Should the right now unify behind John McCain?
by Robert Bidinotto | View comments |
Print This Post
I just returned home from the first day of the Conservative Political Action Conference, where Mitt Romney backed out of his campaign, leaving his supporters shocked and depressed. In calculating the greater danger, I am prepared to endure the ugly consequences of a four-year Democratic reign rather than the permanent obliteration of any major-party alternative.
I just returned home from the first day of the Conservative Political Action Conference, where Mitt Romney backed out of his campaign, leaving his supporters shocked and depressed. McCain then came in and tried to shore up his reputation with a conservative base that he has dissed repeatedly over the years. It was a speech predictably long on bumper-sticker platitudes and emphasis on areas of agreement with conservatives, which glossed over areas of disagreement as of secondary importance. For those who think in undefined slogans rather than principles, it probably sounded somewhat reassuring.
Likewise, at the evening banquet, keynoter Robert Novak, the conservative columnist, acknowledged McCain's flaws but argued that Obama or Hillary would be far more destructive than McCain would, on key issues such as the War on Terror, judicial appointments, taxes, and spending. The argument was that conservatives would be fools to let their "anger" with McCain allow a Democrat victory.
But except for the War on Terror (and only in part), the rest of Novak's points are weak. For one thing, McCain's pragmatic, anti-ideological approach to decision-making is unlikely to lead him to conservative judicial appointments, no matter what he currently claims, especially since strict-constructionist judges opposed his major legislative initiative, McCain-Feingold. McCain's past record on taxes gives us no reassurances, either. Even regarding the War on Terror, his insistence on imposing a gentlemanly code of conduct on our military — e.g., extending Geneva Convention restrictions on the treatment of military prisoners to terrorists, defining and forbidding (even during "ticking bomb" scenarios) relatively mild interrogation techniques such as waterboarding as constituting "torture," closing Guantanamo and bringing terrorists into America, with all the protections of the U.S. legal system, etc. — would undermine our nation's security against enemy attacks.
More than offsetting whatever comparative pluses McCain offers over his Democrat rivals is the fact that he proposes — as part of new Republican dogma — a complete capitulation to the environmentalists on the global-warming issue — including massive new energy restrictions and regulations (the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act), plus affirmation of restriction against domestic oil drilling in places like the remote Alaskan tundra. At a time when we desperately need domestic oil production to achieve energy independence from the likes of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, these restrictions would lead to an economic — and national security — nightmare.
McCain also repeatedly voices his commitment to a statist, anti-capitalist outlook. For example, he attacked Romney for standing for "profits" instead of "patriotism." He wishes to increase federal involvement in the medical field, further moving us toward socialized medicine. This includes advocating unconstrained importation of Canada's governmental-price-controlled drugs, which would undermine our own market-driven pharmaceutical industry. Defending this view, he denounced "the power of pharmaceutical companies" — and, when challenged by Romney not to paint drug manufacturers as "the big bad guys," he retorted, "Well, they are." Typically, he teamed with radical-liberal Democrat senators Ted Kennedy and John Edwards to promote a "Patients' Bill of Rights" — a dream come true for trial lawyers like Edwards. As further expressions of his anti-business bias, he has been responsible for notorious initiatives to undermine First Amendment protections on free speech (McCain-Feingold, and legislation to ban tobacco advertising).
Worse, McCain rationalizes such government attacks on our freedom by insisting that "each and every one of us has a duty to serve a cause greater than our own self-interest" — an anti-individualist premise that he reiterates again and again, and which is the antithesis of America's individualist political basis.
It is naively simplistic simply to match up McCain against Clinton or Obama point-by-point, and declare that because he takes positions superior to theirs on many or even a majority of issues, he would be the preferable candidate. This pragmatic, short-range thinking ignores the relative importance of various issues and also the long-term consequences of having the Republican Party officially sign on to massive new incursions on our liberties.
Right now, the GOP stands, however inconsistently or haphazardly, against the environmentalists and the "global warming" dogmas, against regulation of the energy industry, for greater domestic oil exploration, against more socialized medicine — and, most importantly, in favor of more individualism and against more statism. On all of these issues, the Republicans traditionally have distinguished themselves from the Democrats. John McCain would obliterate those distinctions, ratifying the Democrat/socialist premises and policies and neutralizing all congressional Republican opposition to them. He would ratchet into permanent place — as the explicit, bipartisan governing agenda of America — environmentalism as America's reigning secular religion, socialized medicine, controls on free-speech rights, and anti-self-interest, anti-profit-motive business-bashing.
