Straight Talk About the Straight-Talker: John McCain Lacks Integrity
by Henry Mark Holzer | View comments |
Print This Post
While McCain's lack of integrity in the MIA investigation is so dramatic because of his own military and POW background, there are other examples which are equally important and disturbing.
There is a scene in the classic Elia Kazan film "Viva Zapata" when a young Emiliano Zapata for the first time meets his bride-to-be's father, a shopkeeper manifestly unimpressed with his daughter's suitor. The father calls Zapata "a man of substance, without substance."
So, too, it is with John McCain. He is "a man of integrity without integrity"-meaning that the senator is reputed to have great integrity, but in fact has little, given the definition of that word: "the quality of possessing and steadfastly adhering to high moral principles or professional standards" (Encarta Dictionary).
Two different, but related, events that coalesced today are what have caused me to write on this subject.
The first was an email from a friend observing that a noted Washington, D.C. conservative journalist just said to her that he "disagreed with what McCain was saying," but nonetheless "considered McCain far and above the best [presidential] candidate" because "the man has integrity."
The second was this week's Newsweek Web Exclusive by Jonathan Alter, relating a telephone call he had just received from Ross Perot, the unsuccessful presidential candidate who has long been a major voice on behalf of POWs and MIAs. Alter quoted Perot as saying that McCain "is the classic opportunist-he's always reaching for attention and glory. Other POWs won't even sit at the same table with him."
According to Alter, "Perot's real problem with McCain is that he believes that the senator hushed up evidence that live POWs were left behind in Vietnam and even transferred to the Soviet Union for human experimentation, a charge Perot says he heard from a senior Vietnamese official in the 1980s. 'There's evidence, evidence, evidence,' Perot claims. 'McCain was adamant about shutting down anything to do with recovering POWs.'"
Perot was referring principally to McCain's tag-team performance with John Kerry on a Senate committee charged with getting to the bottom of the MIA question. (See the article "Archangel 1918 to Hanoi 1972" at http://www.henrymarkholzer.com/f/publishedarticle.pdf. )
That article and the copious sources cited in it leave no doubt that McCain was instrumental in burying, sadly for all time, any possibility of learning what became of Americans who were missing in action throughout Southeast Asia. Hardly the work of a man of integrity, let alone a United States Senator and himself a former prisoner of war.
While McCain's lack of integrity in the MIA investigation is so dramatic because of his own military and POW background, there are other examples which are equally important and disturbing.
The man of integrity and self-proclaimed fighter for the "little guy" was up to his ears in the infamous "Keating Five" bank scandal, which cost countless American bank depositors incalculable amounts of money and some of them their life savings.
The man of integrity, a Republican and alleged conservative, partnered with leftwing Democrat Senator Russ Feingold to sponsor and enact a federal statute that has throttled considerable free political speech in American election campaigns, because, according to McCain himself he "would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."
The man of integrity did his best to legitimize millions of illegal aliens, despite their criminality, their harmful effect on the American economy, and its workers.
The man of integrity, during his two-plus decades in Congress, and his political heft there, did little or nothing on behalf of veterans, despite the fact that few in that body knew better than he the personal costs of their service and their needs.
The man of integrity, who supposedly opposes the "living Constitution" principle, organized the Senate cabal euphemistically known as the "Gang of Fourteen," which made him kingmaker and indispensable to the White House in its nomination of Supreme Court justices and other federal judges- thereby, in a single coup, weakening the President's appointment power and enabling the Senate to filibuster in violation of its constitutional duty to give judicial nominees up or down votes.
The man of integrity, a Navy pilot who spent over five years as a POW, whitewashed antiwar poster-girl Hanoi Jane Fonda, whom he characterized as merely a "confused young actress"-thereby insulting many of his POW brothers and others who suffered from her conduct, further legitimizing her traitorous behavior on behalf of the Communists.
