McCain Appeal - A far superior choice to the Democratic alternatives.

National Review Online ^ | February 04, 2008 | Mackubin Thomas Owens

[neverdem]

February 04, 2008, 5:00 a.m.

McCain Appeal
A far superior choice to the Democratic alternatives.

By Mackubin Thomas Owens

Eight years ago, I was writing a regular monthly column for the Providence Journal. On the eve of the 2000 New Hampshire primary, I wrote a column entitled “John McCain, the Anti-Clinton.” Although I supported George Bush during the primaries, I thought it was important to lay out the reasons for McCain’s appeal. I concluded that the main thing McCain had going for him was character, and after eight years of Clinton, this was not unimportant.

Here’s how I concluded the column:

But in today's political environment, the real reason Americans stress his military service seems to be that it serves as a surrogate for character, a virtue notably absent during the Clinton years, and one for which Americans seem to long. That goes a long way toward explaining Sen. McCain’s appeal: more than any other candidate, he is the anti-Clinton.

The Clintons purport to represent the best of the Baby-Boomer generation. According to the dominant mythology of the 60s, the Baby-Boomers that mattered were the “best and the brightest,” those destined to make the world new by ending poverty, racism, and war. For the most part, the touchstone of Baby-Boomer existence itself was opposition to the Vietnam War.

But while such people endlessly employed the rhetoric of sacrifice, they actually sacrificed little or nothing. This has led skeptics to conclude that much of the "idealistic" opposition to the Vietnam War was a cynical ploy to cloak concern for their personal safety.

John McCain is the representative of the forgotten Baby-Boomers, who, unlike the Clintons, didn’t just talk about sacrifice, but actually placed themselves willingly on the altar of their country. While the Clintons were preparing the groundwork for their careers in the law and politics, John McCain was a naval aviator flying combat missions over North Vietnam. At a minimum, this meant that at least once a day, he sat in the cockpit of an airplane that was hurled violently from the flight deck of a pitching and rolling aircraft carrier. That was the easy part. Next, he had to dodge Soviet-made surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) as he carried out his mission. If he accomplished his mission, he then had to land on the same pitching and rolling carrier from which he had hurtled earlier. Again, if successful, his plane would be stopped violently when its “tailhook” engaged an arresting cable on the flight deck.

That was John McCain’s day-to-day existence. But he was also in his aircraft on the flight deck of the USS Forrestal when a freak accident triggered a catastrophic conflagration that cost the lives of hundreds of sailors and almost led to the loss of the ship. And of course, he was shot down on a mission over North Vietnam and spent five and a half years as a prisoner of war, during which time he was subjected to treatment that civilized people cannot even imagine.

Americans admire Sen. McCain because of the character he demonstrated in the crucible of war. They also admire him for a related quality, his sense of honor. Honor is an old-fashion virtue that is often the object of ridicule in a liberal society. But without honorable men, liberal society cannot survive. The American Founders understood this. The signers of the Declaration of Independence mutually pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their "sacred Honor."

The progression in this passage is important. Life is basic but needs other qualities to make it worth living. Fortune, an indication that Providence has smiled on one's endeavors, is one such quality. But for the Founders, Honor was the virtue that represented the pinnacle of human life. A dishonorable life was worse than poverty or death.

The quintessential nineteenth century liberal, John Stuart Mill, expressed this view well."War is an ugly thing," he wrote, "but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." Perhaps this passage explains why John McCain's military service looms so large in the diminished age of Clinton.

I believe that what I wrote then is still relevant today. Many conservatives — Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and the editorial board of National Review to name a few — have made clear their principled opposition to McCain. I am not enamored of his policies either. I would prefer Ronald Reagan, but last I heard, he isn’t running.

By all means, do your best to get Romney — with all his shortcomings — the nomination. But if McCain is the nominee, he will still be a better president than the Democratic hopefuls. If he were the Republican nominee, I would support him on the basis of his likely policy prescriptions alone; as problematic as they may be, they can’t be any worse than that which will be pushed by Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

But McCain is far superior to the Democratic contenders on the basis of character and virtue. For instance, once the North Vietnamese found out that McCain was the son of the U.S. military commander in the Pacific theater, which included Vietnam, they offered him the chance to go home before his POW comrades. Had he accepted, it would have been a great propaganda coup for the Vietnamese communists. But he refused. That’s character and it ought to mean something even to those who are not convinced of his conservative bona fides.

— Mackubin Thomas Owens is an associate dean of academics and a professor of national-security affairs at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. He is writing a history of U.S. civil-military relations.

[Toaster tank]

With McCain as pres., the Republican party will shift leftward to accommodate his leftist views. This will happen as he will be the de facto leader of the party. (Nixon even got support for his radical left wage & price controls from congressional Republicans).

This will move the entire nation even further to the left and marginalize conservatism to the kook fringe, a position from which it will take generations (if ever) to recover as it will have no legitimate political home.

