Bob Bidinotto has an excellent appraisal of John McCain. It should serve as a corrective to some of the hopes that people may have about him after his – in my view – wise choice of Sarah Palin as his VP choice.
John McCain is a decent man of great character, with a wonderful sense of life and a courageous spirit. But he is no intellectual and certainly no philosopher; ideologically, he is very much a mixed bag. He is governed by his feelings, which are shaped in turn by his personal code — the code of national service, of “Country First.” Just as his notion of “selfishness” falsely packages legitimate self-interest with narcissistic self-indulgence, so too does his notion of “Country First” falsely package legitimate patriotism and “free enterprise” with the idea of individual sacrifice to the state.
In this incoherence, John McCain perfectly embodies the fundamental contradiction at the heart of American society: the clash between its conventional morality of self-sacrifice, and its political-economic system of individualism and profit-oriented capitalism. The fact that so many conservatives also try to square the circle of these logically incompatible premises means that McCain’s candidacy is dragging the Republican Party significantly to the left in its basic philosophy.
I can also recommend Matt Welch’s recent book about McCain. For all that the senator from Arizona might like to claim the mantle of a maverick, he is not quite that, and Welch points out that McCain is a different animal in certain respects from his Arizona predecessor, Barry Goldwater.
That is not to say that there is a not much to admire about McCain, especially his obvious courage under captivity. But like Bob I really worry about McCain’s version of “national greatness conservatism”. Any politician that takes Teddy Roosevelt as a political idol should be treated warily. Roosevelt inflicted the monstrosity of anti-trust on the US, for example.
Bob comes to this conclusion:
On individualist philosophical grounds, then, we are left with the choice of supporting either a profoundly flawed representative of America’s founding premises, or of supporting a candidate whose philosophy and every policy proposal are profoundly at odds with those premises. For me, that is no choice at all. (I leave aside the Libertarian candidacy of Bob Barr, who has zero chance of being elected; the only meaningful choice is between McCain and Obama.)
I agree with the assessment of John McCain, but isn’t it interesting that, despite McCain’s motto of “Country First,” it’s Barack Obama who plans on compulsory community service for America’s schoolchildren and college students?
Craig,
What’s interesting about it? We are a nation of volunteers, not conscripts. The few times in our history when conscription was enforced, they all turned into catastrophe.
Hitlerjugend is not our style, although it seems to be Obama’s.
Serving the country or the community is not the same thing as serving the state – nor need it mean military service (although it is true that every generation of McCains has replied to the call for centuries – they are rather like a Roman family from the days of the Republic).
What is meant by service can be clearly seen in the life of Cindy McCain – who has never shot anyone.
It also shows that service is not confined to people in the United States.
Service means voluntarily choosing to help others – with one’s own time and money.
Compulsory charity is, contrary to the German philosopher Samual Pufendorf and those who came after him, a contradiction in terms.
So John McCain is a lot less contradictory than the mainstream of Western philosophers over the last few centuries – although that is not a tough standard to beat.
So the hostility to government spending (a hostility over decades) is not hard to understand. Even when it hurts him – as opposing the eth subsidy will most likely cost him Iowa (and the election?) Even today I heard McCain and Palin (via television) in Colorado Springs calling for a “smaller” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
“Not good enough – they should be calling for the end to Fannie Mae and Freddie mac”.
Even calling for them to be “smaller” may be political suicide.
As for T.R. – he was indeed a mixed bag, so I agree there.
On the bad side he did indeed expand anti trust, although he did create the absurdity. The Sherman Act was actually passed in 1890.
Serving the country or the community is not the same thing as serving the state – nor need it mean military service (although it is true that every generation of McCains has replied to the call for centuries – they are rather like a Roman family from the days of the Republic).
What is meant by service can be clearly seen in the life of Cindy McCain – who has never shot anyone.
It also shows that service is not confined to people in the United States.
Service means voluntarily choosing to help others – with one’s own time and money.
Compulsory charity is, contrary to the German philosopher Samual Pufendorf and those who came after him, a contradiction in terms.
So John McCain is a lot less contradictory than the mainstream of Western philosophers over the last few centuries – although that is not a tough standard to beat.
So the hostility to government spending (a hostility over decades) is not hard to understand. Even when it hurts him – as opposing the eth subsidy will most likely cost him Iowa (and the election?) Even today I heard McCain and Palin (via television) in Colorado Springs calling for a “smaller” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
“Not good enough – they should be calling for the end to Fannie Mae and Freddie mac”.
Even calling for them to be “smaller” may be political suicide.
