PM

John O'Sullivan at NRO had a pretty reasonable argument (as I recall)--that if McCain wins, there would be NO major party willing to contest the "national question" --i.e control immigration so that the United States isn't turned into some sort of completely different entity in fifty years. I know MY and most here don't care about this, but a fair number of folks do.

Posted by TACreader | February 29, 2008 2:28 PM

"Under the circumstances, it's plausible to imagine him striking a bunch of compromises with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi on domestic issue in order to get a freer hand with which to conduct foreign policy."

There is no need for McCain to compromise with Reid and Pelosi when he agrees with them on domestic policy issues. If he wins, he will be no different than the Dems, and certainly no different than Bush on domestic policy issues. That's why he should not get any consevative support, which is why I will not vote for him under any circumstances.

However, since I think that he will beat either Hillary or Obama in the general election, I have resigned myself to accepting him as our new overlord.

Posted by Chicounsel | February 29, 2008 2:35 PM

It seems odd that Matt would be taking this position on McCain and his campaign promises.

One of the most compelling critiques of McCain, which Matt has advanced here several times, is that McCain too often substitutes sincerity for honesty. (In the sense that honesty requires one to be consistent in addition to meaning what you say at any particular time)

McCain has the potential to break any number of campaign promises if it later becomes clear to him that there is a greater good to be served. We have seen this tendency in his approach to campaign finance, and in his too sweeping denials on the lobbyist charges. I see know reason that a President McCain would behave any differently.

Posted by heedless | February 29, 2008 2:37 PM

One thing that confuses me a bit about taxes ... given the likely makeup of the house and senate, combined with the sunset provisions on the Bush tax cuts, the house and senate will be very much in the driver's seat w/r/t taxes. Sure, the president can threaten a veto of any tax legislation, but that would (in effect) result in a massive tax increase, whereas (most likely) any tax legislation coming out of congress will keep at least some of the Bush tax cuts.

So what difference will it make if McCain isn't really a true believer on taxes? Do they think he is going to agree to tax increases over and above whatever increases are approved as a part of legislation modifying the Bush tax cuts? That seems unlikely.

I'm not disagreeing with Matthew's post overall, mind you, there are plenty of other areas where conservatives could reasonably fear betrayal by McCain (though I also agree with Matthew that those fears probably wouldn't be borne out), but on taxes, the congress will be very much in the driver's seat.

Posted by LarryM | February 29, 2008 2:39 PM

...control immigration so that the United States isn't turned into some sort of completely different entity in fifty years

The United States at present can arguably be described as "a completely different entity" than it was fifty years ago, and now doubt will also be "completely different" in significant ways fifty years from now, regardless of any candidate's policy on immigration.

Go blow your damn dogwhistle on some other blog.

Posted by James Gary | February 29, 2008 2:44 PM

James,

As my post in another thread should make clear, I agree with you substantively on that point. But I think you underestimate the extent to which a good part of the Republican base agrees with TACreader. And not JUST for racist reasons - also for the more mundane reason that they suspect (probably correctly) that open immigration policies will work to the long term detriment of the Republican party.

Of course, it hardly seems likely that Obama or Clinton would be "better" from a nativist perspective. But having McCain as the nominee could convince some of the nativists to sit the election out.

Posted by LarryM | February 29, 2008 2:51 PM

Matt, I’ll grant you this sounds a good deal more intelligent than the usual knee-jerk reaction by some conservatives to McCain. But while it contains some elements of truth, I don’t think it is an adequate explanation. Simplifying, you can say that the Republicans are a coalition of evangelical Christians, proponents of trickle-down economics, and pro-imperialist militarists. McCain is clearly in the latter camp and has stuck his neck out politically in defense of his views on the military and the place of the U.S. in the world. The evangelicals and economic reactionaries don’t like McCain because he’s never taken a risk or expended any capital in defense of positions they hold dear. Sure he votes with him; but he dosen't fight with them. McCain can’t unite the coalition not just because the coalition has been torn apart by the multiple failures of the Bush administration, but because he just can’t convince two parts of it that he cares about their issues as much as he cares about the expansion of US military power. Would he be convinced as easily as Bush to lower taxes and go to war at the same time? Like you, I think that once elected McCain would represent the totality of his Party’s interests. But I don’t think the tax and evangelical crazies are wrong or irrational in having some distrust of McCain or some fear that ultimately he’ll betray their interests. As for conservatives fearing that it’ll be a personal victory as opposed to a victory of ideas that strikes me as utter nonsense. What was Bush’s victory then?

Posted by Daniel | February 29, 2008 3:04 PM

Since McCain doesn't really have a domestic policy platform other than extending Bush's tax cuts, I'm not sure what Matt is referring to.

Posted by Ron | February 29, 2008 3:09 PM

the conservative base's fear about John McCain in understandable terms for the first time.

What? You never understood it before?

Remember back about 10 or so years ago, before Holy Joe became so explicitly a DINO and then an "Independent Democrat"? He used to have a fairly reliable liberal voting record, etc. But liberals didn't (and with good reason it turns out) trust the feller because of his efforts at "bipartisanship" (*) and how he managed to hinder the Democratic agenda at every opportunity whilst still casting the right votes so he could appear liberal to a certain segment of the electorate.

McCain does the same thing, as far as the conservative base is concerned: he reliably votes conservative to be sure, but he does speak out against some of the excesses of the GOP -- and those who are the excesses don't like it.

Of course, the difference is that when McCain does it, although it gives him "maverick" and moderate cred, he may make the base look bad, he may make individual Republicans look bad, but in the end his actions (and Spector's actions, etc.) are spinable as "look at how inclusive is the GOP". When Lieberman plays his games, he's always done it so that he looks good and the Dems. look bad as a party.