The man of integrity, with a reputation for being strong on national security, engineered a near-unanimous Senate vote to give "enemy combatants" (i.e., Islamic terrorists) all the protections the Geneva Convention reserves for prisoners of war, and to prohibit the obtaining of crucially important intelligence by "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment."
The man of integrity, who rails against government waste and purports to believe in a strong economy, twice broke ranks with his party, and voted against the Bush tax cuts. And against repeal of the death tax.
The man of integrity, who so prides himself on being a maverick individualist, admits to being a collectivist by such statements as "Each and every one of us has a duty to serve a cause greater than our [own] self- interest."
The man of integrity, claiming concern with America's dependency on foreign oil and the wealth transfer that it causes, joined the left no fewer than four times in defeating our ability to drill in Alaska.
The man of integrity joined with socialist [hawk] Senator Joseph Lieberman to promote an energy tax to combat "global warming," even though it would help the oil cartel- and, worse, be aimed at a spurious threat that lacks credible scientific basis.
Now McCain has become the potential Republican presidential nominee.
So the time has come to make an explicit issue of his purported integrity-an accolade deriving mostly from his reputation for "straight talk" (which has nothing per se to do with integrity), and his having been a prisoner of war.
Having been a POW-which McCain has recently been reminding voters about, especially in South Carolina-no more qualifies, let alone entitles, John McCain to be President of the United States than it does any other former POW.
Nor is it possible to extrapolate from McCain's POW experience all of the qualities a conservative president must possess in these times of deadly threats from abroad and a semi-socialist domestic economy brought us by the Republicans-and inevitable under the Democrats.
Nor does having suffered the agonies of Communist captivity give John McCain, or anyone else, a license to act consistently in a manner inimical to the interests of the United States of America and its people. It does not elevate a political opportunist and a man who lacks integrity into a presidential candidate who possesses that quality.
Suffering is not a substitute for "possessing and steadfastly adhering to high moral principles."
hank@henrymarkholzer.com
http://henrymarkholzer.com
Read more articles by Henry Mark Holzer
I heartily agree with you that "suffering is not a substitute for 'possessing and steadfastly adhering to high moral principles.' At the same time, using spin and contributing to polarization are not forms of integrity either.
I believe that the "I" word (integrity) is thrown around far to liberally (how's that for a double entendre?!) because far too many people are unclear about what integrity really is.
For most people, integrity is a vague and abstract philosophical concept rather than the concrete and actionable way of life that it can become once we understand just a little bit about our three core drives for personal authenticity, connection with others and having positive impact in the world.
3D Integrity lives at the intersection of these three core drives. The more the American people understand this, the more easily they will be able to spot true integrity in their political candidates and other leaders.
A highly acclaimed new book called "The New IQ: How Integrity Intelligence Serves You, Your Relationships and Our World" provides this clarity that is especially important during a presidential election year.
I believe it is a book that no political candidate, and no conservative or libertarian, can afford to be without… nor can liberals afford to be without it either!
Comment by drgruder | January 28, 2008
I was beginning to wonder if I had gone completely mad and confused John McCain with someone else somehow in some kind of alternate universe created in my mind. I'm glad to see that's not the case.
How's this for polarizing: John McCain is a lying little weasel who could pass a lot more easily for a center-left Democrat than any kind of conservative. There. I'm getting so tired this election cycle of hearing about "polarizing" and "negative campaigning" anytime someone attempts to tell the truth about any of these jokers' records. Differentiating between candidates based on reality is not "negative campaigning". And unity in dishonesty is far worse than "polarization".
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 28, 2008
Telling the truth lives at the heart of integrity. What I am tired of is spin passing for truth. I'm tired of truth being embellished upon to support a position rather than allowing truths to stand on their own (for instance, Michael Moore is notorious for doing that). But, far more than this, what I am really sick to death of is the mentality that uses labeling as an excuse to not paying attention to aspects of issues that aren't the ones I want to pay attention to (e.g., you're a conservative so you're full of it — no, you're a liberal so you're the one who's full of it).
