Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Just a Company of American paratroopers, a guitar plugged
into the outpost's PA system, and a whole lot of demolitions.
John McCain Can Bring America to the Right
By bamapachyderm Posted in 2008 — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
(First, if you're in South Carolina, you can ignore this post. Vote for Fred Thompson!)
Okay, then. I started to write some of this as a comment in TheSophist's thoughtful diary, "Why I Fear President McCain," which should be read as a preface to this. His thesis:
I fear President McCain, because President McCain means that he would have won the general election. And he will have permanently shifted the 'winning formula' to the left of where we are today.
And that means that the Republican party will no longer be the conservative party.
You see, McCain's electability was invoked one too many time by his supporters. And it's true -- McCain certainly polls very well vs. Hillary and vs. Obama, and I'm sure that moderate/independent support (which McCain himself actively seeks) will help push him over the edge.
I understand his point, but I believe that the effect will be the exact opposite.
The American political center has ALREADY moved to the left.
Someone said this in the comments at another blog the other day:
I could stand another Democratic win if I knew it would get rid of the weak sisters, whiners, and RINOs.
We've all heard this--maybe some of you have said it as well. But it wouldn't get rid of the RINOs.
(And can we please just wait to do that until we don't have people still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan?)
You know what? Without a dynamic figure like Reagan (I know, Reagan again, but hear me out) who draws in Democrats and independents, the GOP can't go more conservative and win anything--not right now. Right now, the general public is more liberal than we are.
And what does the average voter see on the right?
Bush--whom the left despises because of Algore (sore loser) in 2000, and in whom almost everyone else is disappointed because he's either too conservative or too liberal, or they're just tired of the war.
Larry Craig. Duke Cunningham. Jack Abramoff. Ted Haggert. Tom Delay. Ted "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens. They don't want to see the good guys anyway at this point, if they even see them at all (thanks, MSM!). Objectively speaking, if I were a lib, I'm not sure I'd want to give conservative ideas a test drive, either--not right now.
But if there were an inspiring conservative like Reagan around, and there will be some day if McCain isn't that guy, they'd listen. Those of you old enough to remember know that before Reagan, people thought it was "uncool" to be patriotic and fly the flag, that people didn't think highly of our troops. It took the Iranian Hostage Crisis and especially Reagan to change that--Americans were loud 'n' proud to be Americans again. That's just one example, but it takes someone like him to move people, and move them he did. There really was a new optimism in all things. I was just a 13 year-old then (sort of a politics geek girl, I guess), but ever since Reagan ran in 1980 I've called myself a conservative and a Republican, and that's never changed.
And see, that's why I'm hoping Obama doesn't get the nomination (much less elected)--the libs and too many independents (and even some Republicans!) for my comfort think he's "inspiring" and "brings hope." I absolutely disagree--he's a sham--but that's how things are. You can forget about seeing Real Conservatives™ getting elected to anything as long as he's President (if that happens, God forbid) because too many people will be under the spell of the Obamessiah--at least until he royally screws things up.
If Hillary is elected, God forbid, it won't be any better in the meantime while we wait for that Supercandidate to show up. Just like Obama, she'll stack the courts with Ruth Bader Ginsburg clones, fill government agencies with more Joe Wilsons and Sandy Burglars, raise taxes, and turn the war into a legal battle between the ACLU and national security. And let's not forget Hillarycare, which sounds great for healthy 23 year-olds, but for anyone else? NO. My God, NO. And have I mentioned this is the ten year anniversary of Monica Lewinsky's debut? Ugh. And remember how much the Clintons "loathed" the military? Need I continue on why the Clintons need not set foot in the White House again? (I doubt it.)
John McCain will not move the country to the left. I don't even think Huckabee would, although I have no doubt that he could adopt some lefty socialist-lite/Nanny State ideas to which the public would become accustomed (sorry, Hucksters). And once you start a new gubmint program, it's almost impossible to dismantle it--case in point, the Department of Indoctrination Education, or any number of gubmint programs designed to "help" all of us incompetent citizens.
More to the point, I honestly think that even though McCain isn't the ideal conservative and is wrong, even unacceptably so, on some things by our standards, he's right on many more. (And as Reagan famously said, the person who agrees with me 80% of the time is not my enemy.) If he can bring in swing voters, he's effectively moved the center rightward. He's not polarizing among the general public, he knows how to speak to independents and centrists, and could very well change public opinion on certain issues, just as he had that effect with regard to the Rumsfeld strategy in the war. And it worked. We may not like his illegal immigration strategy, but it's better than anything we'll get with Hillobama and a Democratic Congress, and frankly, it's not so different from what we'd get from most of the other GOP contenders, rhetoric aside. President McCain would absolutely have a more conservative solution to the illegal immigration problem than any Democrat.
