On “The Real McCain”

I need to start this post off by saying that it will not even appear to be biased. I favor John McCain and will probably vote for him come fall.

I say this, because I want to respond to Jill Miller Zimon’s post where she interviews Cliff Schecter on his book on John McCain. There has been a familiar theme about how McCain has become a tool of the far right and is not the same man that he was in 2000. While I do agree he has made some changes that I have not liked, I think that some of this stems from seeing something in McCain that was never there in the first place, something that I think is happening with Independents and Obama now.

Here is the first question and answer:

JMZ: You argue on behalf of former McCain supporters who should be able to realize that McCain isn’t what he once was. Who, then, is the alternative and why?

CS: Well. There’s always, “What we have versus what we’d like to have.” I’m an Obama supporter and he has a lot of appeal to Independents. But he hasn’t done it the way McCain did it – by attacking his own party in big speeches. Obama has done it by standing up, not by splitting. Obama talks about rising above partisanship and reaching out to all people on all sides and getting past the muck where politics has gotten so nasty. Obama says, I’m going to talk to you like an adult. And that’s what McCain had called “straight talk” – but he hasn’t given us much of that [this election cycle.]

One example is with the gas tax . It doesn’t do any good – and Obama is telling us that. But McCain and Clinton go along with the idea [of a moratorium over the summer] – they pander. [Obama’s telling us like it is] is why he has appeal beyond the Democratic party.

Michael Bloomberg could have an interesting run. He maybe could have changed the outcomes. Chuck Hagel could have been a compelling candidate on being honest – though on Iraq more so than in the social issues.

So, McCain gets demoted for speaking out against his party. I thought that might be considered a good thing, a claim of independence. As to Obama, yes, he has talked about coming together, which sounds nice, but he hasn’t really shown much independence from the Democrats in the way that McCain has. I do agree with Schecter that McCain’s support of the gas tax holiday was pure pandering and he should be ashamed of himself for considering it.

Next question:

JMZ: Is it McCain’s fault that he has changed, or ours? That is, if he still possesses an acceptable political skill set and his changes reflect what he believes voters want, how much flak does he deserve, and why? Because isn’t it, after all, our system too?

CS: The Republican Party might take some blame for this. It’s a very inhospitable place for anyone to the left of them. There’s been a rash of retirements and [others] leaving the party. There’s been an increasing influence from the far right on all these issues – economics, the war…

But if you are courageous, you stand up and fight. McCain has modeled himself after Barry Goldwater but Goldwater got so sick of the Christian right to the point where he said, “I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.”

McCain had options in 2000. From 2000-2004, he was getting himself ready for an Independent run. He approached [Democrat John] Kerry to be on the ticket. These seem like things he could have done to keep his principles. The Democratic party in 2000 would have been perfect place for McCain.

It’s not our fault. We’re the voters. If his arguments are so out of whack with the GOP, he should be telling them something. Maybe he should have changed parties.We look at people who make these kinds of choices as heroes, but at some point you decide: no free pass, because he sold out to the worst in his party. He made his bed.

Where can I start? First, there is a dream of many centrists of some great person that could run an Independent campaign and win the Presidency. The thing is, it hasn’t happened in our history and probably won’t ever happen. Yes, many people loved McCain in 2000, but then Theodore Roosevelt also was well-loved, and didn’t win in 1912. The problem with Independents is that they have little or no organization behind them and the two major parties are able to crush them. Ross Perot won nearly 20 percent of the vote in 1992, which was impressive, but he didn’t win even with all his money. As for McCain as a Democrat, I also think this was a dream with no basis in reality. McCain has never been anything else but a conservative, his history has shown this. Would they really tolerate a pro-life, budget hawk? I kind of doubt it.

Another thought: when Jesse Ventura was elected Governor of Minnesota in 1998, it was very hard for him to get things done. Since he was a member of a political party that had little to no seats in the Legislature, he was overrun by both parties, that might not have had the governor’s office, but did have power in the House and Senate. He lacked an infrastructure to get things done.

Schecter also seems to blame McCain and the GOP for who McCain is today, leaving the voters innocent. McCain in his view should have switched parties to send the GOP a message. However, in a democracy, the voters and wider public do have the power and responsibility to deal with their leaders. We are far from helpless sheep. Lots of former Republicans have either switched parties or become Independents because of the party’s rightward tilt and it has done…nothing. There would be a lot of Republicans who would be happy if McCain left, they would not be wondering how they could steer towards the center.

But this also brings up a point about the role of voters in our nation. Schecter places the onus of change on the politicians. It is up to McCain to be the brave and courageous one, not us. The problem with many Independents is that they don’t hold themselves accountable or as agents of change- that’s the politician’s job.

But the thing is, it’s our job too. What if some of those former McCainiacs had organized in the way that the Religious Right did, acting as a pressure group and demanding change from McCain and the wider GOP? That is something that I have done over the years with groups like Log Cabin Republicans and Republicans for Environmental Protection. But most people don’t want to get their hands dirty in politics. They want a candidate they can fall in love with. In 2000, many fell for McCain. Many of these people projected their loves and hates on to him and were surprised when reality set in. They were shocked when they realized he was a Republican and not the raging moderate or liberal they thought he was.

I think the same thing is going on with Obama. Many people are projecting their hopes and fears onto Obama and will be surprised when they find out he was a Democrat after all.

Now, if Romney or someone else had been the presumptive nominee, I would not consider voting for the GOP. I wanted a Republican who would be willing to work with Democrats as McCain has done. I wanted a Republican who cares about global climate change. I wanted a Republican with a more sensible foreign and military policy. McCain fits all of this. I don’t agree with him on all the issues, (such as taxes and abortion) but I am willing to support him. But I know that he is a Republican. A Republican that has worked with Democrats, but a Republican nonetheless.

I’m not interested in falling in love with a candidate. When you do that, you end up setting yourself up for a hard fall. I do want someone who is going to get things done. For me, that’s McCain. For others, it might be Obama. Even if Obama wins (and that is very, very likely), he will not be the savior some Independents make him out to be. He will fall short for some people, for not being as “apolitical” as they had hoped. He will be a liberal Democratic President trying to do the best he can to lead a country of 300 million people. But I think there will be a lot of Independents that will be disappointed and heartbroken again.