THE PLANK JULY 31, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Glenn Greenwald identifies me as a "long-time Beltway McCain worshiper."
Forgive me, father, for I have sinned. My most recent TRB column:
"If one needs any final proof of the ridiculousness of this quadrennial exercise, it is the fact that John McCain has embraced the flip-flopper attack. John McCain! I've said this before, I'll say it again: This is a man who, in his quest to make himself an acceptable GOP nominee, reversed his political philosophy (crusading anti-business progressive in the Teddy Roosevelt mode); his political orientation (frequently siding with, and nearly joining, Senate Democrats); and almost every particular undergirding it (taxes, the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill, his own immigration bill, etc.). But if you actually think that flip-flopping is a sign of flawed character, and not just a handy partisan cudgel, then, sure, Obama might be slightly cynical, but McCain must be a dangerous sociopath."
Alas, this followed a sad pattern of blasphemy.
"[McCain's] descent into Giuliani-ism, however, suggests his campaign thinks winning on Iraq wouldn't be enough. It's as if, by invoking 9/11, he can summon the return of the mentality that prevailed in the years after the attack. McCain spent the previous couple months mimicking every theme of the Hillary Clinton unsuccessful candidacy. Now, dropping in the polls, he's mimicking the themes Giuliani rode to a spectacular flameout."
"During the GOP primary, McCain presented his economic program as a more ideologically pure version of Bushism. Now he puts the same thing forward as a new synthesis. "It will not be enough," he says, "to simply dust off the economic policies of four, eight or twenty-eight years ago." Right; those other presidents had huge tax cuts for the rich combined with unspecified spending cuts. McCain's plan has those things and a joke about bear DNA. How heterodox!"
"On his website, John McCain boldly announces, "I believe climate change is real, I think it's devastating, I think we have to act." Great! Except that McCain has also said he supports the Republican filibuster. Welcome to the new kind of global-warming denial."
"Does McCain actually believe we must achieve victory in Iraq at all costs? He certainly didn't believe that about Lebanon in 1983 or Somalia a decade later, forcefully advocating withdrawal in both cases. But ‘We're Americans. And we'll never surrender' sounds a lot better than ‘We're Americans. And we rarely surrender, except when the costs of fighting on outweigh the potential for success.'"
"[McCain] has diverged wildly and repeatedly from conservative orthodoxy, but he has also reinvented himself so completely that it has become nearly impossible to figure out what he really believes... McCain's ideological transformation is unusual for two reasons: First, he has moved across the political spectrum not once--like Al Smith or Mitt Romney-- but twice. And, second, he refuses to acknowledge his change."
The official explanation is that McCain's heroic record makes him more prepared to conduct foreign policy than other candidates. As his spokesperson recently put it, "John McCain's record of service and sacrifice makes him uniquely qualified--more than anyone else running on either side--to lead as commander-in-chief from day one."
But the official explanation is obvious bunk. McCain's years in the Senate might qualify him as commander-in-chief. His prisoner of war experience is, at best, a marginal consideration. James Stockdale--another Vietnam POW hero and Ross Perot's hapless 1992 running mate--was not more qualified to serve as commander-in-chief than non-veteran Joe Biden. Most Republicans would prefer a conservative non-veteran like Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney over liberal general Wesley Clark.
McCain, no doubt, isn't really trying to persuade voters that his years as a prisoner in Hanoi have rendered him more qualified to grapple with the foreign policy landscape of 2009. The real point of constantly invoking his service is to substitute the gratitude and admiration we (rightly) feel about McCain's war service for our judgment of him as a political figure.
"The New York Times reported that Kerry and McCain had seven conversations about the idea, which seems like six more than would have been needed if McCain had said, "No thanks, I'm a conservative Republican who firmly supports Bush."
Shortly thereafter, McCain decided to seek the 2008 GOP nomination. Soon he was seen hugging Bush, which began his return into the conservative fold. Where McCain used to tout his admiration for trust-busting progressive Teddy Roosevelt, today he takes counsel from supply-side guru Arthur Laffer. That a total philosophical inversion like this doesn't count as a "flip-flop" just demonstrates how little flip-flopping tells you about a candidate."
‘THIS IS NOT Luke Skywalker here,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), discussing his friend and Senate colleague John McCain’s second run for the presidency. “This is a totally different campaign.”Graham was looking for a way to reassure his fellow conservatives that they no longer had anything to fear from McCain. His choice of metaphor is one of those windows into the fundamental cultural gap that separates hard-core conservatives from the rest of humanity.