As for T.R. – he was indeed a mixed bag, so I agree there.
On the bad side he did indeed expand anti trust, although he did create the absurdity. The Sherman Act was actually passed in 1890.
An interesting article, and I think a good analysis of John McCain (it provides a good description of why I dislike him so). McCain is a populist, which to me is a derogatory epithet; such people are guided solely by their passions, not by any coherent guiding personal philosophy. Each issue stands on its own, unrelated to any other, and all that matters is what “feels right” at the moment. The inevitable result is incoherence. McCain is abysmally ignorant about economics, and what is so distressing is that his ignorance is not only intentional but even a source of pride. I expect better of a President.
Bidinotto is probably correct about this, but the key word is “intentionally.” Unintentional results are every bit as real (and harmful) as intentional ones, and are probably longer-lasting because the proponent of the policy is emotionally invested in the “rightness” of his cause; he will be less inclined to reverse course despite the unintended consequences.
In the end, Bidinotto is also probably correct to support McCain as opposed to Obama. After all, it is a certainty that Obama will propose bad policies (as well as having the backing of a Democratically-controlled Congress to implement them), whereas there is a reasonable chance that at least some of McCains policies would be sensible. To me, though, the best reason to vote for McCain is that it will pave the way for a Palin presidency in 4 or 8 years.
But I’m still voting for Bob Barr.
“dragging the Republican party to the left”
By denouncing it for letting government spending get out of control?
The people who led the Republican party to the left were Bush 41 and Bush 43.
The person who had not said a word in any economic meeting in eight years as Vice Preident in eight years (source Milton Friedman – George Herbert attended the meetings of economic advisers and just sat there as if he was an inanimate object) should not have been nominated in 1988. I would have like Du Pont to win but if he could not (for the terrible reason that his real first name was not “Pete” but was really a French name – the attack George Herbert used on Du Pont in New Hampshire) then I would have even rather it had been Bob Dole – even he would have beat M.D. in 1988.
The Bush 41 reaction to the end of the Cold War – putting taxes UP (having given his word not to). And imposing every new regulation he could think of.
As for Bush 43.
Surely no one (whose family name is not “Bush”) still thinks the right man was nominated in 2000.
A man whose reaction to 9/11 (after he had finally been dragged away from the school test where he had stood in blind panic for ages) was to tell everyone to “go shopping”.
Sure this was the advice the (demented) economics people were giving.
But a real President would have known in his gut that this was not the right thing to say or do.
This article captures much of my concerns. There are at least two big questions. First re the Federal bench, will McCain appoint political (national greatness) conservatives, or judicial (originalist) conservatives? And second, will Palin retain her libertarian, Alaskan style individualism for four years and take it to the presidency? I seriously doubt McCain will run for a second term; he would be 80 by the end.
IIRC, your state is not in play. In your case, I would vote Barr as well. Mine (Wisconsin) most certainly is in play, as is Sunfish’s and VR’s. Any one of us could find us in a Floridian vote value situation and could have a hugely disproportionate effect on the outcome.
I am looking at how I will vote with one simple criterion. What will be the best long term action for placing government back in its constitutional shackles. Because of McCain’s age and Palin’s seriously constitutionalist, state’s rights and libertarian record and the fact that she has more experience as an executive of a government than he and most of his advisers combined and will therefore probably have a disproportionate share of domestic influence, I have to seriously consider voting McCain/Palin.
I see the possibility that they could do a reverse Bush/Cheney and the Pres could focus and direct foreign affairs (I am very comfortable with McCain in that realm) and the Veep could have far reaching ‘guidance’ of domestic policy. If it played out that way, I think most of us would consider that to be better than anything we hoped for and definitely not ‘the lesser of two evils’ but rather a step in the right direction.
Another major point – the vice president is president of the Senate. The vice pres has the constitutionally guaranteed right and power to preside over everything the Senate does. By long established tradition this has been treated as a ceremonial role but if you read the US Constitution, you will see the veep has real teeth and this was almost certainly intended by the founding authors as a power balancing necessity. Neither McCain or Palin has hesitated to break traditions in their drive to stop corrupt government. And frankly, as little as McCain worried about the first amendment, I am certain he will have no trouble at all advising Palin to use that power over the Senate to maximum effect. I believe she has the savvy to do it.
This election is almost certainly a very real opportunity to rein in government in a big way and I will not let it go without a very serious analysis. I am sure we will be talking about this a lot more in the coming weeks.
You Libertarians aren’t bad except when you try to square the circle. OK – slam me big on this one: “There are more things on heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy”.