Is all this less important than cutting taxes or making good judicial appointments — assuming that McCain would even follow through?
To me, the only semi-plausible argument for backing McCain is his less-than-perfect position on the War on Terror and his refusal to retreat in Iraq and Afghanistan (as would Hillary or Obama). Cutting and running from those commitments would be a huge disaster. But weigh that disaster against all those others I've outlined above.
There comes a point when the alternatives are so wretched that no good choice is possible. We face only various forms of long-term catastrophe from the two competing forms of "progressivism" that both parties will offer us for presidential consideration. So, how can one decide?
In calculating the greater danger, I am prepared to endure the ugly consequences of a four-year Democratic reign rather than the permanent obliteration of any major-party alternative. McCain's election would commit the national GOP to reject individualism and adopt a socialistic course — a course that it will become almost impossible ever to reverse.
However, I don't think that in the end, McCain's nomination will matter, because I don't think he can win. As noted, Democratic primary turnout has been double that of the GOP. The left is mobilized and motivated; thanks to the chaotic presidency of George W. Bush — and now, the inevitable McCain nomination — the right is deflated and depressed. It seems impossible that McCain could sufficiently rally the party's base around his candidacy to avoid crushing defeat in November. If that happens, perhaps what he is trying to import into the Republican Party's ideology and agenda will stand repudiated, too, clearing the way to its future return to a philosophy of individualism and capitalism.
Read more articles by Robert Bidinotto
I agree with most of your points except (there is always an except with this type of introduction) the war on terror. McCain's only claim to war on terror credentials centers on keeping our troops far away from home while leaving the homeland not only undefended but with an open door to all that wish to enter and attack. A candidate that does not protect the homeland is not worth voting for and McCain does not protect the homeland. To the contrary he attempts to make the homeland more vulnerable with his amnesties and open border leanings. The last time I looked it wouldn't be a good idea to leave your front door open when no one was home…you might find an empty or trashed house upon your return. The same analogy suggests that we should consider ending foreign interventions until we can secure the homeland.
Take the pledge:
I will vote, and actively work for the election of, any candidate that is willing to agree that illegal aliens may not have:
1. sanctuary,
2. jobs
3. guest worker programs
4. taxpayer funded benefits,
5. anchor baby citizenship,
6. drivers licenses
7. police no ask policy,
8. day worker centers,
9. legal services,
10. chain migration,
11. amnesty
12. Language support other than ENGLISH.
If no candidates for an elected position agree with these points THEN I will vote for a write-in candidate.
I also will not contribute to non-agreers campaigns AND I will return their campaign material marked as REFUSED RETURN TO SENDER.
Comment by Mickey G | February 8, 2008
Dear conservatives,
How do you win an election after you have alienated all of the moderates who have been historically willing to work with you?
Comment by freelunch | February 8, 2008
Dear Mr Binidetto,
I only had the misfortune to see McCain on television - trying to cozy up to the Conservatives. It made me a little bilious!
He claims for himself a ‘monopoly’ of the War on Terror. He argues that we must ‘win’ in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, as I show in my article Fighting and Dying for Islam, we have already ceded those states to Islam – or, if you like, Islamic Fundamentalism.
So while he is suggesting another ‘surge’ in Afghanistan (because Nato allies will not stand up to the plate), what exactly are those brave young men and women fighting and dying for? Well, here it is: “Afghan who dared to read about women’s rights sentenced to death”. Simply copy that quote into Google, and see what sort of monsters we are really creating in Afghanistan, and Iraq.
All McCain is supporting in Iraq and Afghanistan is the establishment of Fundamentalist Islamic States (although in my opinion there is no difference between an Islamic State and a Fundamentalist Islamic State).
So while American, British, and other troops fight and die to maintain Afghanistan’s and Iraq’s new Islamic Constitutions, the ‘authorities’ in those countries are already sentencing people to death for even having the audacity to download information about women’s rights?
What exactly does McCain think he will ‘win’ in these countries? We should only fight to win when there is something worth winning – not just for the sake of winning, especially when it is to provide a victory for the enemies of civilization.
