Who is John McCain?
I don't know if you can read this link or not, but last week the Economist in their Lexington column had a good little ditty about Senator McCain. I've been described more than once as something of a McCain fan, and for me that really has more to do with the fact that he sometimes has convictions stronger than politics (calm down--I said sometimes) but mostly that he is one of those rare conservatives that is not immune to irony. I would bet he lettered in it in high school.
The article opens:
HE IS every American liberal's favourite Republican. He has a long history of championing liberal causes such as campaign-finance reform (with Russ Feingold) and immigration reform (with Teddy Kennedy). He recently derailed the attempt by Senate Republican leaders to junk the delaying filibuster technique for judicial appointments; and he is one of Congress's leading worry-warts on global warming. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll gave him higher favourability ratings among Democrats and independents (both 59%) than among members of his own party (56%).
The fawning adulation of many liberals for John McCain is mirrored by the foaming hatred of many conservatives. "We don't like McCain at all," says Stephen Moore, a veteran anti-tax conservative. "He ought to not be allowed near sharp objects or legislation," adds Grover Norquist, another anti-tax crusader. The Conservative News Forum refers to him as "Komrade McCain". And that is all mild stuff compared with what the religious right says about him.
But the Komrade has a dark little secret: he is actually very conservative.
And then there is this:
He has long been a believer in the Reagan doctrine of linking American power with the spread of American values, not least in Iraq. And his foreign policy has not softened with time. He remains an articulate defender of the Iraq war—though also an equally articulate attacker of Donald Rumsfeld's handling of it. He is an outspoken critic of the authoritarian regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as well as of Vladimir Putin's "creeping coup" in Russia. If Mr McCain isn't a Reagan Republican when it comes to foreign policy, then nobody is.
To be sure, the senator's views on domestic policy are harder to pigeonhole. His support for campaign-finance reform infuriates libertarian conservatives, who worry that it limits free speech. His support for immigration reform appals conservative activists, who think that it condones law-breaking while opening the floodgates to more immigrants. His support for preserving the filibuster infuriated party loyalists, who want to get more conservatives on to the bench.
But in each of these cases there is a good conservative argument for his position. The campaign-finance system arguably encourages pork-barrel spending. How can politicians champion the conservative goal of a limited but effective government when they are in hock to special interests? Some of the biggest supporters of Mr McCain's immigration reforms are business people who want to bring the laws in line with the global economy, and homeland-security officials who want to be able to focus their resources on real threats to national security. Getting rid of the filibuster would not only have broken with 200 years of Senate tradition, but might also have allowed a future Democratic majority to push through radical reforms.
Just some good analysis.
The article opens:
HE IS every American liberal's favourite Republican. He has a long history of championing liberal causes such as campaign-finance reform (with Russ Feingold) and immigration reform (with Teddy Kennedy). He recently derailed the attempt by Senate Republican leaders to junk the delaying filibuster technique for judicial appointments; and he is one of Congress's leading worry-warts on global warming. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll gave him higher favourability ratings among Democrats and independents (both 59%) than among members of his own party (56%).
The fawning adulation of many liberals for John McCain is mirrored by the foaming hatred of many conservatives. "We don't like McCain at all," says Stephen Moore, a veteran anti-tax conservative. "He ought to not be allowed near sharp objects or legislation," adds Grover Norquist, another anti-tax crusader. The Conservative News Forum refers to him as "Komrade McCain". And that is all mild stuff compared with what the religious right says about him.
But the Komrade has a dark little secret: he is actually very conservative.
And then there is this:
He has long been a believer in the Reagan doctrine of linking American power with the spread of American values, not least in Iraq. And his foreign policy has not softened with time. He remains an articulate defender of the Iraq war—though also an equally articulate attacker of Donald Rumsfeld's handling of it. He is an outspoken critic of the authoritarian regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as well as of Vladimir Putin's "creeping coup" in Russia. If Mr McCain isn't a Reagan Republican when it comes to foreign policy, then nobody is.
To be sure, the senator's views on domestic policy are harder to pigeonhole. His support for campaign-finance reform infuriates libertarian conservatives, who worry that it limits free speech. His support for immigration reform appals conservative activists, who think that it condones law-breaking while opening the floodgates to more immigrants. His support for preserving the filibuster infuriated party loyalists, who want to get more conservatives on to the bench.
But in each of these cases there is a good conservative argument for his position. The campaign-finance system arguably encourages pork-barrel spending. How can politicians champion the conservative goal of a limited but effective government when they are in hock to special interests? Some of the biggest supporters of Mr McCain's immigration reforms are business people who want to bring the laws in line with the global economy, and homeland-security officials who want to be able to focus their resources on real threats to national security. Getting rid of the filibuster would not only have broken with 200 years of Senate tradition, but might also have allowed a future Democratic majority to push through radical reforms.
Just some good analysis.
Comments