Sorry to keep going back to Palin – I’ve been running through missed blog posts, and I keep encountering head-scratchers. This time it’s Ezra Klein again, getting all poetic in the way he sometimes does:
This was, for McCain, a major decision. And we can learn from it. And here’s what even his supporters must admit: Country did not come first. Polls did. The calculations are fully transparent. Understanding that he needed to broaden his electoral coalition, he picked a woman. Understanding he needed youth, he picked a young politician. Understanding he needed to emphasize his reformist credentials, he picked a onetime whistleblower. What he didn’t pick was anyone able to help him govern, or capable of stepping forward in a moment of crisis. Palin is not an experienced foreign policy hand like Lieberman or a successful and experienced governor like Tommy Thompson. Today, McCain chose his campaign over his presidency. Over our presidency. Palin seems like a promising young politician, but McCain increasingly seems like a desperate one.
Okay, work with me here. Suppose you’re John McCain. If what you say is to be believed – and why shouldn’t it? – you got into politics because you care about your country, and you think that Barack Obama is a hapless, inexperienced naif whose elevation to the Presidency would put the United States – nay, the entire civilized world and the cause of freedom in it – in grave danger. You think, in other words, that it is only if you are elected that this danger can be averted, the terrorists destroyed or dispersed, and the cause of democracy preserved.
Got that? You’re John McCain, and that’s what you think. Now why in the world, in an election as close as this one, would you select anyone as your Vice Presidential candidate other than the person who gives you the best chance to win? And so why in the world would the decision to the person who does give you such a chance – or whom you at least take to give you such a chance – show that you had opted to “choose your campaign over your presidency”? You won’t HAVE a Presidency unless you can run a successful campaign, and up against the Obama juggernaut there’s no room to pull punches: if Palin gives you the best chance to win, and the cost of failure is civilizational collapse, then Palin it’s going to be.
I’m not insisting that Palin actually is that person, though I do think that Thoreau makes a pretty strong case. But what I do know is that the idea that McCain should have hitched himself to an electorally weak Vice Presidential candidate just so that he can end up – with the terrorists having prevailed and the world crumbling around him, mind you – telling himself that, HAD he won the thing, he’d have had a worthy successor … well, that’s a pretty silly idea. John McCain can’t put country first unless he starts doing better in the polls.
P.S. Andrew Sullivan, whose anti-Palin hysteria managed somehow shriller by the minute despite always seeming to have reached its apogee, made the same silly argument.
Filed under: foreign affairs, politics
Thank you! This is the exact idea that’s been running through my head all day — the guy wants to WIN, no? And at the end of the day Palin seems to be his best shot. Why can’t everyone wrap their minds around that?
Sullivan has been really off key on this whole Palin thing.
Glad to hear I’m not the only one. It would be nice, of course, if the candidates could win on the merits, but it’s … umm … not so. And if you think that it matters that you win instead of the other guy, then taking reasonable steps – short of doing things that are downright dangerous or immoral, which it seems to me that that Palin selection clearly isn’t – to put yourself in a place to win is a completely unremarkable thing to do.
On this I completely agree with you. If you think you would make the better president then the other guy (or girl I suppose), you need to win. In order to win, you need to pander and the VP pick is nothing but a pander.
So being a liberal with some intellectual consistency (shocking I know!), I find the liberal response of faux outrage to be comical at best. I mean come one she’s too inexperienced to be VP, but your experienced enough to be President? Not so much.
However, that being said, intellectually inconsistency and hypocrisy (siblings of pandering) are just as important to winning the presidency. The inexperience meme could be effective, so that’s what liberals and Obama are running with.
I am not sure why conservatives are surprised by this. They after all are doing the exact same thing. I will hasten to add that this corrupt process of selecting a President is only tenuously connected to the two parties. Most of this lies in a fundamental flaw with mass democracy. People are ignorant, like it that way, do NOT want to be educated, and insist on voting based solely on identity.
If politicians want to get elected, then that’s what they have to deal with. Whenever, someone from the left or the right, complains about the moral and intellectual bankruptness from the other side, I wonder if he or she has forgotten that the campaign for presidency is kabuki.
In other words, I think H.L Mencken accurately summarized the situation:
Very nicely done, Joseph …
If you actually believe that Obama equals the collapse of civilization, and McCain is our only savior, then the “right” thing to do is for Bush to suspend elections and abdicate in favor of McCain.
Your logic only works if indeed Obama equals Armageddon. If McCain truly believes that he has to win in order to save the nation, then he is too narcissistic to be granted the awful powers of the Presidency.