A Hillary election creates a rallying point for conservatism (in and out of congress). This sets up a congressional force against her agenda as well as a breeding ground for new conservative thought and leadership.

The judiciary argument is a red herring. McCain has Warren Rudman (David Souter’s chief advocate) as his judiciary adviser.

None of this really worries me however as McCain, if he is the party nominee, will not win the general election.

When Democrats & all liberals are faced with the choice between a hard left, Marxist liberal & a soft core liberal, they will vote for the hard core liberal. Conservatives will stay away in droves & there simply are not enough moderates to carry the day for McCain.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree.

John McCain: Conservatism's Version of Toxic Shock Syndrome

[Pining_4_TX]

Too bad he isn’t as concerned with our borders.

[americanophile]

hahahaha!

[DoughtyOne]

;-)

[longtermmemmory]

don’t think so.

Knife in the back from McCain or knife in the front from the clinton twins.

either way it is unacceptable and an irrelevant choice.

[CASchack]

McCain was able to parlay his POW background into 22 years in the Senate. He’s done well.

I have a relative who survived the Bataan death march. He didn’t get elected to anything, which was no different than most former POWs.

[levotb]

Typical drivel from an ex-military guy. the kind of idiot we cannot afford to put in The White House or have as an advisor (this Owens fellow). There is contrary to what he writes plenty of evidence from surviving soldiers and airmen also held captive that McCain was a traitor. How can the media and even Romney put him up as a hero? Absolutely insane...

[Moral Hazard]

My big worry about McCain relative to the Democratic candidates is that the Republicans in congress may find it much harder to oppose McCain’s liberal policies than a Democrat’s.

For instance I think McCain-Lieberman (the Greenhouse Gas bill) has no chance passing the Senate if Clinton or Obama were president, but might pass if McCain were president.

[MNJohnnie]

How much did the Democrats accomplish between 1992 and 1994 when the controlled the WH-the Senate and the House?

If the Democrats win, the Congressional GOP has no reason to play nice with them any more. IF McCain were to win, the GOP would fracture along “moderate” get along at any cost Congresscritters and the true Conservative GOPers. It would be the worse of both worlds.

Go read McCain-Leiberman. A Republican President purposing a $.50 a gallon Fed Gas tax hike? McCain is virtually a Democrat in his domestic policy.

[Quix]

I don’t buy it that McChurian has many redeeming social values for a minute.

An angry globalist old grump part of the ruling elite is not a true friend of our Republic.

[rhombus]

I’ve only known one POW. He was held by the Japanese. He was a much nicer guy than McNasty.

[SUSSA]

You are right! Republicans in Congress will fight a Democrat president. They will not fight a liberal Republican.

[rbmillerjr]

The first in a flurry of - “where you gonna go?” commentaries lol.

Under no circumstances will I vote for John McCain.
If the inept GOP establishment after attempting to run Giulianni down my throat and now “settling” for McCain wants to blame me - by all means I will take the blame.
Romney is my last line in the sand.

[Minnesoootan]

10-4

[COBOL2Java]

Another article from a lapdog of Nasty Mcapain.

They're in maximum overdrive these days, aren't they? The McCaniacs must be in panic mode right now. And all this time, Captain Queeq believed he could just snap his fingers, and the conservatives would lay down and let him scratch their bellies.

[Buckeye Battle Cry]

Ah yes. Another talking head telling me to toss aside my principles for what is foisted upon me by the establishment.

No thanks. If this country is going to go down the left fork of the road, I’d much rather a dem be at the wheel. Compromising on a RINO (again) only makes it tougher to stand up to the next one the GOP establishment pushes down our throats.

It’s time to make a principled stand for the long term good of our Country and the conservative cause (I was going to say for our party, but I realize that I am a conservative without a party. It drifted away from me).

[EGPWS]

Knife in the back from McCain or knife in the front from the clinton twins.

either way it is unacceptable and an irrelevant choice.

It's a searing pain felt by the blade.

What difference does it make what direction, in reference to the inflicted body, the blade is coming from?

It's still a deadly blade.

[Partisan Gunslinger]

As a Republican in Illinois, I know first-hand it’s better for a Dem to win rather than an unconservative Republican. I voted for the Reform Party candidate when George Ryan ran and won the governership knowing about the problems of Ryan’s conservative credentials, the only time I’ve ever not voted for the Republican candidate for any office in any election. Illinois used to have Republican governers and used to go for the Republicans some in national elections (Bush41 and Reagan) but since Ryan it hasn’t even been close here. We’ve been “California by the Lake” since Ryan. I’m hoping for Romney and will vote for him tomorrow, but if it’s McCain in November I’m going with the least kooky candidate of the third parties (or a write-in if all the third parties are too kooky...Jeb maybe).

[engrpat]

Bush has brought the republican party to its knees with McCain ready to plunge the knife bringing a swift end. McCain will not only lose the general he will kill any chance the republicans can have any say in congress.