This mind set erodes the fundamental underpinnings of what makes democracy work. What is it going to take for us to finally understand that this is an anti-democracy attitude? What is it going to take for us to finally realize that the underpinnings of democracy are based on an understanding that no one person, group ideology ideology is capable of seeing the whole picture?
I believe we live in a culture dominated not only by spin but by the refusal to join together to co-discover and co-create solutions based on synergy instead of polarization. Synergy is a problem-solving strategy that is based on the assumption that no single person, group or perspective grasps the entire picture. Synergy presumes that viable solutions only emerge when we dialoge from the assumption that YOU see a piece of the larger picture more clearly than I do, that I see a piece of the larger picture more clearly than you do, and that what this larger picture REALLY is can only emerge as a result of combining the core of what you see with the core of what I see.
This kind of co-discovery and co-creation process cannot occur in a culture ruled by spin in which one group pushes their own perspectives while bad-mouthing the perspectives of others who, because of their orientation, are more attuned to other equally important aspects of the larger picture that need to be addressed in order for truly viable and durable solutions to be co-created.
What is it going to take for intellectual conservatives (that is the name of this organization, after all!) to rise up to demand that the rules of engagement be upgraded as a way of restoring integrity?
Comment by drgruder | January 28, 2008
DrGruder, nice plug for your site up there in your post. I am constantly amused by pop-psych, and from my fly-over your site seems simply that– and as such, should provide endless chuckles.
McCain lies. Even if it was **only** limited to the Romney attack, it would still show a lack of character. Integrity can't exist w/o character.
Add to that incl. a member of La Roza on his team, as his Hisp. advis., while simulanteously proclaiming an "ah-ha" moment on boarder security… well just ho stupid would I have to be to believe his sincerity on that?
I have read quotes that all these drop-out sending their supporters to McCain do so because because they hate Romney.
I am glad I found out the depth of Fred's and Rudy's commitment to our country and their so-called principles.
[hearsay alert on]
Several pundits have mentioned that one departing candidate — I believe it was the Huck — said he couldn't stand Ronmey because he didn't understand how poliics was played… and wouldn't play anyway. He extended his remark to incl the other candidates.
[heresay alert off]
Seeing the body language between these "gentlemen" when they are together — both w/each other & w/Romney — I can believe it. That several sources state the same indictment adds weight to the charge. It is (for me) a working assumption.
What a *noble* reason to violate your expressed principles. Forever on, I will not vote for any of these "gentlemen" who have dropped out. If in 4 or 8 yrs Fred or Rudy, etc, runs again, I will remind any who will listen the depth of their principles. That their over-riding principle is "Politics before all!": befoe country, before honor.
- musculus
Comment by martin.musculus | January 31, 2008
Hi Musculus,
Since my IntegrityPledge.org website gave you some chuckles (such is the penalty for casual fly-overs in our age of instant pundits), maybe I'll pitch it to Dennis Miller! My book about how to restore integrity (which is NOT the primary focus of the Integrity Pledge website) is anything but pop-psych — it is actually the antidote to pop-psych.
David
Comment by drgruder | January 31, 2008
I *will* give it a better look! But quick fly-overs are the price paid by sites that won't fit/format well in my LifeDrive, as I am rarely at a place w/a PC or Mac.
Loading in my LifeDrive, though, it *does* look like too many of those "self-help" kinds of sites that trade on te fads-of-the-moment.
Also, I firmly believe that anything really worth saying can be said simply — w/o a host of sawbuck words to obsfuscate the meaning or mechanics there-of{grin}. I base this on my own (over-long in the opinion of some{grin}) lifetime of chewing through the words & ideas of giants. Everything idea of consequence has been simply expressed and easy to the understanding of the average guy.
The upside of this insight is it tnds to keep me tethered to Earth in deepwater discussions.
