McCain’s Country-First Life Is a Winner
American Thinker | Kyle-Anne Shiver | Aug. 8, 2008
If Barack Obama presents a target-rich environment in his inflated balloon of media hype over one non-accomplishment after another, John McCain presents the opposite. No hype. No hot air. No blathering, bloated claims about ethereal change and meaningless hope in government to save us. None of this Hollywood stuff for McCain.
McCain is scrappy. He’s a scrounger. He’s downright humble. Rather than touting his formidable experience, or the fact that he has had three sons in the military, quietly serving their Country, John McCain presents a true model of decency, self-respect and laudable humility, in the same all-male bundle.
McCain has been a Country-First guy yesterday, today and always.
The more I read about John McCain, the more I realize that he embodies so much of what we Americans regard as our exceptionalism of character, our grit and determination, our willingness to strip down to brass tacks to achieve a worthwhile goal, our utter disdain for royal celebrity accoutrement in our leaders. John McCain is American to the marrow of his bones, going back generations, and evidenced in every sphere of his life.
I sincerely doubt that the word, “quit,” is in this guy’s vocabulary.
When his political chips were down, McCain created his own surge.
In June 2007, the press were all but writing obituaries on McCain’s presidential campaign. The campaign was basically broke, donors were looking elsewhere, and it was a time for reassessment.
On April 19, 2007, Harry Reid, new Senate Majority Leader, had stood upon our Capitol steps and declared for all the world, especially our enemies, that this “war is lost.” Congressional Democrats were acting like banshees demanding withdrawal timetables for Iraq, and pronouncing the surge a failure before it ever had a chance to succeed.
When the chips were down, did McCain call his celebrity pals in Hollywood to ask for advice and a quick, fancy prop-up and money, money, money?
Does McCain even have any friends in Hollywood?
John McCain decided to leave the whole mess behind, and embarked on a no-fanfare trip to Iraq to spend the 4th of July with our troops. As one of the most vocal initial backers for the troop surge in Iraq, McCain continued to believe that premature withdrawal would be devastating, not only to the people of Iraq and the Middle East, but to our ability to fight the war on terror around the globe.
John McCain flew to Iraq to celebrate Independence Day in the privileged company of those he has always loved best, his fellow men and women in America’s Armed Forces.
[...]
McCain’s Dark Night of the Soul
Few human beings have life experiences that push them to the absolute brink of surrendering their humanity, especially an experience that lasts such a long time. Through more than a thousand sun-ups and sunsets. Through more than a thousand nights of despair and darkness, when the entire world seems to have deserted and gone on its merry way.
[...]
Senator McCain quoted another man, who had endured horrible captivity and inhumane conditions, Victor Frankl, a prisoner of the Nazis. In Frankl’s account, Man’s Search for Meaning, McCain, Brace, and so many others discovered that under such conditions, “everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of human freedoms - to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”
Over the course of five years in a Hanoi prison, two of those years in solitary confinement, John McCain discovered his inner strength, his maverick spirit, and his determined will to never succumb to a loss of what makes us human. Our free will.
. . . more
Saturday 09 Aug 2008 | Blog-Editor | Conservatives, Freedom, Politics |
Oh Good Lord. If you want to make the case that McCain is better than Obama, then by all means go ahead. I can think of several housepets and some inanimate objects that are better than Obama.
But this kind of hagiographic nonsense? This is John McCain we are talking about here. An irresponsible fly boy who got shot down. He spent time in a prison camp. Lots of other men did the same thing. Didn’t any of you ‘conservatives’ ever ask how a man who was the son of an Admiral failed to rise above Lieutenant Commander (0-5)? He didn’t even make Captain (0-6). Why? What kinds of skeletons were in his service record that kept him from rising higher in a 20 year career? If you do some research, you’ll find out.
He came home and ditched his formerly pretty wife that had been disfigured by a car accident. He found a rich honey bunny whose dad bought him a seat in Congress, and then a seat in the Senate.
In the Senate, his favorite game was sticking his fingers in conservative eyes. Conservatives have hated McCain for years as a conceited, arrogant, pig of a man who did everything he could to harm us.
