Argh! John McCain is NOT a Centrist on Iraq!
Dear media: Please stop saying he is.
Glenn Greenwald at Salon catches the upcoming glowing McCain profile in Newsweek, which continually refers to both McCain and Lieberman, in relation to foreign policy, as “centrists”.
Greenwald gives that notion the appropriate smackdown (emphasis mine):
At the very core of the media’s reverence for John McCain is the blatant, tired myth that he’s a “centrist.”
Like Lieberman, McCain may deviate from right-wing dogma on discrete issues when it comes to domestic policy questions. But on questions of foreign policy, national security and war, McCain — and Lieberman — are as extremist as it gets in the mainstream political spectrum. On those obviously central issues, there simply is nobody and nothing to the Right of McCain.
McCain marks the absolute outer ideological boundary of American militarism, imperialism and war-making, particularly (though not only) in the Middle East. That’s why he’s long been enthusiastically supported by the country’s most crazed warmongers — such as Bill Kristol, James Woolsey, most of the PNAC crowd, and Lieberman. In no meaningful sense are such individuals “centrists,” and neither is McCain….
Obviously, I second all that.
This quote:
is utter crap, unless he’s carefully tailored his own perception of ‘mainstream political spectrum’ to make McCain and Lieberman ‘as extremist as it gets’. So, Greenwald ingeniously writes a screed against the media’s misrepresentation of political positions that utilises a misrepresentation of political positions. Perhaps he’s going for “delicious irony”. Of course, he may just be a tool.
Furthermore, the nutso use of the political ‘right’ here to mean something like ‘hawkish’ or ‘militiaristic’ is convincingly demented. We don’t have to embrace that political compass stuff pushed by the libertarians so that, hey surprise, you’re a libertarian, in order for us to recognise that this bilge has to damn stop. Both left and right have had warmongers amongst them (I don’t personally think that McCain’s a warmonger, but let us indulge Greenwald’s conceit), using concerns for national security, appeals to patriotism, justifications of economic militiarism, etc.
McCain clearly isn’t a ‘centrist’ on Iraq — I think that he’s relatively centrist in toto, for a Republican, but obviously that doesn’t mean “holding all the centrist positions’ and it doesn’t mean much anyhow — but there are so many better ways of making that case than Greenwald did. In fact, surely he would have struggled to do worse.
Also, in other news, you’re still not a centrist either, Brad. And good job too.
Comment by Adam — 3/31/2008 @ 4:08 pm
If you were to plot the ideological spectrum on a two-dimensional line, on this issue, “Withdraw immediately no matter what!” ala Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich would be on the left. “Stay there forever and expand these principles to the rest of the middle east!” would be the far right. McCain, I think Greenwald is correct to say, is as far to the right on this issue as any mainstream politician. If the right/left paradigm bothers you, say it this way: nobody in mainstream American politics is farther to the pro-war EXTREME as John McCain. The only positions I can think of that would outflank him would be “Bomb all Arabs” ala Mike Savage or “Help bring about the Apocolypse” ala Pat Robertson. McCain shares his point with, approximately, Rudy Giuliani and Dick Cheney, in terms of ideology.
If I had to peg the political center on this issue, it would probably be “I think going into Iraq was a terrible mistake. I think we’re not safer because of it. I don’t think we will succeed there. I think we should begin the process of pulling out our troops in the safest but most expedient way possible, but try our best to do so prudently.” So, somewhere close to, say, Barack Obama.
But the point of Greenwald’s piece is that, on Iraq, McCain does not represent a position that could be construed as moderate or centrist. It is, in fact, by any meaningful definition of the term, extremist.
Comment by Brad — 3/31/2008 @ 4:28 pm
Sure, McCain’s not a centrist on Iraq. Greenwald could possibly have written that without writing that steaming turd that he did write. You also know full well what ‘extremist’ comes to mean and McCain’s position is considered to be extreme because he wants to stay in there whilst respecting the Geneva Conventions and not torturing people? And what the hell is the point of talking about ‘extremists’ in “the mainstream political spectrum” in any case?
I have no idea why you like this nonsense from Greenwald; sure, I agree that there’s a point to be made that McCain’s not a centrist on Iraq (which doesn’t bother me, of course, because I think that the centrist position is just wrong) but Greenwald’s making a crappy, overstated case for it.
And again, you’re not a centrist either. But why is being a centrist any sign of merit in any case?
Comment by Adam — 3/31/2008 @ 8:55 pm
As far as “respecting the Geneva Conventions and not torturing people” bit, I’ll quote Greenwald in the same piece:
I wouldn’t go nearly as far as Glenn does in that opening clause, but I’ve become increasingly disappointed by McCain on torture. Rhetorically, he’s great, and coming from a Republican in today’s GOP, that’s quite an achievement. But can you name me a single substantive policy that McCain has backed on this issue, because I can name a half dozen that he’s knee-capped. McCain’s policy position is “*I* don’t think we should torture people, but I’m not willing to put that to paper anywhere. I just hope Presidents don’t do it.” Which, to me, is not an acceptable hedge on an issue like torture (if there’s one arena where we can STAND theoretically redundant legislation given the way what is on the books has been taffy-ed in the last 8 years, it’s this one). I personally believe Barack Obama would do more on torture than McCain. In fact, I think most mainstream Democrats are better on the issue than he is, at least in terms of putting their money where their mouths is. By McCain’s own admission, he has no intention, even as President, of ever approaching the issue legislatively, or codifying his own personal beliefs on the matter into law. I’ve had an enormous amount of respect for McCain on this issue, as you know, over the years, but the more opportunities he has to truly enact change on the matter, the more he balks. I’m no longer willing to extend him credit on it until I start seeing him putting up, and that’s one of my biggest political disappointments in recent years and one of the ones I feel most cheated on. Though I’ll continue to add the caveat that he sounds great on the matter.
