John McCain picks a fight
For those who missed it, John McCain tonight became the latest candidate to call out Ron Paul.
For my tastes, this was Paul’s finest moment in any of the debates.
Dr. Paul not only fended off McCain’s ambush, but won the exchange. Decisively. And I say that as a person who tends to agree more with McCain than with Paul on the issue.
But there’s another matter that merits discussion in the wake of this incident, and that’s the use to which John McCain is putting his moral credibility.
Make no mistake: the existence of McCain’s credibility, derived from a lifetime of public service and from having been phsycially tortured for his country, is beyond question. It is a major reason why one of the bloggers at this site supports him as his cheif choice for President, and at least two others–myself included–consider him our second preference.
And when John McCain swings that moral hammer in defense of an honorable cause–as he did again, tonight, annihilating Romney on the torture question–he is an exemplar of all that is right and honorable in politics.
But the nature of McCain’s credibility is such that its employment in petty ways, or for personal political gain, diminishes it. There is nothing petty about arguing in favor of interventionism abroad, or even attacking the opponents of intervention. Again: I am, more or less, on his side in the matter.
What IS petty–very, very petty indeed–is framing that debate in terms that suggest that opponents of intervention are failing to “support the troops.”
That is base. That is vile. That is unworthy of an American hero. And that is what John McCain did tonight.
We all want to believe in John McCain. But moral credibility is a double-edged sword. As valuable a commodity as it is when employed for honorable purposes, it is all the more dangerous when employed in pursuit of ignoble ends.
In other words: when Rudy Giuliani says shallow, puerile, and dishonorable things, it bugs me, but it doesn’t SCARE me, because everybody expects that of Giuliani. We all know–his supporters and opponents alike–that he’s a political animal and a turd of a human being, and his use of a tactic does nothing to burnish its credibility.
When John McCain employs his moral force in an unworthy rhetorical tactic, that’s another matter entirely. The tactic comes to seem less offensive because a person of McCain’s moral stature engages in it.
And that, in turn, leads me to wonder whether we can afford to have a man of McCain’s moral stature engaged in the process of Presidential politics. Because when John McCain debases himself, he debases us all. And it disappoints me far, far more than anything Rudy Giuliani could possibly do.
I was also a little stunned at his answer on Vietnam, that the only reason we lost it was because of public opinion and the American people not having the guts to continue supporting it indefinitely.
That’s not just wrong, but the explicit way he framed it was sort of frighteningly wrong. I’ve discussed more in depth before, but there’s a world of difference between leadership of the “I’ll stick to my morals and not focus group everything I do” and “Fuck the American public opinion”. McCain more or less explicitly went down that road tonight.
Comment by Brad — 11/29/2007 @ 12:49 am
Actually it is totally correct. Wars are lost when people who are not fighting resist them for political gain and idealistic values. Set aside your platitudes for a moment and ask yourself how we would have weathered the storm of WWII had that generation had media and the attitudes some of their children espouse to this very day. I mean really think about it.
McCain has less reason to lie or rely in hyperbole on this subject than most, if any, sitting senator or presidential candidate. He is right, Brad. I think he is right.
Which, of course, means he is.
Comment by James — 11/29/2007 @ 1:21 am
About Vietnam, James? Or about supporting the current Iraq strategy being the only real way of “supporting the troops”?
Comment by Rojas — 11/29/2007 @ 1:27 am
The reason the public turned against Vietnam is because we were losing it, not the other way around. Ron Paul is actually exactly right on this point. Militarily, we were incapable, probably from the start, of achieving our fudgy objectives, but certainly as the war progressed it got more and more clear that it didn’t matter HOW hard we fought, we just weren’t getting it done. Victory was certainly NOT “right around the corner” provided we could squeeze a few more years out of the electorate. I don’t know any serious military historian who believes that. What’s more, we more or less DID achieve our political objectives eventually, the way Ron Paul describes. It was peace and prosperity that achieved the domino effect in Asia against communism. The war there achieved little more than killing a bunch of people and fucking up a generation.
But I dislike the very premise. Domestic populations don’t “lose” wars, nor are they your enemy. If you can’t get Americans behind your war effort, you don’t deserve to be able to continue it. I’m simply unclear of any other way to do it. Domestic public opinion is a limitation on wars in the same way that laws are a limitation on power. To bitch that we lost Vietnam because Americans got tired of sending their sons and daughters into a meat grinder that wasn’t creating any measurable success and was, at best, throwing soldiers at an opaque political philosophy half a world away is just lunacy.
Comment by Brad — 11/29/2007 @ 3:25 am
Truth is, we didn’t win WWII, at least not in Europe. The Russians won it, almost singlehandedly.
Our greatest contribution was preventing the Russians from taking all of Europe, not in defeating the Germans.