Another point, which was raised in the comments of BlackRepub's diary about black conservatives and the big tent, was that Hispanic voters are effectively gone for probably the next generation, after the last year. This is unfortunately very likely true, at least for those who would otherwise have been swing voters.
I read some analysis recently--I wish I had saved it, but I didn't--that said Hispanic support for the GOP candidates has dropped drastically since 2004 (with Bush's re-election). Except for McCain, that is. His rhetoric is very different from that of the other candidates, even when their proposed policies are similar. That's part of his problem with a lot of conservatives--he sounds soft on the issue (compared to Tancredo, he definitely is) where the others sound tough, even though they really aren't far apart.
I can't say I blame Hispanic swing voters for not wanting to vote Republican this time around. Not after the loud verbal beatings they've been taking as a group over the last couple of years, which on the internets (although not here at RS) has been peppered with wildly offensive ethnic slurs and other perjorative rhetoric. Surely we've all seen it--it's even been seen at some of the bigger blogs. I'm not Hispanic, but even I was ashamed to be identified as a conservative at times like that.
But John McCain can bring them back. He uses words like "God's children" when referring to impoverished illegals. It's maddening at times, because I know that rhetoric is off-putting, too "soft" for primary voters. It's as though he's already running in the general election, but you know what? He's not pretending to be Tom Tancredo, and swing voters--particularly those who have been disgusted or insulted with harsh rhetoric--see that. He means what he says. They will come back for him.
Other swing voters like him for a variety of reasons, and I suspect they have little to do with his interest group ratings. To many people, Senator McCain is still a war hero. To others, he's a straight-talker, and that's something that all voters appreciate (as long as the speaker is straight-talking in a way we like). John McCain may not be an inspirational figure to political geeks who have watched him in the Senate for the last couple decades, but to a whole lot of people, he is.
Is he Ronald Reagan? No, and I hear you snickering. Of course he isn't! But he is John McCain. I think he has the power to not just get swing votes, but sway those swing voters' views to some of our issues, like spending, defense, maybe even abortion--and if not change their minds, at least make conservative ideals more palatable to the center and some reasonable Democrats. Americans keep talking about "unity" and how they--we--want to cool off the toxic political environment, and that's why Obama has Hillary on the run. His supporters believe he can bring that unity. I think Fred Thompson can, but I think John McCain could do so even more. If American voters want "unity," we must not make Barack Obama the only choice.
Maybe I'm wrong, but what can I say--I'm an optimist. I still like President Bush, and I still think history will treat him well. I'm going to vote for whomever our nominee is (yes, even Huckabee) and by the time November comes, I'm going to feel good about it. I just think that in our fervor to get our guy (Fred!) nominated, we forget that these men, while all imperfect in some way to varying degrees, are each a much better option than President Hillary Clinton or President Barack Obama. We have to remember that we need not demonize our primary opponents, even though they aren't our ideal candidates. No President or candidate is, has ever been, or ever will be "perfect."
actually Joe Schmo
by absentee
The discussion is regarding whether we are moved left or right, not whether "sacrificing some of us conservatives in order to gain some independents is a worthwhile endeavour"
The electorate would only be moved left in your scenario if those "sacrificed" Republicans in the general voted left. If McCain were elected without them, they wouldn't suddenly be left. They'd just be the guys who didn't vote.
absentee
Wouldn't that depend
by Joe Schmo
On whether the conservatives not voting McCain (whether not voting or voting left to make point) afterwards step away from the party or stay involved, wouldn't it?
If they feel McCain will continue along the path he's been on, or maybe even adopt even more liberal policies, I can see where the overall effect will be a move to the left.
I do respect your reasoning for your switch to McCain from Thompson. You presented your case well. It's not a move I can make though.
within the context
by absentee
Of party platform trends, it is possible that it will alternately vacillate left and right as a result of strategy.
As regards moving the electorate left ... I think the will of the people, so to speak. is far too complex to nail down that way. Too many non-political factors are at play: culture, religion etc.
To the extent that electing McCain without the votes of a select group moves the party platform at all, I suggest it would be a temporary move at most.
Since it does not move social values voting left, then I think any damage to the conservative psyche will be minimal. And being that my opinion is that his economic and foreign policies are conservative, if not orthodox conservative, it can be argued that he moves the platform right. Especially if during the actual term real changes are made to government.