Now, suddenly, he’s all sweetness and light. The new George Washington, crossed with the Apostle Peter.
Make the case he’s better than Obama, but this stuff would gag a maggot.
How is one liar better than another? How does one who is interested only in personal power better than another who has the same orientation? Conservative and liberal ideology only serve to allow such men access to the power they desire. Their wives and children are only fodder, accessories or as with Jimmy Carter and possibly uncle Bill, the real power.
Our entire political process is so corrupt that it would be a miracle if there were any decent leaders. Personally, I don’t see any.
But Nicholas when has it been that political power has not been purchased?
Even Wilberforce in England was able to stay in office long enough to accomplish England abolishing the slave trade because he was ‘elected’ from a rotten borough. He simply did not have to pander to anyone. He chose to do something noble with his power, most don’t.
As long as we are beholden to the twin evils of ideology and personality, we can expect only worse and worse candidates.
Michael,
There are a few problems with your arguments.
(1) Conservatism is not an ideology!
(2) You imply that there’s a moral equivalency between conservative and liberal ideas, nothing could be further from the truth.
(3) A vast majority of conservative ideals and ideas are significantly compatible (many virtually identical) with Christianity, especially Orthodox Christianity.
Chris, just because you like something does not mean it cannot be ideological. The manner in which conservatism is being used by the vast majority of today’s politicians is ideological. ANYTHING can be turned into an ideology–serving power for power’s sake and in a demogogic fashion. There was a time when liberal ideas were not particularly ideological. That past a long time ago. It seems to be passing for conservatism as well. It happens when politicians who really don’t have a philosophy or idea of government cynically manipulate ideas and inflame our passions simply to get elected. I don’t care what sort of lable such politicians place on themselves, they are liars. Frankly I don’t see a hair’s worth of difference between them. Such activity always leads to tyranny. We have the same dynamic at work in the Church herself. If you wish to apply the pejorative lable of ‘moral equivalence’ as a way of ending all conversation, feel free. It wouldn’t be the first time. In fact such knee jerk labeling of any idea with which you disagree is an example of the effects of ideology creeping in.
I think it is dangerous and wrong to identify any political philosophy with the Church. That is putting faith in the world. Even when there may be similar ideas, the use and context of those ideas is often not compatible. IMO not one political philosophy is ‘virtually identical’ with the revealed truth of the Church. At best they are secular cognates. There is a vast difference between the salvific and Incarnational approach to humanity of the Church and any secular cognate. Just look at how twisted the ideal of the community caring for the poor has become in liberal hands when it is divorced from the Person of Christ. The same occurs when the conservative ideal of self-reliance becomes individualism because it is divorced from the shared life of the Church. Personal responsibility becomes merely a method of legalistic judgementalism. Both tend toward elitism and the oligarchic concentration of real power which suppresses genuine political freedom.
Further, even the secular cognates of conservatism have their roots in flawed Protestant anthropology, an anthropology that tends to ignore genuine community and our fundamental need for it.
In today’s political environment genuine conservatives are not to be found, everyone is a statist–what else can a politician be after all. We have been conditioned that only statists can govern. Shoot, even Thomas Jefferson became a statist when he was President and was a supporter of the French Revolution because of his ideological approach to the state and monarchy. Today’s politicians, even though they may try to lay claim to the ‘conservative mantle’, are willing to sacrifice all personal morality and shared ethics to promote themselves. Bob Barr is a case in point. Glen claims he is a genuine conservative, yet he is unable to stay married and is running with the support of a party at whose convention Christian morality was openly mocked by old wanna-be hippies in favor of the hedonism of today’s culture. To me Barr is the most cynical and hypocritical of the bunch. He is only attempting to conserve his own power and fame. I’m sure he meets a lot of pliant, attractive women that way.
Ideology is a type of idolatry and is something all of us are prone to and must always be on our guard against. Anytime an idea turns into a ‘movement’ it has reached the ideological stage and soon begins to deteriorate. Ideology de-personalizes and de-humanizes, turns human beings into cogs and community into ‘the mass’.
