The Lonely Stand

David Brooks rightly lauds John McCain's opposition to the bad farm bill wending its way through congress is equally correct to note that Barack Obama's stance on this leaves something to be desired. The selfish, curious-journalist side of me would like to see McCain become president precisely because of his penchant for taking on these kind of doomed battles.

As a Senator, he gets to play the lonely crank with ease -- sometimes for good, as with farm bills, sometimes for ill as with his quixotic effort to ban mixed-martial arts competition -- just voting "no" and stuff and giving speeches that denounce it. As President, though, a lonely stand wouldn't just be a lonely stand -- he could veto stuff. Would he really do it? Really pick cataclysmic, likely unwinnable fights with congress over farm bills and earmarks and ethanol? A president Obama would, I assume, pragmatically bend to the immovable forces and try to find allies to pass his agenda on key issues like health care and climate change. That'd be one part cowardly and one part sensible. But you could totally imagine McCain deciding that he doesn't care if his entire domestic agenda turns into a trainwreck (he'd still have a free hand in national security policy) so he'd pick fights to his heart's content.

At the end of the day, I think that's probably a better model for how a pundit should behave than how a politician ought to behave (politics, after all, is the art of the possible) which probably explains why so many journalists love McCain. But qua pundit, if I got to vote purely based on the most entertaining possible outcome I do think a McCain presidency has some appeal.

Comments

I'm curious about your use of "cowardly." Care to elaborate what's cowardly about that?

Posted by eriks | May 21, 2008 11:21 AM

You also presumably love NASCAR for the accidents.

You've drunk the maverick Kool-Aid. New flavor.

Posted by Mudge | May 21, 2008 11:23 AM

Matthew, we are going to have to commence a sensible discussion about the danger to the republic of people not working together in a sensibly bipartisan fashion or I am going to have to beat the ever-living crap out of you.

sensibly,
Dave

Posted by David Broder | May 21, 2008 11:30 AM

McCain: The Great Uncompromiser

Posted by goethean | May 21, 2008 11:30 AM

"I'm a divider, not a Shiite. Wait. Uh, give me a second..." --John McCain

Posted by LFC | May 21, 2008 11:38 AM

Voting for the most entertaining outcome? Hmmmm, I think maybe Sara Silverman would be a much bigger hoot at a multinational nuclear disarmament conference than John McCain. Maybe instead of vetoing a bad bill she'd stand up on a table and piss on Mitch McConnell's head.

Posted by steve duncan | May 21, 2008 11:39 AM

Well, it all depends on whether McCain could build a coalition of 35 Senators. If so, he could be a decent President domestically, when he isn't mounting an assault on the Constitution. I guess that really means that there is no compelling reason to vote for him.

Posted by Will Allen | May 21, 2008 11:40 AM

Can some of the Obama partisans explain to me how it is that a candidate who poses (as McCain does) as one who will work with all sides can be so enthusiastically supported by the Kos-types who seem to eschew bipartisanship?

I am hot and cold about the value of bipartisanship--but it's clearly something BHO claims as a goal/talent of his. Do y'all think he doesn't really mean it?

Posted by Bill | May 21, 2008 11:42 AM

"Kill them all -- let God sort them out"

Posted by Don Williams | May 21, 2008 11:47 AM

Please.

David Brooks picked that example strategically.

Obama is a senator from Illinois.

If there is anything more fundamental to the job description of an Illinois senator than voting for the farm bill, I don't know what it is.

Posted by Steve | May 21, 2008 11:51 AM

You have a journalist side?

Posted by nolaboyd | May 21, 2008 11:52 AM

I not sure there's actually anything "there" though. Everything I've seen of McCain indicates that he picks quixotic quests specifically because they are quixotic. The point isn't to make a stand, its just running against the flow for the sake of running against the flow, plus getting lots of press for going against the flow. If he were in a position to do something, it wouldn't be quixotic and thus not worth pursing.

Posted by malraux | May 21, 2008 11:53 AM

Nice to know MY would find a lot more US soldiers dying for nothing "entertaining."

Posted by John | May 21, 2008 11:54 AM

Bill, Kos is happily bipartisan when the Democrats with a progressive agenda are in charge, and bipartisanship will help get the agenda enacted.

Posted by nolaboyd | May 21, 2008 11:57 AM

Why not support a candidacy based on who'd blaze the most entertaining trail to collapse? Perot got millions of votes on that basis.

Bill, straw polls on dKos showed for months that Edwards was the overwhelming favorite of kossacks. They also showed very, very little enthusiasm for Clinton. Obama only emerged as the favorite there after Edwards star had faded. My anecdotal sense of it is that there are lots of people there who really respond to Obama's rhetoric of unity and commonality of purpose, and also many who just want to elect a Dem and think he's the Party's best bet, as well as a candidate who could have long coattails.

Posted by Pesto | May 21, 2008 11:57 AM

Bipartisan or not, the farm bill is a gigantic waste of federal money that serves mainly to line the pockets of massive agribusiness companies. As an added bonus, it helps people in the developing world starve for lack of affordable food. It's time this thing got slashed. Good for Senator (may he remain a Senator) McCain.