… and if Obama things the same thing of himself, then what?
Re: Mencken – I think we have already attained that condition.
[...] Comments JEM on Once More Into the BreachJohn on Once More Into the BreachAxelDC on Once More Into the BreachJ. Amoros on Default [...]
A nice angle of entry recognizing the likelihood that McCain is planning and hoping for at least four years in office, and not for his near-term in-office demise and succession.
But I think it’s also revealing of a repeating pattern very visibly at work here. Premises of the current instance:
- The common good is served by stable, able leadership, especially in perilous times.
- Sarah Palin, though promising, is unqualified for the job.
- There is a meaningful risk that McCain’s VP may be called upon to serve (and the same is true for Biden, by the way, or any VP)
- McCain picks Palin despite the above
So McCain is willing to trade a legitimate, vital interest of the American people (continuous qualified leadership) for the “greater good” of his necessary presidency. Isn’t this actually the central conflict of the maverick plot structure once again, but with greater stakes: lone wolf, misunderstood but right where others are blind to the truth, risks everything with bold action others cannot fathom to save them from a mortal threat they didn’t know existed.
The question for a rainy lifetime is: was this drama formed in the cradle of civilization, or McCain’s literal cradle, or as a self-protective myth in the Hanoi Hilton?
But no matter. This kind of self-actuating mythos is incompatible with our collective interests and also the American form of government, in fact. Yes, it might help you get the nomination when all around you your Republican colleagues are doomed to go down with Bush’s crippled man-o-war. But I for one think there are better, more rational leadership alternatives for this ship of state.
do you understand logic? you’ve created a beautiful circular argument there. essential this reasoning equates to “the ends justify the means” if john mccains election equals putting country first, anything done to elect john mccain is putting country first. this is how politics works for better or worse, but when a central theme of your candidacy is that you DON’T MAKE POLITICAL DECISIONS TO GET ELECTED it either takes a person to turn a cynical blind eye to the hypocrisy or some poorly executed logical gymnastics to make this seem reasonable.
But Palin is not about winning, and I see no evidence that she provides him with any particular help in the “actually winning over voters” department.
The pick was about winning yesterday’s news cycle, not winning the election. And, on that front, mission accomplished, I guess. I can’t imagine there’s very much, if any, net gain for McCain-Palin over McCain-Pawlenty or McCain-Romney.
There’s a really dang good chance McCain won’t serve out his term, and in that case the argument above turns against itself–if it’s a matter of civilizational collapse who the President is, then it’s a matter of civilizational collapse who is ready to take over for JM should the worst happen.
Since you aren’t even sure that Palin is the best pick to win the election, it seems absurd to say that the the expected electoral gains between Palin and the second-best pick are so vast (assuming VP pick matters at all) that they out weigh the the very real chance that we could be left with someone who has no record of *interest* (forget experience!) in foreign policy at all leading our foreign policy in a time of crisis like the death of the president.
So even if you accept the premises you started with, you can’t reach the conclusion McCain has gotten to.
I suppose you’re larger point is correct–I’m sure that John McCain has convinced himself that Palin is the best pick for our country by some rationalization or another. John McCain believes things that John McCain wants to believe. I don’t think such transparent rationalizations should count as honorable, though. Ezra and Andrew are spot on here.
I have been supporting McCain since there were 8 guys on the podium. If he had picked Robert Gates he would have shown his seriousness about governing. Gates has the respect of all of Texas. They still miss him at A&M. If he had picked Christie Whitman he would have put New Jersey in play and probably carried the Philly suburbs as well. I grew up in the red part of PA so I know. This is only a sop to the evangelical ministers to get out the vote. He loses every voter who knows we cannot continue to lead without science and technology. AND the take of Catholic women is that she is a bad mother. I raised two and work full time and my response is ’she’s clueless.’ If she had any idea how the world works she’d know she’s not qualified. This makes us a joke in London. The FT today said ‘bold, exciting but also STUPID.’
John, your argument collapses in on itself. If I can paraphrase, it goes like this:
1. McCain believes himself eminently more qualified to be president than Obama.
2. Hence the best thing for the country is for him to win the election.
3. Even though naming Palin as VP looks like mere political expediency, it is more than that. Because it helps McCain win, and because McCain winning is the best thing for the country, he is therefore putting country first with this so-called politically expedient pick.