- musculus
PS:
I fear I must beg your pardon.
Looking back at my previous post, it maybe that you bore the brunt of someone else's press of a hot-button: I have an unreasonably strong love of the Constitution and an unreasoning hot hate for the type of lying, self-serving sack of dog-droppings of the type that McCain is proving himself to be…
– m
Comment by martin.musculus | January 31, 2008
drgruger,
A "big picture" does not emerge when two disparate parties combine to form some amalgamated ideology of nothing. It is entirely possible for one person to be right and another person to be wrong - the truth isn't always "in the middle". Reality is objective - it is not the result of a consensus of different opinions and perspectives. In application to the subject at hand, John McCain either lied or he didn't. The things he said are either true or they are untrue. What your rambling, existential tract had to do with that, I still cannot ascertain.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 1, 2008
Hi Martin Musculus,
I appreciate what you wrote about quick fly-overs being all that's possible. My hope is that when you and I do such fly-overs that we don't leave thinking we truly understand what we've seen unless what we're looking at is a very brief and thoroughly self-contained piece.
Your point about the site looking like too many of those "self-help" kinds of sites that trade on the fads-of-the-moment is well-taken. My intention was to utilize that format so that people looking for self-help might find something far more substantial than they are used to finding.
I so agree with your point about the need and value of expressing things simply. Becoming better at this has been a long-standing challenge for me because of having been so over-educated.
As you rightly pointed out, my style tends more to be to invite people into the "deepwater discussion" that I believe must be engaged in if we are to succeed at developing truly viable solutions to profoundly complex systemic problems.
Thank you, too, for your kind apology about your response might have included your charge about a hot button that someone else pressed. I inherited a love of Constitutional Law from my father, for whom that was his most favorite area of law. I too have huge passion about wanting to bust spin in all the forms it takes since this form of lying is contributing to our gridlock rather than helping resolve it.
David
Comment by drgruder | February 1, 2008
Hi Patrick,
I agree with your point that a big picture doesn't emerge "when two disparate parties
combine to form some amalgamated ideology of nothing." Know what that's called? Compromise. The best outcome that is possible using a "compromise" strategy is that both parties walk away from the negotiations feeling equally ripped off while the underlying issues remain unaddressed. No, compromise is not what I'm talking about.
About reality being "objective," wouldn't it be just dandy if one person or group could actually claim to know what "reality" really is. Such a belief is is a laughable oversimplification. It is part of the spin that's so pervasive today and that makes it impossible to co-create truly viable solutions.
I do completely agree with you that we don't find the truth by meeting somewhere in the middle. If that's your definition of consensus, then this form of "consensus" is as worthless as compromise.
Compromise and what you call consensus are worlds apart from what I'm talking about. What I am pointing out is that people of good will tend to see different parts of the larger picture with greater and lesser clarity. Only by combining these deeper awarenesses that live underneath our posturing, positioning and spin do we have any prayer at all of co-discovering what you call "objective truth."
In my opinion, any leader or aspiring leader who does not understand this and who does not know how to effectively facilitate this kind of "synergy" has no business being a leader.
You rightly asked that this has to do with McCain. What it has to do with him is that I have yet to see him demonstrate a strong enough capacity to facilitate this kind of synergy for me to feel excited about him becoming President. (For instance, my impression is that Huckabee is far better at this than McCain.)
What this has to do with McCain is that his statements are perfect portraits of our current political atmosphere in which what passes as fact is usually spin. However, I believe our job is to find grains of truth hidden within spin and separate them from spin rather than to dismiss wholesale what people of good will say. I believe our job is to cobble together the dots of truth from multiple and seemingly conflicting sources in order to assemble what you call objective truth.
If you find my call to a higher level of thinking than anti-intellectual black-and-white absolutism to be rambling, I would point you to the objective fact that is an "intellectual conservative" website.
~~ David
Comment by drgruder | February 1, 2008