February 03, 2008
"something more raw and instinctual at work here"
The older and cannier among you will remember All in the Family
A real Archie of that time in the mid-seventies hardly have been able to express what he wanted, because Archie was clearly a "Reagan Democrat" before Reagan was nominated. He had no political philosophy that he could have ever articulated, but he was disgusted with the sickness of the Democrats and the culture of the 60's. And when Ronald Reagan came along, the Archies liked him instantly, without ever thinking much about policies or philosophy. It was mostly gut feeling.
And I suspect something like it is happening for John McCain right now. (NO, I'm not saying McCain is a Reagan, or abating one jot or tittle the reasons why I dislike the man.) And I'm still a Romney supporter. BUT, I can't help noticing how much Romney is like Herbert Hoover. Hoover was a great American, a talented businessman and manager of government programs, and a world-class humanitarian hero in the aftermath of WWI. But he was not a guy the ordinary American warms to.
There's a famous line attributed (falsely) to Admiral King, "When the going gets tough, they send for the sons-of-bitches." I think there's a something similar in the inarticulate soul of America that says, "When leaders turn mushy in times of war or crisis, send for the Jacksonians." (Here's the piece to read on Jacksonians, by Walter Russell Mead.) Patrick Ruffini writes:
....But there is something more raw and instinctual at work here too. Older belligerent men are not afraid of confrontation, either personally or politically. I’ve heard more than one guy mention McCain’s volcanic temper as a positive. They equate this with toughness against our enemies.Well, I can resonate with that. I loathe McCain for the many times he's poked ME, as a conservative Republican, in the eye. BUT, there's a lot of people who deserve a poke in the eye, and I'm not unready to see President McCain pick up his eye-poking stick and do something about it. And something in me hopes that he will take to hunting down and exterminating jihadi animals with the same tenacity that the Scotch-Irish demonstrated in hunting down redskins, a ferocity they learned in Britain as border-reavers and as Protestants transplanted into Catholic Ireland.
A commenter on my previous post also reminded me again of McCain’s family origins: like many Southerners, he’s Scots-Irish and has the temperament to match. If you’re not an ideologically driven activist, and you fit the profile of an older belligerent man, you’ll probably end up choosing the Jacksonian flag & country candidate over the corporate titan....
And Orrin Judd writes, about this article by Mark Steyn...
...We yield to no one in our regard for Mr. Steyn. He's consistently funny and insightful. He was helpful when I needed a jacket blurb for my book and I keep his book of columns on 9-11 on hand for when I want to stoke the fires of righteous anger. It's always a treat to chat with one of his bevy of personal assistants. Heck, I even pulled a couple strings to get into a Dartmouth student event where he's speaking later this month.
Which all makes it excruciatingly painful not just to read that he actually thought the neocons knew anything about Republican politics, but that little bit about how happy Hillary must be happy about how the election is shaping up. Being a conservative imposes certain obligations, none higher than a respect for the lessons that history teaches us. The notion that, in a contest to lead one's country, being an older straight white male war hero leaves one in an inferior position to a liberal woman or black is so ahistorical that even Bob Herbert knows better: "Those who may think that a woman named Clinton or a black man named Obama will have an easy time winning the White House this year should switch to something less disorienting than whatever it is they’re smoking." It's a sad day on the Connecticut when a Timesman makes more sense than a Hampshireman...
Another thought. Hugh Hewitt is worried that McCain will be a candidate like Bob Dole, too old, and uninspiring. But McCain is nothing like Dole, and, more importantly, he misses an important aspect of Jacksonian values. Mead writes:
....Respect is also due age. Those who know Jacksonian America only through its very inexact representations in the media think of the United States as a youth-obsessed, age-neglecting society. In fact, Jacksonian America honors age. Andrew Jackson was sixty-one when he was elected president for the first time; Ronald Reagan was seventy. Most movie stars lose their appeal with age; those whose appeal stems from their ability to portray and embody Jacksonian values—like John Wayne—only become more revered...
And yet another thought. I've hearing reports that lots of lefties are saying how much they like McCain. Doubtless this is because they are deranged with hatred of Bush, and McCain has been a big thorn in Bush's Side. So what happens when Bush is gone, and McCain's the leader of the Republicans? Do you think things will continue to be friendly? My theory is that lefty nihilists hate Bush because he believes in God, and believes in America. To the nihilist, belief is an affront and an irritant. So what happens when they discover that McCain is a patriot? Ha ha. We may be in for some fun.
Posted by John Weidner at February 3, 2008 02:31 PMGiven that McCain has spent the last decade or so poking conservatives in the eye, for what reason do you expect him to change after he's president?
I am beginning to wonder if McCain will taint the GOP for decades like Nixon did (sadly, HRC's Nixonian tendencies, even if fully indulged and exposed, wouldn't taint the Democratic Party).
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at February 3, 2008 04:20 PMWell, to be sure, he may not change.
But once he is the Republican candidate, and starts hurting the Dem candidate, most of those lefties will turn on him savagely. They won't have Bush to kick around anymore--I don't think it's sunk in yet with them that Bush is heading happily for Crawford.
And maybe it has not sunk in yet with McCain that the NYT is not going to like him and flatter him anymore....
And McCain is not a nice guy on the campaign trail, right? And he has a violent temper, right? And hates to be criticized, right? So what's gonna happen when the Dems start fighting hard and dirty for little Miss Hillary?
I suspect McCain's going to pull out his eye-pokin' stick, and go for it. And then....
Posted by: John Weidner at February 3, 2008 05:21 PMYes, sir, it's going to be interesting. I think much of the frothing is because the hard right still hasn't figured out how many bridges they burned with the Harriet Miers fiasco. It is one of the failings of the Stupid party. 80% isn't good enough. 100% or you're a traitor and hanging's too good for you.....
Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at February 3, 2008 07:01 PMWell, I'm an "80% is more than I even expect" kind of guy. And I thought Harriet would have made a fine justice. We have lots of clever-johnny legal scholards; it would not have hurt to have one common-sense practical woman...
Posted by: John Weidner at February 3, 2008 07:27 PMWell, yes sir. I just think that the reason none of the "conservative" candidates got any traction was because everyone saw the Conservative faction slit Bush's throat over Miers. Never good to sack your own quarterback. Sacking your quarterback and then offering to replace him? Good luck.
Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at February 3, 2008 09:18 PMI suspect that, when McCain is turned on by the Modern American Left, he will blame the bad mouthing by conservatives and lash out at them, hoping to re-ingratiate himself with the leftist social elites.
Ultimately, I think that the anger at McCain stems from this view that the opinions he really, truly, values are those of the New York Times crew, the same ones you castigate so harshly yourself. I.e., it's not that he likes to poke conservative eyes, but that he does it to impress the "cool kid" nihilists.
I would be interested in any examples of where McCain has lashed out at Socialists the way has has at Conservatives in the last decade.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at February 4, 2008 10:36 AMWell, here's a case for McCain, laid out by Michael Medved. I didn't notice any examples...
I don't, by the way, find Medved's arguments very convincing...
Well, I'll be voting for Romney tomorrow. I really don't like McCain but I think many conservatives are getting a little carried away. Medved might not make a good case for McCain vs Romney, but he makes a pretty good case for McCain vs either Clinton or Obama. Problem is, I don't think he can win. I'm really depressed about this election.
Well, I think he can win, provided conservatives support him. Which just emphasizes how odd McCain's psychology is. He's wanted to be president since forever, and yet goes out of his way to alienate a key voting block. A mystery.
Not odd or a mystery. Surely you know of kids who ruined their careers / lives that showed such promise in order to do something dumb they thought would impress the cool kids.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at February 4, 2008 01:02 PMYou are right, of course. I was not unlike that at the age of 16. It is a failure of my imagination that I can't picture an old guy being so. Yet I am well aware that people often go into politics due to a deeply immature psychological neediness.
Posted by: John Weidner at February 4, 2008 02:06 PMIt reminds me of an article about some interviews with inner city black kids. The author originally thought that the kids were ruining their lives by selling drugs, fornication, and playing at being gangsters. Therefore educating them about this would change their behavior. It turned out that the kids knew perfectly well that they were destroying their futures, but just couldn't resist the present temptations. It was quite a depressing read.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at February 4, 2008 02:30 PMJust was thinking about Mitt Romney pulling or suspending himself from the Republican race....
My questions are:
Are there any other viable solutions available to us for Mitt or (WE as Conservative Americans) ... that could put him back in the race
I clearly understand his reasoning however, if something happens that causes McCain or Huckabee to withdraw from the race could they give him - their remaining Delegate Votes & he come back in?
- or could he (or WE) create a 3rd Party...for him to run in....
I would really like to know if there is a POSITIVE solution to this problem...thanks, SV
Well, if you bump off McCain before the convention, it will probably be Mitt. Other than that, no, there is no alternative. Third parties have never done any good in American history, and have often harmed the party that has the most in common with them. Ross Perot made Clinton president, and the Bullmoose Party gave us the worst president ever (in my opinion), Wilson.
Conservatives should stay calm and focused, and support McCain in such a way that he has the maximum reason to keep us happy.
The News-nihilists are already trying to split conservatives and McCain. (see new post) That should be a big hint to us!
Posted by: John Weidner at February 8, 2008 01:33 PMI've never thought of McCain as a very smart man, but I know that he's not stupid. There is nothing he loves more than his own power and he knows exactly how to acquire more of it.
The problem is, the very people who nominated him (moderates, Dems voting in the GOP primaries, etc.) will not vote for him in November. Why? Because his base, at this point, has alienated him, and/or he has alienated it/them. He can't possibly think that the very people who voted for him because of his immigration policies and his global warming policies and all those other "non-GOP" policies will stick with him once the GOP mobilizes and throws their support to him. He's going to have to make some concessions to keep the GOP base (the same people he cannot win without) and those concessions will be that he won't sign an amnesty bill or won't do some other left-of-right-of-center thing. Well, ta da! He just lost all those moderates and Democrats that voted for him because he stood up for all those things.
I can't figure out why some adviser didn't think to mention this to him.
This is simply not going to be an election on policy. This is basically going to be a "who hates their nominee the most" election.
Oh, by the way, I also think it's hilarious how McCain is going to just give Huck a nice pat on the back and a "go away now." He's going to treat Huck the way he's treated the rest of the GOP: he got what he wanted out of them and now he's leaving them/him flapping in the breeze. Isn't that special?! Thanks Huck. Thanks a whole heckuva lot. Now you see what we've seen all along. How does it feel?
Posted by: Matt M. at February 8, 2008 05:08 PMWell, actually, I'm starting to think just the opposite. (But I go up and down with every new bit of news.) I'm guessing, mostly from the reaction to his CPAC speech, that McCain can jolly us conservatives along without giving up too much of what he has always been.
And every yelp from ideological conservatives will convey to moderates that he's mostly like them. So he'll get a lot of their votes. And the non-ideological conservatives, such as the "country music conservatives," well, they'll see a tough and independent war hero, and they will like that just fine.
And he Dem scare-tactics about "right-wing extremists" who are trying to "create a theocracy", those are not going to work with McCain at all....
Posted by: John Weidner at February 8, 2008 05:46 PM
