McCain Buries His Progressive Past

The New Republic: Front-Runner's Inconsistency Has Voters Wondering How He'd Act As President

(The New Republic)  After the Kerry flirtation ended, McCain obviously decided that his only plausible path to the presidency lay with the Republican Party in 2008. So he set about re-ingratiating himself with the GOP establishment while maintaining his reputation as an unwavering man of principle.

McCain's overriding priority was to make himself acceptable to the right on taxes. Republican voters may not always care very much about taxes (in 2000, polls showed that a majority of Republicans agreed with McCain that paying down the national debt ranked as a higher priority than tax cuts), but Republican elites care about taxes more than anything else. McCain would never be able to make himself the chosen candidate of the economic right - no amount of penance could wipe away his prior heresies - yet he could at least blunt the opposition of the GOP's money wing.

McCain's first step toward redemption came in 2005, when he stopped blocking repeal of the estate tax. For years, conservatives had been seeking to secure a permanent repeal of the tax but fell just shy of securing the 60 votes needed to overcome a Democratic-led filibuster. In September of that year, McCain told columnist (and fervent supply-sider) Robert Novak that he would oppose future filibusters. McCain insisted he would still vote against repeal if the filibuster was defeated. ("I follow the course of a great Republican, Teddy Roosevelt," he declared, "who talked about the malefactors of great wealth and gave us the estate tax.") Of course, since Republicans already had well more than the 50 votes needed for straightforward passage, this rendered McCain's support for the estate tax utterly inconsequential.

Then, McCain assured conservatives that he would support making permanent the Bush tax cuts, which would otherwise expire during the next president's first term. This was a tricky dance for a straight-talker, given that he had voted against those very tax cuts. McCain explained that his position was perfectly consistent because, while he may have opposed the tax cuts in the first place, letting them expire would amount to a tax hike; and, he said, "I've never voted for a tax increase in twenty-four years . . . and I will never vote for a tax increase, nor support a tax increase." In fact, McCain had proposed a tobacco tax increase in 1998. Nor would his position have made sense anyway. (Some economists favor higher tax rates and others prefer lower tax rates, but none would oppose a tax cut and then oppose its repeal simply because it had already been enacted.)

More recently, McCain has begun to insist that he only opposed Bush's tax cuts because they were not accompanied by spending cuts. Unfortunately, this explanation makes even less sense than the others. Bush enacted his first tax cut during a time of surplus - nobody was contemplating a spending cut. And, if the absence of corresponding spending cuts was McCain's reason to oppose the tax cuts, why would he later support those tax cuts given that the spending cuts never happened?

Anyway, at the time he opposed Bush's tax cut, McCain did not say anything about wanting spending cuts to go with it. What he said was, as he put it in one typical comment, "I won't take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy." Well, the surplus is long gone, and income inequality has continued to skyrocket (helped along by Bush's tax policies), but McCain says he wants to keep those tax cuts while insisting he hasn't changed his mind.

McCain's most successful gambit has been to tell conservatives that he is submitting himself to the tutelage of Jack Kemp and Phil Gramm. The odd thing is that Kemp and Gramm, while both fervent and longstanding economic conservatives, inhabit opposite poles of right-wing fiscal thought. Kemp is a utopian supply-sider, so utterly convinced that tax cuts cause revenues to rise that he ceaselessly evangelizes to liberals, blacks, and the poor, whom he sees as the GOP's natural constituency. Gramm, on the other hand, is a pitiless spending hawk whose animus toward social programs is so strident that it often bleeds over onto the recipients themselves. (He once suggested that poor people are all fat, and another time advised an elderly widow concerned about Medicare cuts to find a new husband to support her.)

The purpose of bringing in Kemp and Gramm together was no doubt to reassure conservatives that McCain is reliable on, respectively, taxes and spending.

But the incongruent combination - at times, McCain declares that tax cuts always cause revenues to rise; at others, he insists spending cuts are needed to reinvigorate the economy - has given McCain's new economic worldview an ungainly, stitched-together feel.

McCain also availed himself of more subtle techniques. The easiest trick was simply to change his emphasis. For years, McCain had kept his distance from the president; but, starting in the summer of 2004, he began to praise Bush effusively. McCain stopped teaming up with Democrats to sponsor legislation detested by Republicans and K Street. And he began to emphasize his support for the Iraq war, one of his few points of unblemished agreement with the Republican right.

The fact that the war was increasingly unpopular with the public at large, paradoxically, made it all the more effective for McCain. His hawkish stance signaled to conservatives his willingness to buck public opinion. And reporters, bizarrely, interpreted his position as more evidence of McCain's probity - here was a man, gushed a string of campaign reports, willing to lose the presidency for the sake of his beliefs. In fact, the war was an issue where McCain's beliefs aligned perfectly with his self-interest, since the constituency he needed to woo, conservative stalwarts, supported Bush.

McCain's emphasis on the war brought another benefit: Since reporters saw his campaign almost entirely through the lens of Iraq, they usually overlooked the fact that he was flip-flopping on other topics quite a bit. For instance, McCain had for years supported the Law of the Sea Treaty, an object of right-wing, anti-internationalist ire. But, on a conference call with conservative bloggers last fall, he assured his audience, "I would probably vote against it in its present form."

