TheAgitator.com
Political Piety
Tuesday, January 28th, 2003Michael Kinsley at his finest, disecting the McCain/Liberman mystery. Excerpt:
Both men are hooked on cheap iconoclasm. How many times can a politician be the rare member of his party who takes the position of the other party on some issue or other before this stops being such a wonderful surprise? McCain and Lieberman have stumbled (perhaps) on a brilliant formula. By being dissidents toward the center, rather than toward the extreme, they get to luxuriate in two of the press’s most popular (and, you would have thought, mutually exclusive) categories simultaneously: courageous outsider and moderate voice of reason.But moderation, far from courageous, can be too easy. Lieberman opposes President Bush’s tax plan but “said he was intrigued” (the Washington Post) by the idea of tax-free dividends, which is the plan’s centerpiece, even though it “doesn’t do anything” to help get the economy “out of the rut.” Under the nutty conventions of the media, this kind of talk gets you points for statesmanship and sophistication, rather than a penalty for having it every way and a general lack of any meaning whatsoever. McCain, during the Clinton years, used similar techniques to develop a reputation for statesmanship and foreign-policy expertise. His views on the use of American power are easier to admire than to parse.
Yes. A refreshingly honest and provocative piece of writing.
I think Kinsley makes a couple of mistakes, though. First, there’s a big difference between Lieberman and McCain. Lieberman throws out rhetoric about school choice, ending affirmative action and tax cuts. But come voting time, he’s a reliable Daschle “aye.” Yes, he excoriated Clinton on the floor of the U.S. Senate. But when it came time to vote for removal, where was Lieberman? Reliably defending the left flank. And how ’bout the 2000 election? I’ve never seen a politician weasel out of so many prior positions. Lieberman was hailed as a “brave” choice by Gore, as most thought his positions on the issues above would moderate the ticket. But Lieberman didn’t moderate Gore, he carried water for him. Lieberman may talk a maverick’s talk, but he’s not about to sacrifice his current position or the chance at a power grab to show a little principle.
McCain on the other hand actually casts the votes to back up his mouth. Unfortunately, he almost always strays from the party on the wrong issues. I’d even argue that McCain’s contrarian votes really aren’t even all that politically risky, because while they may earn him scorn within the party, they earn him platitudes in the media. And when the New York Times showers you with kisses, it’s hard to feel all that bad when Mitch McConnell won’t show any love.
Kinsley’s second mistake of course comes at the end of the column, when he says that either man would make a good president.
Okay Radley, I’ll bite - in your opinion what are the right issues to stray from the Republican party on? The only thing I have heard some McCain bashing on is emmission standards and finance reform. Neither of these issues seem to me to be ones where reasonable conservative (and esspecially, reasonable libertarians)can’t differ. So which votes are the “wrong” ones?
Bryan -
So, in other words, limiting people’s ability to speak their minds in the context of a political campaign (of all times) is a libertarian gray area, like abortion or foreign policy? I would not consider it as such, seeing as how political speech is absolutely foundational to a free society.
And then there’s McCain’s backing of so-called “national service.” While this wouldn’t be the biggest violation of freedom our state engages in (that is reserved for our gun/drug wars), it is arguably the sickest since the _whole entire point_ of it seems to be the symbolic negation of libertarian/individualistic ideals as well as the glorification of state-collectivism.
Shit! - this seems like such a cop out but I honestly can’t talk about the whole campaign finance reform thing while the case is going on. I am very distantly involved in the litigation, and to be honest, I don’t want to say something that would go against our position (which I inevitably would no matter what I said simply because I am not completely familiar with the exact arguments our side is making). Once the case is over, I would love a rejoinder to the issue (which I am sure we will get) but until then, I will have to hope that someone else steps up for the other side in that discussion.
As for mandatory nation service - I agree with you that its not desirable. I am not as up on McCain’s policy positions as I once was but last I had heard he was simply encouraging national service. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. If I’m incorrect and he is in favor of mandatory national service, you are right, he is wrong, but its also hardly a major break from the Republican party.