But, when it comes down to it, that really is all McCain has to offer – ensuring that the two Islamic States we have established become successful Islamic states – states that will pass the death sentence on anyone who ventures to question Islamic Law. The man’s a disgrace!!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 8, 2008
[…] Should the right now unify behind John McCain? […]
Pingback by A Field Guide to American Politics on BlogTalk Radio - February 8, 2007 | February 8, 2008
Just to be sure you get to the correct articles, paste this into Google to find the relevent articles about Afghanistan's 'liberation' - Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 8, 2008
[…] February 8, 2008 at 6:56 pm · Filed under politics and tagged: conservative voters, fiat economics, gop platform, politics, presidential nomination, ron paul The GOP conservative movement has become as much of a disgrace as the far left has been. Now that McCain is the favored 'front runner' of the party, conservatives are claiming that they would rather see a Billary presidency! […]
Pingback by The Politics of Denial « Margaret Schaut | February 8, 2008
As a centrist who likes McCain, I might not be the one to answer the question, but would like to
offer some historical context and prognostication.
When Hubert Humphrey won the Democratic Party nomination in 1968 following RFK's assasination, the left
wing of the party bolted in droves. Not, that Humphrey lacked liberal credentials, but he was tied to
Vietnam and he was a historical New Deal Dem as opposed to the zealots of the New Left who were at the peak of the a their testosterone. The result was a term and a half of Nixon. The left did capture the party back in 1972 with McGovern, only to submit to one of the biggest historical drubbings in election history.
The uniqueness of the American two party culture that emerged after Lincoln, is that both parties track the middle of American concencus thinking. Unlike parliamentary systems where coalitions of varying interest
make deals, the only way to win this thing is to encompass the plurality of American voters, allowing
for the rare skewing by the electoral college as in 1888 and 2000.
By recent Rasmussen polls there are 5.2% more Americans that identify with the Dems than the
GOP and this has been steady for a number of years. Historically, the party out of sync will always
move to capture the middle and this is what we see with McCain.
The right wing of the party can bolt, but all it means is that Republican will mean something different.
Just as the Democrats have little to do with William Jennings Bryan and "the cross of gold" the future
GOP will be nominally environmentalist and supportive of at least government supported health care.
Can the disaffected right mount a strong challenge as the disaffected left wing of the GOP did in 1912
running on the Bull Moose. I doubt it. Besides Wilson won eight years after that.
For one, the right is split between the Paul and Buchanan contingent that opposes interventionist
foreign policy and the neo-cons, not to mention splits between libertarians and the social conservatives.
No, McCain will make his inroads into the independents. The Democrats can overplay the anti war
card and Petraeus bashing and loose the Reagan Democrats and McCain could win.
As, opposed to those who proclaim the certainty of him losing, I can claim no such psychic abilities.
Current polls put both McCain/Obama and McCain/Clinton at about 50/50 and if anybody gives
me 7/5 odds either way I would place a bet on either party.
It amuses me the certainty to which people predict McCains loss when probably not one person
reading this would have given McCain a possibility of the nomination six months ago. As much as he
might be detested on IC, people like him, Republicans like him, moderates like him. And mostly for, the
same reasons my good blogger friends hate him, because he does not represent the conservative orthodoxy but the concensus of the peoples viewpoint.
Comment by yonkel | February 8, 2008
A classic dilemma, but be careful what you wish for.
These are my personal feelings. Let me know what you think. In 1964, Ronald Reagan gave his famous "A Time For Choosing" speech. You can read it at:
http://www.reaganlibrary.com/reagan/speeches/rendezvous.asp
You may remember his famous words, "I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course." Later he said that he didn't leave the party, but the party left him. Rather than submit to a new agenda, he set about setting the old one back on track. With his leadership and through our efforts we recovered from the abyss that was the Carter Presidency.
I came of age in the 1960's and here are the things I remember. JFK was a very well meaning idealistic young man but whose family had a huge appetite for political power. He led us into the disastrous invasion of Cuba which in turn led to the Cuban missile crisis. He chose a VP from Texas (LBJ) because he needed the Texas vote and not because of his executive leadership qualities. This ultimately was part of the disaster that became Vietnam.
Jimmy Carter was also an idealist. Like Huckabee and Bill Clinton, he came from a small Southern State and had no real executive ability. Hillary Clinton has told us she wants to take the energy company profits for the research.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g
Carter did exactly that with his "Windfall Oil Profits Tax" and it was a disaster. Rather than produce more energy that we desperately needed, he further crippled the energy industry. He tried to substitute idealism for know-how. He didn't like the human rights record of the Shah of Iran and let him be overthrown. And now we see what his policies have given us.
Today we have the choice between Clinton or Obama, and McCaim. It is the choice between a liberal or a RINO. And, like Ronald Reagan, I choose not to go along. Using a sports metaphor, I see the week position we conservatives are in and I say it's time to punt. Our secondary line of defense is in the House and Senate. We can't advance our agenda but we can limit the damage to it. And it will be easier to make our case to the American people if we have a distinct difference to show them. I would rather have a liberal in the White House to fight than a RINO intent on deal making and appeasement.