To most people, who think of Luke Skywalker as a hero battling an evil and immensely powerful empire, Graham’s implication would be seen as an unmitigated insult. In the world of the GOP elite, though, it’s a form of praise: No, no, don’t worry, McCain’s with the empire now.
In the spirit of confession, I should admit that there are many other examples I haven't included here. But it is a strange kind of worship we Beltway insiders practice, one that frequently (or even primarily) takes the form of criticism of our own deity. Greenwald, devoted as he is to disinterested inquiry and the open-minded pursuit of truth, could never understand the fervor of our practices. Now I will go before David Broder to confess my sins, and imbibe the sacred wine and crackers. (This is a ritual for McCain-worshippers known to outsiders as the "Beltway cocktail party.")
--Jonathan Chait
10 comments
When I saw the headline, I thought the post was going to be by Jamie Kirchuk. In your case, I think it was unnecessary to rebut in such detail. A line of muliple question marks would have been just as effective. Glenn's an interesting guy and sharp debater, but everyone gets it wrong sometimes, and I believe he's a bit more preoccupied with liberal purity-of-essence than is desirable in the general election.
- parnest
July 31, 2008 at 4:07pm
Slugger,
You know that you're my man and having said that, I do recall some Chait offerings, oh around 2006 or so that touched upon the penumbras of McCain Man Love...
parnest...
Funny, I had that quick thought too but before I even read it I shook that idea outta the noggin because that germ doesn't believe he has anything to confess, then, now, and forever.
- thejauntyboulevardier
July 31, 2008 at 4:30pm
I've seen less that I'd consider worship in the past year and more a wish for '00. That is worse than nostalgic & it is a most shallow effort to build a myth upon. Bush v McCain was a narrowly focused battle to see who could win hearts (there weren't two minds to rub together) and that primary shouldn't be viewed as anything but who could come up with the best anti-Clinton hook.
I've not seen anything specific that is being asked of McCain. simply a "Be a, mumble, mumble, Maverick!". Once he was saddled with 90% Bush Certified along with the details (keep tax-cuts, don't budge on Iraq & some torture is fine) there wasn't much room to be fresh. The reason for the attack mode is because they don't have anything else.
It won't cut it to hang out in a bus in New Hampshire for coffee, donuts and lame jokes. This is '08, a national campaign and John isn't running against the Clintons or Bush. It would be like taking a '60's style hold the basketball offense and facing the '08 Kansas team and also finding out they use a shot clock and the other team can sink thirty footers. McCain's best stuff from '00 would fail against Barack and they know it. Of course ugly lies are usually held till the end and for the McCain team the end game is the only act they're left with.
I can understand why it would be tough to spank a hero and the guy who is remembered as a bright spot from eight years ago is the last person anyone wishes to beat up.
I don't mind if he's left alone. But anyone who thinks there is a version of McCain who can compete in '08 needs to do more than recall an awfully weak legend.
"Show me a hero and I'll write you a tragedy."
F. Scott Fitzgerald
- michael
July 31, 2008 at 4:52pm
Count me as one of those who thinks this kind of thing is better off dealt in email. Bloggers battling out personal beefs about what he said about you that was false when you said about him that.. etc ... Eh.
I mean, Greenwald was wrong, obviously. But where's the public interest here?
- jobeek2
July 31, 2008 at 4:54pm
yeah Chait, keep your feuds private, no need to get all Kirchick here.
- blackton
July 31, 2008 at 5:13pm
I'm all for feuds. More feuds please.
- MOLLYSIMON
July 31, 2008 at 7:00pm
I agree with the sentiment that this feud should be private. Too late for that now, since its already spilled out in public. I'd also add, jonathan, that you should demand an apology, which this greenweld must do publicly (after all, the insult was public.) If he refuses to do so, you should feel free to pursue things at the next level. Naturally, this may lead to a physical confrontation up to and including fisticuffs, but i've got a sneaking suspicion you can handle yourself pretty well.
I'm reminded of the post of but 2 weeks ago, about chess-boxing. If you follow that route, where, then, is the satisfaction that only comes from making someone eat their words after having insulted you. By checkmating him? Hardly. No, when it comes to publically disparaging someone, the solution is an outright apology or a thorough ass-kicking.