Because of my own bias, I would tend to agree with you that conservatism seems to be closer to the ideals of the Church, but then I think of one of my parish friends. She is about as politically liberal as one can get, yet I have no doubt of her fundamental and profound commitment to living in the Church. I simply cannot countenance anything that diminishes her faith because I disagree with her politically. I would be sucumbing to the ideological fallacy if I did that.
Mr. Bauman #2:
I think you are generally correct, but in my opinion the process, while perhaps imperfect, is not corrupt. We send delegates to the electoral college just as we have since the Constitution was ratified. The responsibility for the corruption of a representative government rests with the people to which it is accountable. In other words, the people are either predominantly corrupt and/or ignorant.
dgeorge, I agree with you to a point. We have been willingly seduced into voting away our polticial freedoms because we simply don’t really want the responsibility that such freedoms require. I firmly believe that a people receive exactly the kind of government we desire. That being said, the Constitution itself began a move toward a peaceful centralization of power unprecendented in human history. That has continued largely unabated since, accelerated by wars and the Great Depression and some amendments to the Constitution.
Specifically: The essential destruction of the 10th Amendment (enumeration of powers) by the Civil War and Lincoln’s assumption of dictatorial powers; the specific power given to government to determine individual rights by the 14th amendment during a time when Congress was dictating to the country; the imposition of the income tax by the 16th amendment; the direct election of Senators under the 17th amendment; and the extension of suffrage to 18 year olds under the 26th amendment. All of these amendments in one or more ways undid the balance of state and federal power which was one of the main checks to centralization written into the Constitution. Of course FDR’s usurption of power given the excuse of the Depression and WWII
John Adams felt that the lifetime appointment of judges would keep the other branches honest and to some extent it has done so (although they failed to respond adequately to his own Alien and Sedition Acts), however, it has more recently served only to inculcate political ideology into our laws and culture in a way that makes just application of the laws quite difficult.
Combined with the increasing shirking of Constitutional authority by the Congress particularly on the issue of war and the balance between the three branches of government written into the Constitution is out of whack. How is that to be changed by we the people?
When, even with the electoral college, it only takes 12 states, 10 of them east of the Mississippi, to elect a President and many Congressional elections are simply non-competitive where is our power even if we want change? In my state it simply does not matter a whit how I vote. The Republican Presidential candidate will get Kansas’ decreasing (from 8 to 6 in my lifetime) number of electoral votes even if I vote for the man in the moon. The Republican congressional candidates outside the Kansas City area are almost as sure a thing and the usual assortment of Rhinocrats run for state office calling themselves whatever they wish with no vision, no passion, and little intelligence seemingly intent on giving 100% of the tax revenue of the state to “education” while fostering gambling and other immoral activities to pay for and shortfall–amoral, incompetent, impotent, ignorant bred by a system that only allows blanks to assume office.
Add on top of all this the errosion of the idea of national sovereignity (which many of our military excursions have also helped to foster) and ‘the people’ have no recourse except to endure (the disparity in weaponry between citizens and the modern state is simply too great to allow for armed revolution or even mass protest directed at actual change when such laws a RICO exist and can be applied to Constitutionally protected activities). Only the monetary bankruptcy of the state is sufficient to force change and not always then.
Genuine conservative government requires a truly educated, motivated and involved electorate which is willing to put aside personal gain for the good of the whole and a political environment that supports independent thought. Since every current politician seeking office has essentially the same message: “vote for me and I’ll put money in your purse” there is no conservative message. The government controlled schools have become places where a great deal of ideological propganda is fostered in the name of education rather than allowing, teaching and encouraging genuine thought. Modern politicians don’t what folks to think, just to believe.
When the only choices we are given are variations on the $$$ theme–where is our ability to make change via the ballot box? Even in states that have a referendum process like California, the will of the people is often overridden by the courts or ignored by the legislative and excutive branches. Recall legislators and the folks who take their place go right on with the same policies–using tax money to pay for everything.
The language of ‘rights’ and ‘entitlements’ continues to errode actual due process and effective government to the point of anarchic tyranny.