Just say NO!
RJ
Comment by RWJones | February 9, 2008
"He claims for himself a ‘monopoly’ of the War on Terror. He argues that we must ‘win’ in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, as I show in my article Fighting and Dying for Islam, we have already ceded those states to Islam – or, if you like, Islamic Fundamentalism."
Joseph,
The current situation in Afghanistan is far more complicated than you pretend. It took decades to get to this point of Islamic extremists, and it will take decades to get away from it. We have to work on the children, and hope for a brighter future.
Comment by WolvenBear | February 9, 2008
WolvenBear,
The Afghani Constitution says there can be no law contrary to Islam, so how exactly would you propose that America (or more specifically McCain) begin ‘re-educating’ Afghani children? Now that really is a recipe for conflict. But I’d love to hear your proposals for convincing Muslims that McCain’s views should be adopted rather than what they regard as the word of God Himself.
As long as we labor under such naïve notions, the battle is already lost.
If people are sentenced to death for downloading articles on women's rights, just imagine, if you can, the punishment for leading children from the 'path' of Islam!!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 9, 2008
WolvenBear,
Another short Comment – it has not taken “decades” to get to this point of Islamic Extremism – it was introduced from day one – 1,400 years ago. It’s all there in black and white. I don’t mean to be insulting, but have you ever read the Koran, or engaged Muslims in Islamic countries in conversation?
Take the right to Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness. What do they mean to a Muslim? – they mean the ‘right’ to live (life) according to Islam (submission to Allah), the liberty to submit to the will of Allah, and the right to be happy knowing that you are doing the will of Allah.
No McCain, Bush, or American way of life (which they regard, often correctly, as decadent) is going to convince them that there is a better way than the way God (Allah) has Himself instructed.
To think that the ‘appeal’ of what Muslims regard as utter decadence will hold allure to them is pure fantasy!!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 9, 2008
Joseph:
I am hardly a religious scholar, but I have read parts of the Koran and have found it to be like most religious texts, open for interpertation.
To claim that the book inevitably leads to muslim extremism is to ignore history. There have been periodic muslim extremist terrorist tendencies through history, but this is true of all religions.
Christianity gave us the Spanish Inquisition, slavery, apartheid etc. and even today groups such as the Lords Resistance Army which seeks a "so called" Christian theocracy, does barbarous deeds to further their ends:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army
Muslims have not spent the last 1400 years as terrorists, and within our own lifetimes the level of hatred and support for extremism has grown geometrically. Growing up in the 50s and 60s attacks on the US were almost all from the Communists and there was no significant muslim threat directed to the West other than perhaps Israel.
I am not going to analyze what caused the rise of extremist violent Islam, but it is not the Koran which has not been recently edited. That book is also the basis for the Sufi faith which has always been a peaceful group and there are many movements within Islam that are anti violent such as one of the fastest rising Islamic televangelist Moez Masoud who preaches tolerance and modernity:
http://www.andyross.net/moez_masoud.htm
I share with you, the concerns about violent Islam. A poll in the UK at the time of the subway bombings indicated that 5% of the muslim public was sympathetic with the terrorists. This is an alarming number to be sure. I would guess that less than 0.1% of the US was sympathetic to Timothy McVeigh, but it still indicates that 95% of that population did not support the terrorists.
By condemning the 1.2 billion muslims of the world as hopelessly, invariably, destined to be violent terrorists, you are condemning us to a rather hideous prognosis.
Alternatively, may I suggest, that our efforts simultaneously be geared to rooting out extremist Islamic terrorism while supporting the moderating trends within that movement such as Mr. Masoud.
Comment by yonkel | February 10, 2008
Yonkel, I hope you are right!
But it is interesting that a man like Albert Schweitzer would conclude, a hundred years ago, from reading the Koran, and his experience with Islam in Africa, that Islam itself was “unoriginal and decadent”.
He was not writing in response to ‘terror’ – just what is in the Koran, and what he saw.
But, as I have said, I for one would be very happy if Muslims could ‘edit’ the Koran so that Schweitzer could be proved wrong. I just wouldn’t want to be the one doing the editing!!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 10, 2008
Yonkel, if I may, I’d like to address one other issue in your Comment, and that is your objection to ‘condemning’ 1.2 billion people because of their ‘faith’.
It is a well worn argument to claim that Islam should be ‘tolerated’ in the West because of the number of its adherents. But the fact that 1.2 billion people subscribe to a religion, or as I prefer to think of it, an ideology, does not transform the fundamental nature of that ideology from a malevolent one, to a benevolent one.