All of that, however, should be taken lightly in comparison to the notion that the platform moves in response to the voters, and not the reverse. In the 2006 elections a number of successful and unsuccessful dem candidates ran right. Some ran to the right of their Republican counterparts. This right shift was addressed in the media. I think Newsweek's story was titled "Not Your Daddy's Democrats" or something cutesy to that effect.
As gamecock says, people want to vote conservative on issues. The trick is getting them to buy your package.
absentee
I would argue
by Joe Schmo
the platform moves left with McCain as he is certainly leftward leaning in his views as compared to most of our other choices. Wouldn't we have to adopt McCains platform as the overall Republican platform? If that's the case, I fail to see any way nominating him moves us as a party to the right. As far as the independents and moderate Democrats he might get support from, you seem to be saying that would indicate a shift to the right by them. I'm not convinced of that.
I think it boils down to everyone's veiwpoint of McCain and how liberal he actually is and how liberal he would actually govern.
I'm not a big So-con so I'll have to take your word that it will not move social values left. My initial take is that it would.
not a shift
by absentee
"you seem to be saying that would indicate a shift to the right by them"
Not a shift, I think they are already to the right of how they are perceived. If they vote for McCain it is not movement as much as expression of that rightward tilt.
I don't think electing McCain moves the party to the right, I was suggesting that being right on the issues I mentioned would mean a move to the right to the exact extent that one accepts where he is left it moves it left.
Again, all assuming that the cause and effect work in that direction at all.
absentee
Maybe the best thing
by Joe Schmo
Is your view that any shift is temporary or there may be no shift at all. That one I can live with. I just have to convince myself it's true.
Time will tell, of course.
Thanks for the insight. I'll have to mull it over some.
I know what you're saying
by bamapachyderm
And I don't agree that conservatives should be "sacrificed." Not at all. I *am* a conservative myself, after all.
I'm just not sure I believe we'll lose conservatives, particularly considering the alternative we'll have in November.
Sure, I'd love for Fred Thompson to be the nominee, and I'm still actively trying to make that happen (see the button in my sig?). I'm just trying to be realistic. I like Romney, too, but the truth is, I don't think he can win in November.
I KNOW some, maybe you, will say "don't vote for electability, vote for a conservative." Fair enough, but electability DOES matter, even if you don't place a high priority on it. I don't think most conservatives want to see a Democratic President--to most (not necessarily on teh internets), being in the minority, or the political wilderness, is not an acceptable option.
Even though I'm an optimist, I'm also a pragmatist. Insisting on ideological purity almost never ends up giving us what we want.
According to the not so scientific poll
by Joe Schmo
That smokeymtman ran yesterday, there were 9 or so people stating they would not vote for McCain (4 vote) and many more that voted 3.
It looks to me like we have to accept the fact that this strategy will result in some percentage of conservatives not voting McCain or even voting Democrat.
this is an important point and thanks for making it
by gideon1789
one returns to the right little by little, not wholesale
we cannot put up calvin coolidge - or even barry goldwater - at this point. we have to move america rightward gradually.
after 4 or 8 years of mccain, america will be more ready to accept a president a few steps to the right of mccain.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
Applying that logic
by Joe Schmo
Would tell me that you then believe that McCain is to the right of George W. Bush. I respectfully disagree with that assesment.
i can understand that position, i think
by gideon1789
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
Different angles of viewing
by Joe Schmo
That probably is where we have differences in this point. Your point makes sense that way, but many of us are coming at it from the perspective of McCain being decided left of Bush.
Joe, that's not the point
by bamapachyderm
I don't think he's to the right of Bush at all, myself. He's definitely more centrist (although an 83 ACU rating isn't exactly "centrist").
It's like this:
Right now, the national mood is NOT in line with Bush or conservatism. I think we forget this, because we associate with other conservatives. The national mood IS in the center, if not liberal. Bush and other conservatives are not driving the national agenda right now, not at all. He's a lame duck at this point (unfortunately, because if he had conservatives on his side, we could squeeze a little more into what's left of his term)--and Congress is laughably unpopular. I think people also forget what Bush HAS gotten us: we've got two good Supreme Court justices (nevermind how we got there--we did get there), we are not subsidizing embryonic stem cell research (as someone who is fervently pro-life, I still think this is a misguided policy, but YMMV), we've managed to hold the anti-victory Left back from losing the war for us, we got tax cuts, we've had a robust economy--there's something for every "faction" of the GOP, with the exception of the social libertarians, I guess (Patriot Act, etc.--things I approve of wholeheartedly).