The corruption is certainly not limited to the political class, it is reflective of the moral and spiritual corruption of the entire country. That is one of the many reasons why I consider it folly to participate in the political process at all. This kind only comes out by prayer and fasting. Unless and until the people of this country are more concerned about virtue than we are about our pocket books, the situation will continue to deteriorate.
I am an intelligent, educated (largely on my own), person who cares deeply for my country. I have no one for whom I can vote. No one even trys to represent me. I am not alone. I refuse to any longer approve “the lesser of two evils” as that just adds to the corruption.
Michael,
I don’t “like” Conservative ideas because of bias or subjective opinions. I believe and trust Conservative ideas because they are true and they come the closest to Christian and Biblical ideals and moral precepts. My life experiences and critical analysis of life, man, and faith have all re-inforced these view and shown that conservative ideas are true and based on reality, while liberalism, communism, socialism, and leftism are based mostly on lies and fantasy, they are truly anti-human and anti-Christian idealogies.
While previously I thought you might have mistakenly stumbled into moral equivalency, it is evident that you do indeed embrace the moral equivalency argument and place liberalism and conservatism on an equal footing. That’s a huge fallacy.
Chris, its not the ideas, its the use of ideas without content or belief or any intention of actually governing in acord with those ideas. Just because an idea is good, even true does not mean than it cannot be turned into an ideology. That happens to Christianity (ala Jim Wallis and Rick Warren). Even in the Church it is a big problem for us right now. The Pharisees of Jesus time had turned the revealed truth into an ideology to support themselves in postions of priviledge and power. The ‘conservative’ politicians of today have turned positive ideas about governement and society into demogogic slogans and legalistic nonesense simply to get elected and keep their ‘base’ in line.
You don’t seem to be able to separate genuine political philosophy from the cynical and hypocritical use of it. That is a big blind spot IMO. It is not moral equivalency when I attempt to make the separation and refuse to participate in something that is a lie just becuase it has a pretty bow on it. The package is still full of dead men’s bones.
I will never under any circumstances vote for anyone who supports what has come to be the liberal agenda. However, I will no longer automtically support someone who simply claims he/she doesn’t support the liberal agenda. Shoot, McCain isn’t even pretending with his testing the waters on having a pro-murder Veep. He obviously has no real committment to protecting the lives of the most vulnerable citizens he is seeking to govern, nor by extension does the Republican Party. The Libertarian party is openly in favor of unrestricted abortion, homosexual ‘rights’, etc; the Green Party a confusing mix of neo-communism and neo-paganism, the list goes on and on. As I said, I have no one for whom to vote, not one.
Here’s the difference, most of the politicians who call themselves conservatives are moral and politcal hypocrites while most of the liberals acutally believe in the amoral, poison they spew. That’s why they win–people prefer actual commitment to hypocrisy. It is perceived as being more honest. One lies about what he believes, the other believes lies. However, live a lie long enough and you become a lie. Unable to distinguish between what is true and what is false, no longer caring. From there it is a short swift drop to utilitarian pragmatism. Government by the highest bidder–acquiring and using power simply for power’s sake, committed to nothing. Still trotting out the same ideas that can be labled conservative–pretty well assured that they’ll get enough votes simply because of the label.
It would be a good idea to come up with an ad hominum attack that has a little more life in it than ‘moral equivalence’ its been used too often in too many situations to any longer mean anything. It has become a short cut to dismiss ideas you don’t like rather than engaging them. You are starting to sound a bit like Dean–but there I go again. It is obviously impossible for you to engage in the thoughtless, vituperative blathering that marked Dean’s primary discourse because you are a conservative and he isn’t. If I point out that there is a similarity in style and approach, I’m engaging in yet another act of moral equivalency. Seems like circular reasoning to me. If I question the efficacy and foundation of conservative ideas, even just a little, I’ve become an ME practioner. It seems as if anyone who doesn’t toe the party line is a PME (practioner of moral equivalence). But if you still want to use the phrase please realize, it is ideology that is the epitiome of moral equivalence because it constantly equates virtue and truth with lies and immorality.
