January 31, 2008
The Case for McCain
Posted by Jamelle under conservatives, politics, republicans | Tags: john mccain | 
I’ve never quite understood why John McCain has a reputation for bucking party orthodoxy. Now I’ll be fair and give McCain credit for his opposition to torture, his support for campaign finance reform, and his sensible position on immigration. But, other than that, he hits every point on the Republican check list. He’s reliably anti-choice, pro-military intervention, pro-tax cuts for the rich, and pro-permanent occupation of Iraq. He has spent the past seven years giving a reach-around to President Bush, and currently has his face buried in the lap of the religious right. Which, by the way, is an especially shameful piece of pandering when you consider what he had to say about Dobson and Co. just a few years ago. Oh, and I mention he’s the GOP’s best bet for winning the presidency?
For those of us who identify with liberalism, McCain would be a disaster. At best (and assuming nothing terrible happens in the next five years), he would maintain the post-Bush status quo, what’s more like though, is that he will exacerbate and worsen the problems our country faces. A McCain presidency would immediately rule out the possibility of guaranteed healthcare, a more progressive tax code, and a saner foreign policy.
At this point, some of you might be thinking, “Okay, so why exactly is this a case for McCain?”
Well. It isn’t. The value of a Republican party led by McCain has nothing to do with what McCain would do, and everything to do with what McCain represents. This is the point Andrew Sullivan has made everyday for the past four months (and at this point I wish he would stop). Movement conservatives hate John McCain. Even though he is a reliable conservative and their best bet for winning in November, most prominent Republicans find McCain a noxious figure. And even though he’s been sucking up to the religious right, they are still largely unwilling to deal with him.
McCain’s crime is his unwillingness to buy into the viciousness of the conservative movement. In a lot of ways he represents a break with the Gingrich wing of the party, and a move - however slight - back to a GOP which is moderate in temperament, and actually willing to do the business of governing. The recent endorsements by Ahnold and Rudy G. only bolster my point. Regardless of what you think about the two men (I’m lukewarm towards one and I loathe the other), they are both outside of the mainstream of Republican politics (and nearer to what the mainstream ought to be).
I do not want a President McCain, but I do want a Republican Party led by a candidate McCain. I’ve mentioned my disdain for bipartisanship, but the extreme partisanship represented by Gingrich, Delay, and Rove has done nothing but damage our democratic culture. If we are interested in actually fixing the political culture in this country, then liberals must hope for a reasonable and serious Republican Party. A McCain-led GOP is a good first step.
February 1, 2008 at 3:35 pm
I don’t know if McCain is the one, but I agree with you–it would be better to have actual grownups in charge of the GOP.
February 12, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Who is winning for republicans? Who is for democatics?
March 12, 2008 at 4:29 pm
[...] The only thing consistent about John McCain is his willingness to abandon whatever principles he has in his (sometimes desperate) quest for power and influence. He’s not dissimilar to Mitt Romney in that regard; but unlike Romney - who despite his sliminess, at least seemed like a decent guy at the core - McCain really is just a bastard. And worse, he’s a bastard who really does have a core of noxious beliefs. He’s a full-throated supporter of torture, perpetual war and a thinly-veiled police state. A while back, I wrote a few words in praise of John McCain. [...]