Don’t bother – I know them all already – “That hoary chestnut — blah blah blah”.
If you would pull your heads out of there and look around in the sunlight you might realize that no human being can understand any more than a miniscule slice of humanity.
As for reading – I’ve done a bit myself – I have yet to find a book that has more than one or two good ideas or insights and you have to spend hours reading them.
If you want to find out how humans and their societies work you have to go out there and talk to people.
There are uncountable interactions within a society – uncountable to the point that is indistinguishable from infinity. Societies are the product of thousands of years of trial and error, the thinking of millions of people. Anytime anyone has tried to implement a didactic philosophy millions have been subjected to misery and death.
There. I fell better. I apologize to you all. I do really like you guys and always find Samizdata interesting.
Regards,
Roy
p.s., the canard about McCain’s reading habits is utterly baseless. Anybody been in his house and seen his library? Anybody follow him around his every waking hour for a month? His friends say that he is a voracious reader. Just because he doesn’t read pretentious books and doesn’t talk about your favorites does not mean he’s ignorant.
First up, I’m an Objectivist (a ‘crazed Ayn Rand worshipper, as it notes on the righthand sidebar), not a libertarian, but, a), that’s another story, and, b), your comments would be levelled against Objectivist philosophy as well anyway.
*sigh* Yet another who thinks freedom depends on skepticism. It’s getting boring.
And that is one of the reasons why one must act on principle if one is to have any chance of long-term success. Precisely because the concrete detail is so vast and varied, the only way to make sense of it is to discover rational principles and rigorously adhere to them rather than trying to go with the expediency of the moment.
In the absence of rationally worked-out principles, there is nothing left to go on but feelings – feelings that you cannot explain because you’ve consciously abandoned any attempt to understand them. That then leaves you wide open to manipulation by anyone skilled enough and who cares to take the time to do so. In other words, most politicians, journalists, etc.
The problem does not lie in didacticism, but the content of what is promoted. What the disastrous philosophies all have in common – and which is NOT shared by Samizdatistas – is that these philosophies hold there is something held to be superior to the rights of individuals, be that a collective of some kind, the supernatural, or (more recently) the environment. Since they are held as superior to individuals, they are necessarily eventually in conflict with the self-interests of those individuals. Thus of course they lead to misery. In turn, people’s recalcitrance is also necessarily inevitable. The response to this by the advocates of these philosophies is the presumption of authority to tell people what to do under threat of the use of force, hence the inevitable bloodshed and death.
There is a crucial distinction between pointing out what is and is not in people’s own interests on the one hand and imposing one’s opinions on the matter by force on the other. The only time that Samizdatistas advocate using force against others is when those others have themselves used it first. We stand up for individual rights, which includes the rights both for individuals to make total wrecks of themselves (so long as they don’t violate others’ rights while doing so) and for others to criticise those people for making wrecks of themselves.
JJM
Dear Mr. McVey,
You said:
“*sigh* Yet another who thinks freedom depends on skepticism. It’s getting boring.”
It certainly is scepticism. It is scepticism about coffee house philosophers whose brain storms seek to change a society that the is the freest, most prosperous in all history.
“And that is one of the reasons why one must act on principle if one is to have any chance of long-term success. Precisely because the concrete detail is so vast and varied, the only way to make sense of it is to discover rational principles and rigorously adhere to them rather than trying to go with the expediency of the moment.”
The principles have been discovered. They are writ by the ages. They are in the Holy Bible, they are in the Magna Carta, they are in the Declaration of Independence, they are in The Articles of Confederation, they are in The Constitution, they are in the body of the US Code, they are in the state, county, municipal and zoning codes. They are in the decisions of the courts. THEY have produced the best the world has ever seen. The product of millions of minds.
“The problem does not lie in didacticism, but the content of what is promoted. What the disastrous philosophies all have in common – and which is NOT shared by Samizdatistas”
That’s what they all say. Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite – and a guillotine.
“- is that these philosophies hold there is something held to be superior to the rights of individuals,”
Yes, there is. It is peace and harmony and comity amongst free men. What you propose is anarchy. Try that for a month and we wont have elections – we’ll have masters.
“the supernatural”
Anything we don’t understand is supernatural. The smart man knows a lot of things. The wise man knows very little.
I could take you on a tour of 65 years of accumulated knowledge and you wouldn’t even know the names of half the things I mention. I am a supremely ignorant person.
“The only time that Samizdatistas advocate using force against others is when those others have themselves used it first”
“Just War Doctrine” has been developed over the last 1600 years by The Holy Roman Church. It is a core curriculum in US Military Academies. It recognizes the right of preemptive war for defensive purposes. We allow law enforcement to use lethal force to protect others from imminent harm.