That said, while we've gotten all these things and people still say he's a "liberal" because he can't please all the GOP factions, the rest of the country is screaming that Republicans (and Bush) are too conservative, too "radical." (Nevermind the spending, they complain because it's money not spent on their pet causes.) Bush doesn't have centrists/moderates/independents on his side, so his being to the right of McCain doesn't even matter.
Say national politics is on a scale of 1 (liberal) to 10 (conservative). Say we're at a 5 right now, Hillobama is a 2, McCain is a 7, just for argument's sake. If McCain--or ANY one of our candidates--brings in the 4 and 5 voters, and maybe a few 3s and keeps most regular GOP voters (I realize there will be some who insist on not voting for him, but they'd do that for other candidates as well), and those 4s and 5s continue their support for McCainiology? Then those 4s and 5s have moved rightward, right? We've built our numbers, and with fewer 1-5s and more 5-10s, the center has moved rightward. The national agenda has moved rightward from where it is right now.
I know that's a very simple way of illustrating it, but I think in terms of numbers. ;)
I know you disagree, and that's okay with me. I just want you to see where some of us are coming from.
It's not that we (conservatives who aren't averse to a McCain Presidency, even if he isn't our first choice) want to pull the GOP to the center; it's that we want to keep the White House and pull the nation to the right. We want to make conservatism and the Republican Party appealing to Americans again.
intelligent and very interesting. you should make this
by gideon1789
a diary.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
uuhhhh, cancel that. you already have.
by gideon1789
someone's a little slow today...
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
McCain's ACU rating is misleading
by eburke
That is his lifetime rating. Having lived in AZ for 15 years (and having voted for John many times) he was much more conservative back in the day. Someone posted on here a few days ago his ratings for the last decade and he was in the 60s and low 70s
Plus, with all the votes which make up ratings, they're almost meaningless except at the extreme edges (i.e. below 10 or above 90). Example--right now a bunch of 'moderate' 1st term Dems are voting against the Dem leadership on procedural motions (like approving the House diary) so that they can run ads showing how often they voted separately from their failed leaders.
My problem with John now is simply that he not only voted against my conservative ideas and principles on the familiar list of legislation, he led the charge!
So for me, the whole lifetime ACU rating is irrelevant in assessing Sen. McCain. Too many shivs on to many critical issues at too many critical times for me to support him even in the general. His actions tell me not to trust him.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
That Bush was some kind of Conservative, which is really not the case. People are certainly tired of Bush, but not because of his non-existent conservatism.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Thanks for your well thought out response
by Joe Schmo
And, just for the record, I am trying to understand your view.
I think the area where we are going to disagree is that part where you believe that even if we lose some of the 9's and 10's that we come out okay because we'll get some of the 3's, 4's and 5's. We are in agreement that McCain will lose us some of the staunch conservatives, but I think it might not actually gain us many of the centrists. We need to face the fact that the Democrat, when the general election comes around, will quickly move into that 3, 4 or 5 area. At that point, they'll most likely appeal to the centrists more than a McCain will. It will be too similar for us to contrast against the Democrat.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the part where you believe his nomination will move the country to the right. I see it exactly opposite of you.
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
The Pile on is desperation
by JoliphantThank you for setting the record straight
by civil truthThe Real Jesse Helms
by William DaltonWhat did I do on Independence Day?
by LRAdamsReally?
by Jack Savageyes, he has come back
by David HinzPatton returns to address the War on Terrorism
by civil truthI always wondered why he never tried to come back
by Jack SavageBrooksy lurks here -- he checks us nearly every day
by David HinzRemember this?
by jonlesterNo huhu
by Neil StevensSorry Neil, spoke before I registered what you said.
by jonlesterThat's one department when it's pleasant
by jonlesterHTML cleanup in progress...
by Neil StevensThe extra 7 cents is for the Spam trademark <nt>
by jonlesterAnd I thought I was causing HTML disorder <nt>
by jonlesterOh for crying out loud ...
by LeverkuhnCampbells n/t
by JoliphantI managed to get a laugh out of him once
by jonlester
blog advertising is good for you
get your job site
at simplyhired.com
...is that McCain will pick up independents and some moderate Democrats while not also reailizing he will lose as many or more Republicans in the gereral election. If you realize that, then you must be saying that sacrificing some of us conservatives in order to gain some independents is a worthwhile endeavour.
Either way, that moves us to the left, not the right.
Joe Schmo's blog