In 2005, McCain co-sponsored Bush's immigration bill. At the time, few voters were paying much attention to the bill, and McCain's support seemed like a cost-free way to win favor with the administration and pro-immigration business lobbyists. As conservative grassroots opposition exploded, McCain was forced to announce that he "got the message" and would not press the issue any further. At a recent debate, he said that, if his own immigration bill passed Congress, he would not sign it. This formulation offered the perfect straddle for McCain. He could signal to the press that he favored immigration while still promising conservatives he would side with them.

Determining how McCain would act as president has thus become a highly sophisticated exercise in figuring out whom he's misleading and why. Nearly everyone can find something to like in McCain. Liberals can admire his progressive instincts and hope that he is dishonestly pandering to the right in order to get through the primary. Conservatives can believe he will follow whatever course his conservative advisers set out for him and will feel bound by whatever promises he has made to them. Even the ideological tendency McCain is most strongly identified with - neoconservative foreign policy - is, as John B. Judis explained in The New Republic, a relatively recent development: McCain originally opposed intervention in Bosnia and worried about a bloody ground campaign before the first Gulf war. McCain's advisers include not only neoconservatives but also the likes of Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft. It would hardly be unimaginable for McCain to revert to his old realism, especially if Iraq continues to fail at political reconciliation. He could easily be the president who ends the war.

The amazing thing about McCain is that his reputation for principled consistency has remained completely intact. It is his strongest cudgel against opponents. Wall Street Journal editorial page columnist Kimberley Strassel recently gushed that McCain is "no flip-flopper." "Like or dislike Mr. McCain's views," she added, "Americans know what they are." Then, in the very next paragraph, she wrote that McCain will now be "as pure as the New Hampshire snow on the two core issues of taxes and judges" and that "[t]he key difference between Mr. McCain in 2000 and 2008 is that he...appears intent on making amends" to conservatives.

It is a truly impressive skill McCain has - the ability to adopt new beliefs and convince his new allies that his conversion is genuine (or, at least, irreversible) while simultaneously strengthening their belief in the immutability of his principles. I suspect that, in the end, it will come to tears for McCain's new allies - just as it has for most of those, including me, who thought they had a bead on him in the past. But, really, who knows?

[tibu987]

"NOTICE TO THE DEMOCRATIC SUPER DELEGATES".
My concern now is the course for the Super Delegates to take. They had best honor our votes and give their "Super Electoral Votes" to the popular vote of the people. Our voices, our votes, had better be taken seriously or I see a rise in revolt against the electoral system, the Democratic Party, and the politicians that used their votes against our choice.
Should Obama NOT receive the Super Delegates vote if he wins by plurality, I will vote for the Green Party candidate and protest loudly against that obvious lack of honesty with the electorate.

[rushlimpdrug]

" . . he has also reinvented himself . . . "

You mean flip-flop?

[tucano2]

"Mr. AMNESTY" has zero credibility. He is a phoney.

[taddles-2009]

"Really? Funny, after everything (the cast votes) was counted up, President Bush STILL one, and Gore lost. Even after several recounts done by independent auditors.
Get over it, time to move on with your so-called life.
Posted by TheGateway1 at 12:29 AM : Feb 12, 2008"

Um, no he didn''t, that''s simply not true. Gore won the popular vote by 543,816 votes but lost the electoral college vote 266-271. Florida''s contested electoral college votes gave Bush the win and those were decided by the Supreme Court who stepped in and declared that Florida''s recount method was unconstitutional. In the end 5 out of 9 different recounts gave the Florida votes to gore.

Your information is simply false.

[jerkeedoodle]

Don''t worry Johnny.I''m sure your old bud Rash Limburger will find it and dig it up for you.

[terrapin78]

Really? Funny, after everything (the cast votes) was counted up, President Bush STILL one, and Gore lost. Even after several recounts done by independent auditors.

Get over it, time to move on with your so-called life.
Posted by TheGateway1 at 12:29 AM : Feb 12, 2008

Also wrong! Illegal "caging lists" that the Repugs used to challenge voters eligibility to vote is how the election was stolen.

[afmca]

Oh you think it''''s new? You should spend a little time in the south! They have been doing this in the south since the civil war. They find a fear, create a "Sin" to attach to it and poof, no one listens. You can''''t talk to them, you can''''t reason with them and you can''''t change anything. That''''s the way the Religious Reich likes it and thats why they are so upset about being kicked out of schools.

Posted by skyk at 06:12 AM : Feb 12, 2008

I have never seen the Southern societal morality defines so well. I would add several additional things though concerning Southeners 1. The fear is never enlighted but is always based on bigotry and intolerance - religion is used to control not to free 2. They almost never actually practice what they preach - they just don''t recognize the hypocrisy 3. self-righteousness is rampant - they still believe the Civil war was a noble endeavor; enslavement of a race based on biblical interpretation 4. ignorance is bliss - creationism, pseudo-medicine, and disregard for science is embraced as a strength.