“We stand up for individual rights, which includes the rights both for individuals to make total wrecks of themselves (so long as they don’t violate others’ rights while doing so) and for others to criticise those people for making wrecks of themselves.”
Neal Boortz on stilts. All of God’s children are created equal – the are not created equally capable. It is abhorent to a civil society to let the least fortunate among us suffer in the streets. We will never solve this problem but we lose our humanity if we do not try.
Mr McVey, you ask for principles. Here is where I have found mine. I invite you spend a couple of minutes to read the wisest philosopher I have found:
http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html
Regards and a smile,
Roy
Good post, Midwesterner, and some very interesting ideas (especially on the VP’s role vis a vis the Senate). And you are correct: I have the advantage [?] of having a vote that is functionally meaningless, which affords me the luxury of using it for symbolic purposes. Were I in your shoes I might well hold my nose and vote for McCain (hoping for a single term).
If McCain does win, we can be certain that Hillary will receive the Democratic nomination in 2012, probably by acclamation (no one would dare oppose her). It would be good to have Palin ready to take her on.
Good post, Midwesterner, and some very interesting ideas (especially on the VP’s role vis a vis the Senate). And you are correct: I have the advantage [?] of having a vote that is functionally meaningless, which affords me the luxury of using it for symbolic purposes. Were I in your shoes I might well hold my nose and vote for McCain (hoping for a single term).
If McCain does win, we can be certain that Hillary will receive the Democratic nomination in 2012, probably by acclamation (no one would dare oppose her). It would be good to have Palin ready to take her on.
Kim du Toit,
Hitlerjugend is not our style, although it seems to be Obama’s
Though militarism is. And that is what I find most disturbing about the McCain-Palin ticket. National Greatness Conservatism gives a focus and mission to that militarism: offers to make the projection of force, and the application of discipline by threat of force, abroad an end in itself.
Us foreigners can’t be expected to like that. It is by definition regardless of our own view of our own interests.
How did he vote in previous confirmation votes? If he voted in favor of Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts, I’d feel pretty good, and even better if he voted against Ginsburg or Breyer the Illiterate. (Actually, was McCain in the Senate when Scalia was first appointed? Too lazy to look it up right now)
If she’s had those beliefs for forty years, I don’t think that four years would undo them completely. People can change sharply over the course of their lives (I used to be a Green-ish anarchist, back when I was 16, stoned, and stupid, for instance) but it takes either a long time or a major event that reshapes the world for them.
That’s one of the two reasons why I’m voting for McCain/Palin this time around. The other is that, based upon behavior while in office, I think Palin may actually be a better libertarian than Barr.
A few months back, when ‘everybody knew’ that the race would be between 9iu11ani, Goodhair, the Democrat On Fire For Jeez-us-AH, and McCain as a dark horse, I’d thought of pinning our hopes on the Senate. I thought that, if we have 41 senators who would simply filibuster everything that moved, we could survive four years of Obama or Clinton.
Then someone (you?) pointed out that there aren’t 41 senators with spine enough to do that, even if there were 41 senators who would even mouth the small-government words.
If Obama wants to wreck the conservative enthusiasm for McCain-Palin, his camp should bring up the issue of immigration.
Whoopee! I can’t think of any two types I would like less as head of state of a major country, unless it was economists.
Guy:
I’m not sure that militarism is either McCain’s or Republican or conservative or US style.
From my own casual glance through history, from WWI through Vietnam to Afghanistan and Iraq, the Americans don’t do militarism very well, though when they set their minds to it they’re pretty good at war. They tend to get rid of both conscription and territory pretty quickly once they’re done.
Of course if Obama, (or Barr) take office next January, then us foreigners will have to make some pretty fast decisions with regard to ‘militarism’, or at least military spending.
Either that or say: “Sure Mr Putin, take Georgia and Ukraine. Shit, take Poland if you like. But keep pumping the gas!”
McCain, as proven by his Palin pick, is willing to nominate where ‘nobody’ ever expected. I am not sure how much his confirmation votes in the Senate tell us about who he will nominate. Don’t forget Scalia (IIRC) is on board with “signing statements” as an exercise of executive override of legislative intent. The constitution specifies vetoes for that and never suggests anything approaching that implementation of signing statements. I consider Scalia to be a political, national greatness conservative who has had a couple of swipes with the clue-bat and may or may not be serious about originalism.