Now look at those points again. That’s exactly — EXACTLY — what McCain is accusing Obama of doing. Each of those points applies to the charge against Obama:
1. Obama thinks he’s most qualified to be president.
2. Hence the best thing for the country is for him to win the election.
3. Even though waffling about the surge seems like mere political expediency, it is more than that. Because it helps Obama win, and because Obama winning is the best thing for the country, he thinks he is putting country first with this politically expedient position on Iraq.
Therefore one of two things is true:
EITHER McCain and Obama are both putting country first (and McCain’s criticisms of Obama are wrong).
OR neither McCain nor Obama is putting his country first (and McCain’s selection of his VP is wrong).
Either way — and this is according to your own logic, John — McCain is still wrong about a very central issue in this campaign.
Accepting the hypothetical premise that John McCain felt that Sen. Obama, being a hapless inexperienced naif, was a threat to the civilized world, there is one clear and obvious answer to the question you pose. He is 72 years old with a history of cancer, there is a chance (a higher than average chance) that his VP could be the one driving the ship of state at a moments notice. Any competent candidate would be expected to consider such a contingency plan, in fact Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain both said it would be the first priority in choosing a VP, it seems only Sen. Obama was serious in that claim. Certainly Gov. Palin does not come remotely close to meeting that standard.
If the idea of an inexperienced person leading this country concerned Sen. McCain to the degree you seem to be suggesting he certainly has gotten over it fairly quickly. But you do have me wondering which of the two candidate truly has the messiah complex now…
However, if something is to happen to a 72-year old man with cancer, then he will leave the country with an untested, unknown entity to the White House. This is reckless and egotistical, and McCain hasn’t been elected President!
Obama is no Palin. He was not selected by one person. He got the support of million of voters, and his multi-million campaign destroyed the power Clinton machine. We know Obama since 2004, and he and Biden have endured several debates, have given several speeches, and we know them.
McCain only met Palin ONCE, we have 60 days and ONE debate to get to know Palin. And you want to make a case for McCain? What a joke.
It isn’t just the great unwashed that disagree with the notion that only John McCain is capable of the challenge. So H.L Mencken is not relevant here.
If your hypothesis is to be believed, it takes us out of the realm of rationalization to McCain being delusional. Cynical I ‘ll buy, crazy… not so much
Okay, work with me here. How, according to the author, is it possible for Mcain NOT to have put his country first? If Mcain makes a dangerous VP pick so he can win, it’s putting country first, b/c he needs to win. If he picks, on the other hand, a true equal as colleague who will help him govern well, then of course the author would argue that Mcain was putting country first by choosing the best candidate and not betraying his principles amd commitment to the US. Mcain himself has said he would “rather lose an election than lose a war”, suggesting he stands by principles, but the author’s argument makes me wonder if Mcain would be putting his country first by “losing a war so that he can win an election”!
Yikes – I’m getting slaughtered here. Well I’ve been out all day and how have some errands to run; anybody who wants to see me respond will have to wait a bit longer.
Of course John’s argument generalizes. It’s an interesting question whether that makes it a bad one. At most one of McCain\Obama is right that things will be much worse if they’re not elected. There is some intuitive case to be made that the person who is right has a good argument while the person who isn’t does not.
In any case, it is more or less always a disaster if the president dies on the job. I’m willing to admit that I may be a naive idealist, but I would prefer Palin for president than Biden if it came down to that. (Not by much, and I would think it was a disaster in any case, but I would still prefer her.) Except for this worry, which everyone should admit is not one that is very likely to ever be relevant, she seems like a great pick for McCain.
Okay – so obviously I can’t handle all of these, but I’ll try to deal with some (I’ll try to put the relevant commenters’ names in brackets):
- [Patrick] Does picking Palin undercut McCain’s credibility when he accuses others of play mere politics? Sure, but that’s not what was at stake in my post. And the idea that McCain – or anyone else – is not supposed to “make political decisions to get elected” is so stupid that it’s laughable; if you can actually find McCain saying such a thing, then I’ll laugh. But given that we all agree that it IS a stupid standard to set, it can’t be used to object to the Palin selection.
- [Consumatopia, and also ajm and CiscoKid] The claim that there is “a really dang good chance McCain won’t serve out his term” strikes me as morbidly weird, and also false. Moreover, as I’ve said elsewhere, unless McCain dies REALLY SOON Sarah Palin’s experience as a VP candidate and then a Veep will probably exceed the experience that Obama’s had up to now.