That’s a bit like arguing that smoking is good for people because billions of people have succumbed to the habit.
And one final matter, I do not believe that all Muslims are destined to become violent terrorists – Islam only requires a ‘sufficient number’ (fard al-kifāyah) to partake in Jihad
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 10, 2008
Phillip:
The 1.2 billion reference is no vindication for Islam but just to point out the dimension of the problem, particularly if your conclusion is that the religion invariably leads people to violence, which the historical record disproves.
The Koran has not changed in 1400 years nor has the Bible in 2000. Yet it was the same Bible in 1492 when Jews, Muslims, and all people who did not accept Catholicism were burned at the stake in Spain.
I don't say this to attack Christianity, but just to point out that it is not the sacred texts that are at fault but how people interpert them.
After all, are you claiming that the moderate muslims who don't believe in violence, like the one I refrenced, who has the TV show, are misinterperting their own book. If so, lets hope they continue.
Comment by yonkel | February 10, 2008
Yonkel, I always find it terribly sad when people come to the ‘defense’ of Islam by reducing our own western heritage and values to that of Islam.
Referring to the Spanish Inquisition in particular is a favorite. This was not something born of the people as a whole, or even any significant proportion of them ‘interpreting’ the Scriptures in a specific manner. The Catholic Church at the time denied the people the education which would have enabled them to read the Scriptures for themselves in order to see that what the Church was doing had no relationship to the Scriptures.
Voltaire wonderfully identified this problem: “Why then have we been cutting one another’s throats almost without interruption since the first Council of Nice?”
And on the Catholic Church at the time, he said this: “If we would attend closely to the fact, the Catholic, apostolic, and Roman religion is, in all its ceremonies and in all its dogma, the reverse of the religion of Jesus!”
Yet, since the Reformation, all Christians began to gain access to the Scriptures, and could determine for themselves what it said. And that, based (in my opinion) primarily on the power of the Ten Commandments, led to a remarkable transformation of Western society. And that transformation did not come about as a result of any specific church, but from the power of the Scriptural message itself.
The Koran, on the other hand, is in essence’ a re-writing of the Scriptures to place Mohammed at its center. That is why we find all the Scriptural characters referred to in the Koran, although they are there mainly to proclaim Mohammed as the true Prophet, the Prophet referred to at Exodus 18:18 [Koran 2:76 refers to this]. And the preceding verse in the Koran explains why – the Jews, it claims, “Heard the Word of God, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it” [Koran 2:75].
That the Jews and Christians “falsified” the true Word of God is a constant theme in the Koran. That is also why the Jews are described as “apes and swine” [2:65; 5:63; and 7:166].
This re-writing of the Scriptures is clearly why Schweitzer called Islam “unoriginal”.
In relation to the “decadent” part of Schweitzer’s description, we need to go to 5:13 – 14 of the Koran (and see 2:63). Here, the Koran claims that God did not hand down the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai, but the first part of the Five Pillars of Islam.
So, like the First Council of Nicaea, Dogma and Rituals were replaced with Principles – the Principles set out in the Ten Commandments.
The effect of this was that the more rigid specific ‘laws’ of Moses were ‘enacted, so to speak, as the Word of God Himself in the Koran. The specific ‘laws’ were not ‘subsidiary’ to the Ten Principles, and thus unable to ‘adapt’ as circumstances demanded.
That is why we see in the West a transformation of the way we derived specific laws from the Principles enunciated in the Ten Commandments – and that is the essence of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount.
That has enabled us in the West to ‘adapt’ our ‘laws’ but still adhere (more or less) to the Principles set out in the Ten Commandments. Because Islam has treated the ‘specific laws’ as God given, and removed the primacy of the Ten Commandments, Islam has been unable to adapt. That is why we still see in Islamic countries punishments that we regard as ‘barbaric’ even though the same ‘punishments’ are prescribed in the OT. We moved on, retaining the Principles enunciated in the Ten Commandments as the foundation of our ‘values’, but adapting the laws made under them to accommodate changing values as civilization developed.
Of course, I cannot do justice to this analysis in a short Comment – it is, however, the subject of my next book.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 11, 2008
Yonkel, a correction please to my last Comment.
“So, like the First Council of Nicaea, Dogma and Rituals were replaced with Principles – the Principles set out in the Ten Commandments.” That should read – “ … Dogma and Rituals replaced Principles – the Principles set out in the Ten Commandments.”
My apologies!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 11, 2008