With the Democratic nominee now decided, the Republican National Committee has completed its own shift to general-election mode. Among other things, the RNC is in the process of actively matching up leading political blogs with leading Republicans who can capably discuss their party’s presumptive nominee.
As a result, with TMV Chief Joe Gandelman occupied on other matters, I had an opportunity yesterday to talk briefly with former Republican Congressman Charlie Bass (NH).
Bass and Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee (RI) were among those carried out of Congress on the 2006 wave of revolt against the GOP — a wave in which voter disgust with the Bush/Cheney brand of Republicanism trumped all other considerations, costing even reasonable Republicans their jobs.
Chafee eventually left the party and (earlier this year) endorsed Obama. Meanwhile, Bass decided to stay in the GOP ranks, returning to the private sector but also making time to helm the Republican Main Street Partnership and, of course, back McCain.
Bass is convinced that, despite the overwhelming evidence of Obama’s cross-aisle appeal, McCain will still be able to attract the support of a significant number of moderate voters in November.
“The Democrats are self-appointed agents of change. They define change as ‘no more Bush,’” Bass said. “Meanwhile, McCain has been pushing a change agenda for years, and he has demonstrated a willingness to push a change agenda with real courage, fighting porkbarrel spending and special interests.”
Bass believes that McCain’s consistent track record as an agent of change (or a “maverick,” the term more commonly associated with the Senator) is what drove his resounding January 8 win in the New Hampshire Republican primary — and what will eventually help him secure the White House.
Bass recalled his own days as a freshman member of Congress in 1994, one of the foot soldiers in the Gingrich Revolution, promising to fight waste, promote fiscal responsibility, etc. While the revolutionaries did just that, for a while, Bass admits Republicans eventually veered away from their promises and let the American public down — but McCain was one of the few who didn’t waver.
“And he continues to advocate less spending and deficit control today,” Bass said. “Yet he doesn’t wear social issues on his sleeve, even though he is pro-life. In short, he’s a force moderate Republicans understand and can feel comfortable with.”
Prompted by Bass’ reference to “social issues,” I noted that many moderate Republicans (including yours truly) had first cut our teeth on social issues, but of late had broadened our perspective, extending our moderate orientation from social issues to foreign policy.
I referenced Andrew Sullivan, who recently outlined our shared conundrum about McCain vs. Obama – voicing concerns that Obama may not be resolute enough while McCain may be too resolute, too stubborn, on foreign policy, unable to practice the level of nuance or deftness that’s surely required in today’s multi-faceted foreign policy arena.
“The word I heard was ‘deftness,’” Bass said. “That suggests an ability to work bi-laterally, with other nations, not unilaterally.”
He went on to explain that he was surprised how much Bush’s administration had acted unilaterally — how much they had discarded Bush the elder’s approach to the first Gulf War; an approach that was grounded in building an international coalition; an approach that took longer but clearly led to a much better outcome. Bass said he believed that, had Bush the younger followed Bush the elder’s example, we would not be in Iraq today.
In contrast, Bass is convinced that McCain is capable of taking, and is inclined to take, Bush the elder’s approach.
“When it comes to foreign policy, McCain has that trait: deftness,” Bass said, adding that he thinks Obama is also capable of practicing deftness, but would be limited by his lack of experience and exposure.
Bass went on to claim that, given McCain’s tenured immersion in the details and nuances of modern foreign policy, he might actually be able to get the U.S. out of Iraq faster than Obama could. Granted, that’s a bold and contestable claim, but Bass isn’t the first I’ve heard suggest it, and I’ll confess asking myself the same question — namely: Is the candidate who resists near-term time-lines actually more likely to implement (and capable of implementing) a faster, more significant draw-down of troops?
Some people — including several contributors to and readers of this site — are absolutely certain the answer to that question is “Hell no.” But I’m not there yet. No, I’m not as committed to McCain as Charlie Bass is — and yes, I’m probably as intrigued as anyone with the possibilities of an Obama presidency — but I’m also (for the reasons Bass cited and more) still open to John McCain, still approaching my November vote undecided about the two presumptive, major-party nominees.