Unfortunately, like I said before, ANYTHING can be made into an ideology. Equally unfortunately, it is the coin of the political realm in the United States right now. Gaining/retaining power has replaced governing as the primary goal of the political class and the pundits who support them. That is largely because of the wholesale secularization of American life. God is out there, maybe, somewhere, but of no real relevence. Secular politicians use His name in vain. Most conservatives are at the very least de-facto secularists.
If you know of one genuine, viable conservative political candidate on the national level or state level, let me know. Name names. It would be great to find one.
A few last comments on
1. One’s life experience is a bias. Everyone has bias. It is what leads us toward accepting certain things & people while rejecting others. The more honest a person is, the more he examines his own bias. The more Christian a person is, the more he evaluates his bias in the light of Christ not the other way around. In fact we pledge to do that in the Orthodox baptism. That does not make it easy.
For the record, my life experience bias led me in a direction of greater sympathy for those who see governement as the solution to addressing human needs. However, in the light of the Church I’ve seen such ideas to be elitist, chiliastic fallacies. That does not mean that people who are confused by the fallacies are bad. It means they are confused. Nor does it mean that I should embrace any and all politicians who claim to be oriented toward ‘limited government’
2. I agree that, in the main, conservative ideas are closer cognates to revealed Christian truth than most political arguments on the market. That simply makes them more dangerous in one sense. It becomes easier to mistake righteousness or the veneer of righteouness for the Truth. It becomes easier to allow such a set of ideas to short circut our thought, leaving us of the world when we are commanded to strive for more.
3. Liberalism, communism, socialism are anti-Christian nilhism. That doesn’t mean that I should mindlessly support hypocrisy and lies because of seeming opposition to evil.
4. I find a great deal that is touted as conservatism anti-human, some of which I referred to in my post although obliquely. Individualism is fundamentally non-Christian. It is just as wrong from an anthropological standpoint as collectivism. The de-sanctifiying of creation that often accompanies many forms of economic activity labled capitalism and the chiliastic manner in which capitalism is used is just as infected with materialism as socialism. The de-humanization of employees that many, many businesses practice simply to make more short-term profit is anti-Christian. You have written against such practices for which I commend you. I have seen no nationally recognized conservatives do so. In fact, many tacitly approve such practices as good for the economy and in fact a proper expression of capitalism. Such ideas are really closer to facism than capitalism, but many confuse the two or intentionally obsfucate to promote fascist ideas.
If all ‘conservatives’ are interested in conserving is the unbridled consumption in the name of economic progress, I’m oppposed. If they promote a not-so subtle social darwinism and call it conservatism, as many do, I’m opposed. Both are manifestations of the same anti-Christian nihilism as communism.
The only difference is that whereas communism and collectivism require the non- and anti-Christian oreintation to survive, capitalism does not. If conservatism is all that you say it is, its supporters should be the first to decry mistreatment of employees as the economically unviable activities they are. People are worthy of their hire. Conservatism should lead the effort to promote responsible economic growth and human oriented mangement not lead the opposition as many so-called conservatives do. Just because the market may even things out in the long run does not make the harm done to people in the mean time virtuous.
IMO todays politicians regardless of party are equally corrupt spiritually, philosophically and morally, even if in different ways. Conservatives are more culpable because they should know better and say they do know better. I want to hold them accountable, but I see no way of doing it within the political system. Barring a miracle the liberals,etc. are beyond hope. If that makes me guilty of the sin of moral equivalency–so be it.
Slight correction to my previous post: it only takes winning 11 states in the electoral college, 9 of them east of the Mississippi to be elected President. NY, PA, FL, OH, MI, IL, NJ, NC, GA, TX, CA. That’s scary to me.
Chris B. writes: “While previously I thought you might have mistakenly stumbled into moral equivalency, it is evident that you do indeed embrace the moral equivalency argument and place liberalism and conservatism on an equal footing. That’s a huge fallacy.”
I think what Michael is talking about is not moral equivalency of ideas, but equivalency of performance.
In other words, politicians sell themselves as “conservative,” but then when in office don’t deliver.