- [Brian and salamander] In the first place, the present discussion isn’t about whether McCain is consistent, but about whether he’s putting himself ahead of his country – so as “The other John” points out, it’s not a big deal if the argument generalizes. But secondly, I don’t think it DOES generalize: being willing to lose a war to get elected, if that were in fact what Obama was doing (on which hold on a moment), strikes me as a lot worse than selecting an insufficiently experienced running mate to get elected. Thirdly, and finally, when McCain said that about Obama it was OUTRAGEOUS, and deserved all the condemnation it got. So I don’t see why MY argument is impugned by these observations.
Again, look: I think there’s a good case to be made against Palin on the merits, and I also think it’s open to question whether she really is the electoral plus that many think she is. But the idea that McCain should have chosen a running mate who wasn’t going to give him the best chance of getting elected, and indeed that refusing such a route amounts to “putting country last”, strikes me as pretty wacky.
P.S. Don’t forget, as this blogger notes, that much of what I said in the original post was written WITH TONGUE IN CHEEK.
I would certainly agree that its laughable to try and remove politics from any election decision, in fact, I’d make the counter argument that part of being effective as an elected official REQUIRES political acumen and the political decisions you make in a campaign reinforce your argument for election. The question is not whether John McCain used the VP politically, its whether he put politics over country in his selection.
The selection of Joe Biden for Obama absolutely had political consequence to it and was completely calculated by the Obama campaign; but I don’t think anybody can realistically say that Joe Biden could not be president (you may disagree with his politics, but not his credentials). The politics of Obama’s selection came after the threshold question of country. 1) Who could realistically be president 2) who makes the most political sense. I think people expect, and require these type of decisions, it makes sense, it shows intelligence. The McCain selection seems to remove the first question from the equation, Sarah Palin does not, to any normal voter, or educated voter, appear to be a credible president. Neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin have made an effective case for her credentials. This is not ambassador to Malta, this is the second highest constitutional office in the land, and the single most important decision for a candidate. There is no other conclusions than that she was a political pick (which I think you agree). To show no regard for the seriousness of the decision is a textbook case of putting politics over country.
John McCain has criticized Obama’s Iraq policy for his willingness to “lose a war to win an election”. The “lose a war” is a generalizable attempt point out Obama so-called willingness to set aside principle for politics. My initial post may have been phrased a little to broadly but I believe the intent was clear, John McCain has essentially said that he would not put politics over principle. Your post was a circular argument designed to remove the idea that the choice of running-mate has an inherent component of higher principle to it. Its a logical end around, I think you understand that.
Much to do about nothing.
Palin is solid. She has more experience than a Hillary who only pretends and lies of experience, and at least as much as Obama.
Above all, she has actual American values, as opposed to the space cadet fringe, which is down right refreshing.
Palin adds youth, vigor, and appeals to women.
Oddly, presidential elections are only partly the electorate now, with Diebold deciding.
Perhaps the leap of Obama from nowhere, with zero following, to become the candidate of the Democrats is just another selected president and will receive the Diebold “lift” in the election. Perhaps not. People are repulsed at what has been done under Bush.
But Palin is a good candidate, and if elected will do a good job any whatever capacity called upon.
I’m an independent. That is the way I see it at the moment.
Patrick:
Okay – you make the point more clearly here. But I think this line of argument only really sticks if (1) there was another alternative available to John McCain who could have given him a similar chance of winning, and (2) it really is the case that Team McCain didn’t look at Palin’s acumen and credentials, grill her, and decide that she’s a quick study who after all the time she’ll spend campaigning and then working in Washington as John McCain’s #2 will be sufficiently prepared to assume the Presidency should something go horribly wrong (which, again, it very likely won’t). Could you argue that these things aren’t the case? I guess you could, though with (2) in particular it’s important not to put too much weight on our initial (and very uninformed) impressions of her – she could surprise on the campaign trail and in interviews and debates, though she could also fall flat. Again, though McCain’s criticisms of Obama over the surge (which I’ve said were despicable) and his more general promise not to put politics over principle are not the issue here – it’s not his consistency we’re discussing, but whether (given a certain understanding of the importance of John McCain’s victory) selecting a less-than-prepared running mate to give him an electoral boost somehow counts as putting himself ahead of his country.
[...] moves in favor of peering into the depths of their souls. I mean, come on. This post is dedicated to John Schwenkler — more on that momentarily, [...]
[...] was conduct sufficient to disqualify McCain from the presidency. (And since I have a feeling John may want to point out that by McCain’s lights, the consequences of an Obama presidency, or perhaps merely a McCain [...]