Posted by Angry Sam | May 21, 2008 11:58 AM

Re: But you could totally imagine McCain deciding that he doesn't care if his entire domestic agenda turns into a trainwreck (he'd still have a free hand in national security policy)

Donl't be too sure about that. Reagan also shot his mouth off about over-the-top domestic spending, but as president he knuckled under on lots of pork in order to get his foreign policy stuff through Congress. I could easily McCain doing the same if his emphasis really is on foreign policy.

Posted by JonF | May 21, 2008 12:11 PM

Discretionary domestic spending fell by more than 2%, as a percentage of GDP, during Reagan's time in office, which was the largest decline of the 20th century. Of course, he had the Senate with him for 6 of 8 years, which McCain is very unlikely to replicate.

Posted by Will Allen | May 21, 2008 12:34 PM

I really don't get this. Bush, also a Republican, is vetoing the farm bill, and it is passing anyway. No cataclysm, no chuckles, zero effect on overall policy. In fact it may be argued that vetoing a farm bill is politically very *safe* since it lets you look all mavericky without causing an outcome that leaves people angry at you.

Posted by mark | May 21, 2008 12:35 PM

"his entire domestic agenda turns into a trainwreck (he'd still have a free hand in national security policy).."

Hmmm - Gulf War III, the McCain of Persia sequel, might have some impact on domstic policy. Esp. when gas hits $22/gallon.

Posted by HeavyJ | May 21, 2008 1:30 PM

Come on Matt, I don't think this is that impossible. It's not like the farm bill of all things has widespread popular support. It's a horrific mound of corporate welfare for big agribusiness and sugar barons. Defeating it would just require some effort.

Posted by Minnesota | May 21, 2008 1:48 PM

Too many pundits think only "qua pundit." They are too insulated from the real-world effects of their mouthing off, too tantalized by the personal profit that comes of their ill-considered, shallow "opinions." It's one of the reasons this country is in such a mess.

Posted by bobbo | May 21, 2008 1:57 PM

It's the object that's immovable. Canonically, the force is unstoppable.

I sure hope your copyeditor for HITS got danger pay.

Posted by Doug | May 21, 2008 2:45 PM

But qua pundit, if I got to vote purely based on the most entertaining possible outcome I do think a McCain presidency has some appeal.

You remind me of an interview with literary reviewers who were forced to read all the extant works of the remaining nominees. Qua book reviewer, if they had to choose someone whose future work they would be forced to read (likely if that person were to become president and produce more books) they went 3 for 3 for Obama.

Posted by Deborah | May 21, 2008 2:50 PM

Obama is a senator from Illinois.

If there is anything more fundamental to the job description of an Illinois senator than voting for the farm bill, I don't know what it is.

Even if Obama were to lose against McCain and had to run for re-election in 2010, somehow I don't think voting against the farm bill would jeopardize his political future.

Posted by Asher | May 21, 2008 4:40 PM

Obama is a senator from Illinois.

If there is anything more fundamental to the job description of an Illinois senator than voting for the farm bill, I don't know what it is.

Even if Obama were to lose against McCain and had to run for re-election in 2010, somehow I don't think voting against the farm bill would jeopardize his political future.

Posted by Asher | May 21, 2008 4:42 PM

Will Allen: "Discretionary domestic spending fell by more than 2%, as a percentage of GDP, during Reagan's time in office, which was the largest decline of the 20th century."

I found only data for years divisible by 5. so: the sum of non-defense discretionary, defense, and interest for 1980, 1985 and 1990, in percents of GDP: 12, 13.1, 11.9. And I think that the first post-Reagan year have seen very severe budget slashing, so I think that the achievement of Reagan was to redirect the spending from useful (domestic programs) to useless (defense, interest payments).

I do not suggest that the entirety of the defense budget is useless. For example, I once managed to spend about 100k of that budget to show that neural networks, as understood by myself and my collaborators, cannot contribute to the national defense. The nation is much better of as a result.

Posted by piotr | May 21, 2008 7:59 PM

Matt, you are an mma fan? Let's have some ufc blogging at least!

And you may know this but McCain is against mma because his wife is Cindy McCain nee Budwiser, and Budwiser hearts boxing, whose promoters are pretty hostile to ufc because of fear of competition. Now that mma is semi legit and sponsored by or drug pushing overloards (including amheiser bush, iirc) McCain hasn't a problem with it.

So rest assured, McCain is just as hypocritical on meaningless issues as he is on cfr, endless occupation of foreign lands, etc.

Posted by Client #11 | May 22, 2008 12:35 AM

Can't any Senator put a hold on a bill? If McCain was truly some anti-pork crusader like he portrays himself, why hasn't he done that on bills like this?

Posted by Adrian | May 22, 2008 9:00 PM

Can't any Senator put a hold on a bill? If McCain was truly some anti-pork crusader like he portrays himself, why hasn't he done that on bills like this?

Posted by Adrian | May 22, 2008 9:03 PM