- wldctfan142
July 31, 2008 at 10:00pm
hee, hee....
wildct, I love your style...if I were 10 years younger, I would want to spar with you. As my collapsed physique now stands, I am afraid that I wouldn't be much of a match for a guy like you...if you ever need a wizened cornerman, call me...
did you ever post on the McCain boxing thread? I left a post for you there...
As for Slugger, my intuition is that the lad can take care of himself...
- thejauntyboulevardier
August 1, 2008 at 12:49am
Jonathan, let me say, first off, that i was thinking my initial response was a bit over-board. After all, what harm does words really do, in the context of back & forth internet blogging? Yes, maybe if this guy were standing across the room from you, i'd suggest you go for a face-to-face talk, up close and personal. Otherwise, i'd let it be. However, i noticed greenweld kinda escalated, and in his typically smary ass way. Were i you, the point at which he's coming close to crossing the line is pretty well nigh.
I know a lot of people respect his writings, but as i've read him over the years, he comes across as someone who's quite comfortable with insulting those he disagree's with, more than likely because no one's ever challenged him, physically. In other words, his disposition is disgraceful to those he disagree's with because no one was there to kick his ass during his formative years. But if he keeps it up, remember that an ass whipin to someone who deserves it is better late than never.
I'll add one more thing, jonathan. Though i don't post here often, i read the site every day. Your article of some days back about naomi klein was remarkable, to me at least. I don't know that much about her, but i admired your willingness to call them like you see them. Both sides could use more of the same.
Hello again, mr cookie. Yes, i saw crowley's article, but i don't usually post on parts of tnr which doesn't require registration. (Incidently, crowley should know that most old-timers regard boxing as a *science*, not a sport.) No, i don't consider myself above others, but ever since that scott kerfafle (i forget his last name, soldier in iraq, wife worked at tnr, etc.) and all those newbies came here looking for frank foer's head on a pike, i soured on it. Reason being when it became clear that FF had acted in good faith, not one of them offered an apology. (Or if they did, i never saw it.)
I didn't see your post, but as to how i would fight mccain. Moving this contest to the ring, i see some resemblence to ali-buonovina. (Maybe even some elements of bramble-mancini.) Oscar, plodding forward, granite chin, willing (and having to) to take several punches to land one. This almost has to be mccains plan, when one considers he's up against not only obama, but large parts of the MSM as well. He's got to bloody barack some way, and it seems to me the only way that can happen is to close the distance. Try to initiate some heavy exchanges at the risk of leaving himself exposed (thinking here of his latest ads in which some on the other side are accusing him of racism.) If it becomes a *lets dance around the ring* contest, mccain will probably lose.
Obama's tactic is to have as little contact as possible. Stay away from, for example, town hall meetings, where he'd be in great danger of having his chin tested. If he fights a smart fight, he'll keep on his bicycle, keep things at a laid back tempo, content to let the press parade him around as the president in waiting.
On a final note, i had a good laugh at some of the responses in crowley's article. Specifically the ones who kept touting how good these MMW fighters are. Balderdash, i say. I'll take boxing any day. Take a champion, or even ranked contenders, during any era, from any weight class in the fight business and they would steamroll those guys in short order. What would an MMW champion do against a henry armstrong? What would be their plan of attack against a disiplined and motivated jack johnson? How would they ever close the distance against ali (during his zora folley era) and what would they do if they did? What happens to them when they think they can trade punches with (and kick at) joe frazier, foreman, or ray robinson? In the words of that all-time great lightweight, duran, "they'd be kissing the canvas."
My personal opinion of these MMW types is that they're former barroom brawlers who are not averse to biting in order to gain the upper hand. They probably think the marquis of queensbury is the marquis de sade's official title.
My apologies to all for this post being long-winded.
- wldctfan142
August 1, 2008 at 5:24am
wildcat,
exactomundo. Hey, these brawler guys are unarguably tough but from what I have seen, have very little discipline, and most don't know how to throw a god damn punch. They either throw barroom brawl type haymakers or they throw arm shots, completely devoid of any sense of balance and lower trunk stability or power. As you so aptly said, they look like their secret arrow in their quiver is the bite. Last, most of these guys get tired very quickly. Again, I am not arguing that they're tough - these dudes would be very hard to beat in a street fight - but my sense is that almost all of them could not withstand a short Louis right, a Marciano straight from the shoulder right, an Ali jab followed by a right hand lead, a Foreman anvil, or a Fraziier or Quarry left hook that started from the canvas
Later bud...
- thejauntyboulevardier
August 1, 2008 at 9:19am