To get this country back on track we need a candidate that appeals to the rest of the country so we can get rid of the fear, intolerance, and ignorance embraced by Repub politicians such as DeLay, Frist, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush and played out so well to their Southern base.

[terrapin78]

I can''t wait to see the toe-tapping dancing that McCain will be delivering when in the General Election he has to answer to his role in the S&L meltdown and his relationship with Charles Keating.

Do we really want this in the WH?

[grumpas]

The ultra religious conservatives McCain is courting are going to be the death of the Republican Party yet! They are the type of people who are only interested in imposing their religious belief''s upon a country! They could care less about the welfare of this country or the people in it. They aren''t a bit better than those religious nuts in Saudi Arabia who have ban red from Valentine''s Day and deemed it a sinful holiday! So why does the Republican Party bother with this bunch of demagogues? They have been the ruination of their party. I know I won''t vote for them until they lose this bunch!

[ckpooh]

CBS: The word is BURIES, not BURYS

Even our "journalists" can''t spell or use grammar correctly.

[ckpooh]

CBS: The word is BURIES, not BURYS

Even our "journalists" can''t spell or use grammar correctly.

[skyk-2009]

Unless we are going to play the game of my God is better than your God, I do not understand why a Christian conservative-fundamentalist is any better than Moslem conservative-fundamentalist. The destiny of the USA is in freedom not in the conservative cancer. The country has been hijacked by people who benefit by spreading fear.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Puritan9 at 05:55 PM : Feb 11, 2008
+ report abuse

Oh you think it''s new? You should spend a little time in the south! They have been doing this in the south since the civil war. They find a fear, create a "Sin" to attach to it and poof, no one listens. You can''t talk to them, you can''t reason with them and you can''t change anything. That''s the way the Religious Reich likes it and thats why they are so upset about being kicked out of schools.

[skyk-2009]

Really? Funny, after everything (the cast votes) was counted up, President Bush STILL one, and Gore lost. Even after several recounts done by independent auditors.

Get over it, time to move on with your so-called life.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by TheGateway1 at 12:29 AM : Feb 12, 2008

That is just NOT true. Al Gore had and always will have the most votes cast in the election of 2000. I think we must especially after Bush, address the system that allowed him to become president. If we are truly one nation and one people the Electorial College has no place in this nation. It''s time we went to a true election and may the best person win.

[jjp735i]

McCain may lean toward the Democrats ideals, but he is still courting the religious right, which is infected by religious extremism. I don''t want to live under a Taliban like government. So until McCain finds he can win with out the religious right, he does not get my vote.

[joelbuckley2]

"I see 3 worthwhile candidates still standing, and I think that we will be SO much better off after the 8 years are over following the only coup d''''''''etat that I know of in our history - a president appointed by 5 sycophants in black robes.

Posted by bobbyduck1 at 11:48 PM : Feb 11, 2008"

You need a history lesson, bobbyduck1
It all happened before.
wiki the "United States presidential election, 1876"
Democrat Samuel J Tilden won a clear majority of the popular vote and would have brought about the end of 16 years of Republican rule. Disputed counts of Electoral Votes was settled by an Electoral commission composed in part by 3 Republican and 2 Democrat Supreme Court members voting along party lines. I learned that in high school history.

What I didn''t learn about was "The Compromise of 1877". In this deal, Southern Democrrats agreed to let the Republican Hayes be President. In exchange, Republican Hayes ended Reconstruction and removed federal troops from the southern states. This put an end to Federal protection of Civil Rights for freed slaves in the south for the next 80 years.

Southern Democrats sold out their elected president to reestablish white rule in the south, and Republicans agreed to sell out southern blacks so they could maintain their hold on the Presidency.
Both partys disgraced themselves.

[bobbyduck1]

Wouldn''t it be a better world if ideas and policies and the politicians who espouse them (and govern according to them) could somehow be viewed on their own merit? Why is it that we absolutely MUST view virtually everything and everyone and every idea in terms of "liberal/anti-liberal", "neocon/anti-neocon", or some other label?

I see 3 worthwhile candidates still standing, and I think that we will be SO much better off after the 8 years are over following the only coup d''etat that I know of in our history - a president appointed by 5 sycophants in black robes. GWB has had nothing but bad ideas and bad policies that have ruined so very much that was American before. I''ll take Barack, Hillary, or John after this nightmare! Gladly!

[gkc99]

McCain is showing himself to be dangerously unstable, and a hothead to boot.

Want that finger on the nuclear button?

[hagar39]

Lets hope and pray that McCain says a progressive politican. This is the 21st century. We need politicans who can think. It''s important for the future of the USA.

[puritan9]

Unless we are going to play the game of my God is better than your God, I do not understand why a Christian conservative-fundamentalist is any better than Moslem conservative-fundamentalist. The destiny of the USA is in freedom not in the conservative cancer. The country has been hijacked by people who benefit by spreading fear.

[dj_halnon]

If someone is going to whine about how horrifically liberal McCain is, the least s/he can do is use a correct headline ... it should be "buries," not "burys."