For 20 out of the last 28 years there has been a Republican president. During any of those years, did government get smaller? Was the budget balanced? Were Federal programs or departments eliminated? During the recent Bush years at times Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and presidency. Did government get smaller? Was the budget balanced? Quite the opposite.
During the recent Bush years, did the Republicans do a better job of governing? Not at all. The prime example of that is the occupation and supposed reconstruction of Iraq. Unqualified people were put in positions of great responsibility based on ideology and loyalty to the administration. Contractors built structures that were already falling apart even before they were finished. Billions of dollars were completely unaccounted for.
“According to Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, the $8.8bn funds to Iraqi ministries were disbursed “without assurance the monies were properly used or accounted for”. But, according to the memorandum, “he now believes that the lack of accountability and transparency extended to the entire $20bn expended by the CPA”.”
Entire pallets of currency went missing, so much money that it’s easier to count it in tons rather than dollars. If “liberals” had done this we’d never hear the end of it.
I think more and more ordinary conservatives are starting to ask a simple question: if “conservative” politicians don’t perform as conservatives when in office, why should they vote for them?
Michael and Jim,
Why are you pigeonholing “conservatism” to a political philosophy only and use Republicans who are not true conservatives as models? This makes no sense. Conservative values and ideals encompass all of life with politics representing just a slice. Unlike liberalism, leftism, socialism, communism, etc. the true conservative values are closest to the Judeo-Christian moral traditions. Because politicians in the GOP have betrayed and compromised those values is not the fault of conservatism, but the fault of individuals and organizations that do not hold them accountable.
Chris B writes: “Why are you pigeonholing “conservatism” to a political philosophy only and use Republicans who are not true conservatives as models?”
Fair enough. But who exactly is the model? Who is the true, untarnished conservative politician? For that matter, what is “conservatism?” Is conservatism pro Iraq war or anti Iraq war? Is it smaller government or contracting out government to private business? Is it pro-life (Christian version) or pro-choice (libertarian version)? Does it support FISA or is it against FISA? The list goes on and on.
Look at the Abramoff scandal. All of the people involved had impeccable conservative credentials. Abramoff, orthodox Jew, head of college Republicans. DeLay, Christian and majority whip during the Republican Revolution. Ralph Reed, executive director of the Christian Coalition. Grover Norquist, of American Taxpayers Union, College Republicans, worked on the Contract with America, etc.
Are all these people not conservatives? If it turns out that many or even most conservatives end up betraying conservative values, then why should anyone vote for a conservative? Is conservatism some kind of abstract ideal that few ever achieve?
Jim,
You raised several valid points and criticisms of some who claim to hold conservative values but have not acted in accordance with conservatism as I understand it. It’s interesting that you should ask what the model is, since that confusion was evident in the exchanges here. It occured to me that many in the mainstream are doing a rather poor job of clarifying the issues and quite a few embrace the label but act diametrically opposed to it. Just this afternoon I thought that maybe I should start working on writing out the basic principles of what I believe to be the cornerstones of a conservative philosophy of life (all life, not just politics). This last post from you may be yet another indicator that I could be on to something here.
Jim,
Regarding your observations:
I agree with that criticism. Ever since 1989 the conservative ideals of smaller and more accountable government, less gov’t interference with personal freedoms, and less socialism have been virtually ignored by both Republican presidents and many in the GOP. I would remind you though that the conservative revolution in 1994 that provided a large push to right the ship did do a lot of good and prevented an even worse catastrophe. But overall, yes, the leadership has compromised too much and they will be paying the price come election time.
Chris B writes: “Just this afternoon I thought that maybe I should start working on writing out the basic principles of what I believe to be the cornerstones of a conservative philosophy of life (all life, not just politics).”
That would be very helpful. In a lot of the discussions on conservatism — not just here but everywhere — it seems to me that people often talk past each other because the basic terms are never defined. Conservatism is presented as an ideal, but the actual content of the ideal is rarely described except in terms of opposition to “liberalism” — whatever that is.
Start here: Ten Conservative Principles
The criticisms of Republicans are accurate. If Obama wasn’t Carter-lite (Dukakis-lite?), McCain would be having more trouble.