So I'd say we in the Dem. base are right about Lieberman in a way that the GOP base should not be so concerned about McCain ... but as far as the GOP base is concerned, they see him in the same way as we see Lieberman (plus, he does have a temper) and for the same reasons.

* Note there is no objection to bipartisanship per se ... c.f. Russ Feingold -- and liberal reactions to him -- with Lieberman.

Posted by DAS | February 29, 2008 3:22 PM

John McCain is becoming a figure of ridicule before our eyes. As gaffe prone as Romney. This whole thing is a joke. A man who is 'tongue-tied' and can't think on the spot. I wonder who that remind me of???

Posted by SonnyL. | February 29, 2008 3:26 PM

Lieberman comparison is very instructive. Lieberman, when he was not a corporate whore, had a decent record on environment, unions, choice etc. But at the end of the day he is an unhinged paranoid imperialist and nothing else matters to him very much, all nice very sonorous speeches notwithstanding.

McCain looks like a person that if getting a chance to bomb Iran will require nominating some non-troglodite judges and, say, allowing for socialized medicine, he will go for it.

That there is really no Democratic leader who would be able to drive this kind of bargain is something that we know, but wingnuts do not. I mean, these people think that Pelosi and Reid are some kind of willy Communists. OTOH, who knows, if Democrats get a majority in the Senate, they could make, say, Dodd, the majority leader and it could be a very different ball game. Not that Dodd is a willy Communist...

Posted by piotr | February 29, 2008 4:08 PM

McCain nearly left the Republican party because he didn't like being called names.

Just wait til he sees what the Democrats think of him. He'll be the most conservative president possible in reaction to the hate that will come his way for winning.

Posted by Thomas | February 29, 2008 4:27 PM

I'm pretty unconvinced. The GOP - at least as far as the modern incarnation goes - is an ultra top-down organization. There are a number of party elders (Limbaugh, Dobson, etc) who just don't like McCain. This animosity is published out to the masses of supporters - the reasons they then develop are little more than post-hoc rationalizations.

They don't like McCain because they've been told not to like McCain. It probably doesn't go much deeper than that.

Posted by BFR | February 29, 2008 4:31 PM

"John O'Sullivan at NRO had a pretty reasonable argument (as I recall)--that if McCain wins, there would be NO major party willing to contest the "national question" --i.e control immigration so that the United States isn't turned into some sort of completely different entity in fifty years. I know MY and most here don't care about this, but a fair number of folks do."

There never will be one way or the other. Corporate America's views will be represented by Republican leaders. Witness 'Free Trade" which has become a bipartisan consensus despite swaths of both parties voters not liking it.

Posted by witless chum | February 29, 2008 5:17 PM

"if he wins he'll govern on the platform he just ran and won on"

No, it's more sensible to believe that MaCain will govern on the platform he runs on in fall.

And it's even more sensible to assume he just do whatever the hell he can get away with at the time.

Posted by Steve Sailer | February 29, 2008 5:20 PM

BFR pretty much gets it right as far as I'm concerned.

With respect to SonnyL's point, McCain is doing pretty well right now in national polls. If that survives a series of debates with Obama, my opinion of the citizenry will take another big step downwards (and its already pretty damn low).

Posted by mpowell | February 29, 2008 6:11 PM

Go blow your damn dogwhistle on some other blog.

How disgusting. So much as mention the transformation of america due to immigration and you scream "racist". If you don't want to hear important things discussed, go to some other blog.

Posted by scottynx | February 29, 2008 8:07 PM

I think the question about McCain is: just how much under control of the people who actually run this country is he?

If a large number of Republicans don't like him, it's got to be because he doesn't play as much ball with those people who control the Republican party - and the Democratic party - as other Republicans such as Bush and Cheney do.

Now that might be a good thing for the country - or it would be if McCain wasn't in all other respects a deluded military nutcase.

As it is, I suspect that if McCain actually gets in the White House, he will be visited by a number of "Very Serious People" who will inform him that as of now he is very much under control by them - if he wants to keep breathing - as Reagan was lucky to do after Hinckley was brought front and center to remind him of that fact.

The GOP had no problems with Bush Senior or Bush Junior in that regard. They probably wouldn't have had any problem with Giuliani or Huckabee or whoever. But McCain, to the degree he relishes this "maverick" crap persona, might be a problem.

So I think this is all mostly irrelevant carping by various GOP factions. The Serious People will make sure McCain toes the line where it counts: on the economy and foreign policy. Most of those Serious People probably don't give a damn about abortion, and less about immigration than about oil and the military-industrial complex.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 29, 2008 11:22 PM

Academic topic: conservative (and liberal) bases. Meanwhile, in the real world, things are looking good for him, apparently. Hasn't even had to move to towards the middle yet:

Poll: McCain looking good in FL Thursday, February 28, 2008 12:57 PM by Domenico Montanaro

McCain leads both Obama and Clinton in potential general-election match ups with either candidate in the all-important swing state of Florida, according to a Mason-Dixon poll out today.

McCain leads Obama 47%-37% and Clinton 49%-40%. The Arizona senator leads the Democrats across the board. About 80% of Republicans are behind McCain. Only 66% of Democrats are behind Obama and 72% are backing Clinton in one-one-one match-ups with McCain. Currently, 17% of Democrats indicate that in a match up with Obama, they'd support McCain; 16% say so in a match up with Clinton. Seventeen percent of Dems also say they are undecided in a match up with Obama; 13% say so with regard to McCain-Clinton. Those numbers though could be a reflection of McCain being the presumptive nominee and Obama and Clinton still engaged in a fight for the nomination....

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/28/713124.aspx

Posted by artappraiser | March 1, 2008 3:31 AM