I hope you are right that Palin won’t go native. If she takes to pounding the Senate gavel to effect, that could do more than anything else to innoculate her against it.
An interesting read. My comments are that I am not sure that Senator McCain understands that restraining government requires strong judges that defend the Constitution, not passive judges that ‘avoid judicial activism’. It is not enough to merely avoid legislating from the bench, they must strongly confront the myriad usurpations of the professional government. My other comment is that I do believe that McCain has good intentions. He sometimes appears blinded by them. But what genuine good intentions means is that if he has an OODA loop, he adjusts. His good intentions are both his weakness and his strength. He is articulating them more narrowly and that helps a lot.
I’m not sure that militarism is either McCain’s or Republican or conservative or US style.
I can think of half a dozen wars off the top of my head in which America started off essentially without a military. One enduring thing about America, though, is that as a country it does war, especially black-and-white kinetic war, extremely well (large population, rich natural resources, huge economy, innovative culture, easily defensible location, high morale, and a generally volunteer military), and diplomacy/balance of power politics extremely poorly (optimistic and possibly naive about other countries’ goals and interests, easily defensible location leads to comfortable isolation and a trust in collective security that more vulnerable countries cannot afford, etc.).
Sadly, the future looks to demand a lot more from America’s weak suit than her strong one.
McVey: one of the things that I admire most about Objectivism at its best is the incisive clarity that it can bring to an issue. People accustomed to analysis from principles and authentic conceptual integration always have real things to say where the herd simply mewls and lows.
Yours was a superb comment.
I’m from a state that is very much in play (Colorado) and am now very happy to support Senator McCain. The doubts about him by Matt Welch and Bidinotto are well placed, but I am drawn to his courageous support of free trade (including immigration) and his support for a muscular foreign policy. The pick of Governor Palin launched me from a lesser-evil vote to actual, bona fide enthusiasm.
I appreciate Bidinotto’s conclusion, but I am very tired of Matt Welsh and Reason Magazine’s constant criticism of McCain while they give a free pass to the dirigisme of Senator Obama. This months issue hints that he might not be as dovish as he suggests — yet no mention of this plans to increase government’s role in health care, energy, and economic redistribution.
McCain’s policy of invade the world/invite the world might be brave, but it sure is stupid. His support for giving amnesty to millions of illegals who will nearly unanimously vote democrat, as will their children and grandchildren, is completely mindboggling.
Evan,
I can think of half a dozen wars off the top of my head in which America started off essentially without a military
Of course, but they were a long, long time ago. I submit there has been a big institutional change in the last half-century. The Great White Fleet may have started the rot, but WW2 mobilized and the Cold War militarized. Now we have to cope with both the world-bestriding empire Theodore Roosevelt dreamed of and the millitary-industrial complex Eisenhower warned about. (Though more nowadays in the guise of a security-industrial complex; abstract insecurity being so much more compelling selling than quantifiable military threat.)
Far from the dwelling in the “comfortable isolation” that Evan refers to, America finds itself adventitiously everywhere. That is impossibly perplexing.
Guy: and why is this a problem?
Alisa, I can’t speak for Guy, but it’s a problem for me because (among other reasons) I have the privilege of paying for it.
Laird, that is quite understandable. I also share that same privilege, BTW. But Guy does not, as far as I am aware.
Roy
I do not understand your posts, so I can not reply to them. I fully accept that this may be my fault.
Guy Herbert.
Military spending in the United States is a much smaller percentage of G.D.P. than it was in the 1960’s – or even in the peacetime of the 1950s (and yes I am including off budget spending).
As for World War II and the Cold War – Americans died for you as much as for other Americans.
Thank them or not as you wish.
Neither John McCain or Sarah Palin calls for anyone to be forced to serve.
“You miss the point Paul – I do not feel threatened by the Islamic extremists or they think threaten me”.
Well if that is how you feel Guy (and of course I do not know) you are simply wrong.
The warriors of radical Islam want you dead or enslaved (and NO it is nothing to do with British policy in the Middle East or anywhere else).
If you will not “stand up and help me, stand up and fight with me” then at least stop sneering at those who defend you.
Do not worry, the watch dog will not turn round and bite you – no matter how much you kick the watch dog. Indeed the watch dog will still die to defend you – no matter what you do or do not do.
But it is not polite to kick the watch dog, or to say nasty things about him.
And you are a gentleman – no sneer intended, unlike myself you do have this background. I wish I did.
Laird:
A populist would not (for example) oppose the eth subisdy.
A stand that put John McCain in forth place in the Iowa Caucus, and may cost him the election in November.