And it is not really about winning or losing, but was it in our interests. Japan, Germany and ultimately Russia were real threats to the US. Iraq, Viet Nam and Iran are not.
That is what makes those wars much different that this war. We could “win” this war, but at what cost and for what end (to us and the Iraqi people)?
We are doing more damage than good and the motives for the war were incorrect and are ever changing.
We should just get out.
Comment by daveg — 11/29/2007 @ 3:33 am
I really don’t know why you guys have a soft spot for McCain. I think he is a very scary guy.
I’m probably the only one posting here that got drafted during Vietnam. I have mixed feelings about that war. I was proud to answer the call of my country when so many others were weasling out of their duty. But now, I must admit, that the loss of so many lives was a mistake. Not as big a mistake as the Iraq fiasco that has no logical basis, but a mistake.
As to McCain, there is no war that he would not lead us into. He is always for armed confrontation, everywhere. Take a good look at his face during the “debate” fiasco of last night. He looks like he is getting ready to physically assault those who had different takes on the issues. Sure, he is right about “waterboarding” but Brad is on to something when he senses the man’s maniacal self-righteousness. He is a very scary guy to put in the Whitehouse at this time of congressional cowardice and the shredding of Constitutional restraints on the executive.
Comment by Coogan — 11/29/2007 @ 9:51 am
Come on, Coogan. He so tortured Willard!
Comment by scineram — 11/29/2007 @ 12:00 pm
Rojas, both I think. I am not saying that Viet Nam was a good idea, although I did and do support the Iraq effort despite my disgust with the ineptitude with which it has been prosecuted. I guess what I am saying is that if you go to war, you have to mean it. Wars by their nature are debacles and are always fraught with moderate to disastrous missteps. Had we had CNN, FOX, et al, on the ground on the beaches of Normandy, it would have mighty interesting what would have happened.
Basically I think McCain is correct in his view of this, but articulated it very poorly. However, I think that Paul is even more correct and actually was saying the same thing from a different perspective. Paul correctly contends that we should not go to war with a formal declaration of war, meaning Congress (1.e. the people) agree that war is necessary. McCain is right and Dr. Paul is right.
At the end of the day, if you are going to war to win, you had damn well better mean it.
Comment by James — 11/29/2007 @ 5:58 pm
I liked the RP head shake at McCain. McCain overstepped on that and Ron Paul’s understanded response spoke volumes, at to those of us who recognized McCain’s mistake.
Wars CAN BE lost when the political will to fight is gone, but to say as James did above that “Wars are lost when people who are not fighting resist them for political gain and idealistic values.” I understand that to mean that otherwise winnable wars are lost for that reason alone. Yet if the war is being won, people won’t resist them for political gain and idealistic values.
Guiliani parroted the retarded claim that Vietnam was almost won in his recent Foreign Affairs piece laying out his candidate platform. I’ve heard that a lot recently and it seems to be gaining traction, but its simple wrong wrong wrong. The US didn’t have a snowball’s chance in that war, at least not at the end (of we did at the beginning but we didn’t make the plays needed to win that game).
Somewhat related but slightly off topic yet I don’t know where else to post this comment is that I tire immensely of people who say “Support the troops” but really means “Support the War” or “Support (stop opposing) the politicians responsible for the war”. We need to stop indulging that kind of treachery.
Comment by Nute — 11/29/2007 @ 6:09 pm
Youtube link from OP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0QpCs0XpRY&eurl=http://youtube.com/republicandebate
Comment by Mark — 11/29/2007 @ 6:49 pm
That is just plain untrue, Nute, sorry. There are people that feel war is never justified and there are politicians that either also espouse that ideal (e.g. Kucinich) or that will pander to it for political gain. That is a reality.
Comment by James — 11/29/2007 @ 8:18 pm
Sorry, I meant to refer to opposition large enough to actually impact a war. If a war is being won or the enemy is clearly dangerous enough (WWII, for example), the people will fight and support it. Vietnam and now Iraq are showing the wisdom of crowds: the large sample washes out special interests and reveals the fact that those wars are not winning and more importantly, not winnable (at least as Iraq is being fought right now). Plenty of people recognize that we are doing more harm than good, both to ourselves and nation as well as to the nation we are supposedly defending and helping.
Yeah, you are right that there will always be pacificists and non-interventionists who oppose any and all military action, but they don’t carry the day unless there are more legitimate reasons.
Comment by Jerrod — 11/29/2007 @ 11:51 pm
You are featured on Sullivan.
Comment by scineram — 11/30/2007 @ 6:35 am
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/11/the-mccain-paul.html
You or did someone plag you? Nicely done either way. Of course, a link to you would have been nice.
Comment by Jack — 11/30/2007 @ 10:13 am