Bryan - Well, as for mccain and national service, I’m sure that he like all politicians isn’t yet to the point of endorsing universality just yet. However, given the fluidity of our political culture where “X is good” quickly becomes “X must be universal,” the fact that a pol. is constantly talking something up means one should assume that that transition is not too far from being made.
But if McCain comes out against mandatory service, I apologise in advance. I’ve just gotten jumpy over the years.
You’re jumpiness is understandable, but let’s not convict the man of a crime he has not yet committed.
This is not Minority Report or a bar in Fairfax, VA.
As someone who often agrees with both Lieberman and McCain when they break ranks, I’d prefer either of them to any of the alternatives I have seen. After all, the real question isn’t whether they’d be “good” Presidents compared to some idealized standards, it’s whether they’d be better Presidents for the average guy than the alternatives.
I lean libertarian but am not a doctrinaire libertarian. I am distressed by the extent to which speech may be limited by campaign finance regulation BUT I don’t think money = speech, and I DO think that the extent to which campaigned are financed by moneyed-special interests is deeply troubling, and has led to many cases where it sure looks like policy is being bought. For this reason, I’m looking for people who criticize the current law to come up with other alternatives to address the problem. This as opposed to panglossian rationalizations about why it isn’t a problem.
I lean libertarian on a number of issues, but I can’t for the life of me find even a vague reason to buy the money=speech argument.
It strikes me as belonging to the class of ultra goofy positions that includes disbelieving evolution, supporting the war on drugs, thinking the Afghan war was about oil, and being against contraception.
If I’m just missing something, I’d be glad to be told what. But I’ve yet to hear a persuasive argument in its favor.
rufus:
Okay, lets look at money=speech for a sec here. For example, in Egypt and our “good ally” Turkey Christians cannot repair or build new churchs. While there are few limits _per se_ on freedom of faith, and both nations justify their positions on “land use” grounds, it is obvious what the real intent is here.
Same with money=speech. If I can spend 100 dollars in the NYT to say “buy the ‘Monthly Review’” but I can’t use that same 100 dollars to say “Vote for Gus Hall” then clearly the limit is not on expenditure on ads as such but on the political speech content itself. Thus the restriction isn’t anywhere near “content neutral,” which is the relevant criterion the Supremes have established for determining whether or not a restriction on speech is valid.
Addenda and corrigenda:
“Churches.” I should have really learned to spell as an undergrad.
Rufus - many of your “goofy” positions are really just value disputes, such as contraception or the drug war. You merely have a different set of first principles; that does not neccessarily make you smarter than them, although you almost certainly are.
Brian - If you are concerned that ads unduly influence campaigns by pushing the dumb voters into one candidate’s camp or the other, then is that not really a critique of democratic elections as a whole? After all, if the only votes that are “pure” are the ones that are cast on intelligent analysis of issues rather than ones based on superficial attack ads, then what could be said about the fact that many votes are cast for reasons of personal appearance or blind loyalty to a faction? Or those perhaps that are cast for reasons of ethnic solidarity? The whole premise of CFR is that only votes that are cast with a pure heart and a clear mind are really worthy, other votes are somehow less worthy, which to me is a dangerous precendent towards a vague mangerial elitism.
But the fact remains that every year 100+ billion USD in contracts is up for grabs at the federal level alone for creative rent seekers, and until this is addressed all of the paper walls Congress passes (the same group that’s “corrupt”, mind you) are meaningless, since the cost of advertising is relaively small and the rewards of pork relatively great. One could even make a Drug War analogy here.
Yeah, my argument could be to extended to be described as a criticism of Democratic elections as a whole, Only a dope would say they are perfect. but it’s not ONLY a criticism of elections as a whole. Call me a vague elitist if you want, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a problem. You seem pretty concerned about protecting free speech rights, yet you are apparently untroubled that the speech likely to have the greatest influence (speech that is heard by the greatest audience, advertising) isn’t free at all, it costs money. Perhaps I don’t rely so heavily on the infinite wisdom of the Supremes as you do. If you can’t get out your message without a big wad of cash, then you are left with a different type of dangerous vague elitism., free spech only if you can afford it.