As for the rest of it, it isn’t Greenwald pushing the “extremist vs. centrist” meme; his entire piece is a refutation of it. A lot of the media, and for a lot of different reasons (that I won’t go into), push the line that the center, moderate position on Iraq—the one that most Joe Americans agree with—is, broadly speaking, inline with Joe Lieberman and John McCain. That’s what defining him as “centrist”, essentially, is shorthand for. And it’s wrong. Whether you like the extreme—center—extreme paradigm is irrelevant; it is certainly not Greenwald’s invention. His point, which I think is valid, is that if you’re going to use that framework, and then push that McCain’s stance is “centrist”, you’re being either dishonest or just flat-out wrong. We both agree on that point. Given how much you go in for accuracy in language, I’m not quite sure why that notion annoys you so much.
McCain is far, far away from the center of American opinion on this. He represents, in the mainstream spectrum, about the most extreme side of this issue as one can get (the other side, as I said, being represented by people like Cindy Sheehan and the like, who certainly don’t enjoy the media portraits of them as “moderate centrists”). Whether being centrist is good or not on this issue, to you, is one thing, but if you’re going to represent someone as “centrist” (which, in common parlance, tends to equate to “moderate” or “reasonable middleground”), you should at least do so accurately. I think much of the fire behind Greenwald’s bit is the frustration in the rampant mis-characterizing of both McCain’s position and the American center’s opinion (roughly, the position that the most people agree with). Which is a fair point. The media, in making that characterization (as they seem to do, every time it’s brought up), are implicitly saying that most Americans are inline with McCain (and, further implicitly, that the things that are ACTUALLY the center are, in fact, leftist-extreme), which is both a disservice to McCain’s actual position (and, in some senses, his courage on the matter), as well as a horrible mischaracterization of the public attitudes on Iraq, a mischaracterization that continues to fuel, in a bad way, the public debate. I think it’s a fair thing to get riled up about. If your argument is the use, at all, of the term “centrist” or its paradigm…again, don’t take it up with Greenwald first.
Comment by Brad — 3/31/2008 @ 9:49 pm
I haven’t described McCain as a centrist on Iraq and, sure, the people that do should be brought to task, because they’re saying something that’s untrue. Greenwald’s failure to present a sensible and considered case (and you claim to “second all that”, bizarrely) doesn’t change the fact that McCain’s not a centrist on the issue and that’s not the claim I’m making. My point was that Greenwald’s article (which you endorse and are defending) is a piece of crap. Calling him an ‘extremist’ in order to point out that McCain’s not a centrist is hysterical garbage.
Comment by Adam — 3/31/2008 @ 10:00 pm
I guess then, given:
I’m not entirely sure what your objection is. Greenwald’s entire “piece of crap” article is exactly that point. He’s calling McCain an extremist on Iraq, which you also seem to concede (and again, which is true: if you can name me a segment of mainstream American politicians to McCain’s right on the matter, fair enough), but in the context of pointing out why the media, in fawning over how centrist he is on the issue, are making a flagrantly inaccurate portrayal, one that (as I said) does a disservice.
What’s your substantive beef here? Is it just a negative spin? Because I don’t think there’s anything inaccurate about the basic portrayal Greenwald is making vis-a-vie what is “centrist” and what could reasonably, in that paradigm, be described as “extremist”. Do you NOT think McCain, on Iraq, represents an extreme end of the spectrum? If not, what are you bitching about?
If he is, then there’s hardly reason to take issue with Greenwald, save you like McCain’s extremism, and Greenwald obviously does not (which, point of fact, doesn’t make Greenwald WRONG here).
Comment by Brad — 3/31/2008 @ 10:09 pm
McCain is a centrist on the custody and interrogation of terror suspects.
On the custody and interrogation of terror suspects, Greenwald and Obama are as extremist as it gets in the mainstream political spectrum.
There. We’re even.
Comment by Rojas — 3/31/2008 @ 11:27 pm
I will agree with you there.
Comment by Brad — 3/31/2008 @ 11:41 pm
Brad, you said in an earlier comment in this thread that McCain has no intention of doing something legislatively as President. How do you know this?
If it’s true I find that VERY disturbing. McCain’s rhetoric on torture has been one of his biggest saving graces with me. I’ve expressed disappointment in comments here in the past with McCain’s seeming unwillingness to translate words into action. Adam has argued that I’m just impatient, but if what you say is true…
Comment by tessellated — 4/1/2008 @ 12:56 am
His stated position is that he believes that torture is already illegal under existing law, and thus sees no need to make any further changes/additions to it. Which is either flagrant naivety in the face of the last 8 years and their operating institutional precedents, or the worst kind of chickenshit case of “I’m willing take this courageous stand, just not willing to actually act on it” imaginable. It is worth pointing out that, in terms of actual policy, this stance is not substantially different from any of his other Republican counterparts in this year’s race.
Furthermore, when legislation has been put forward that would do nothing BUT reaffirm America’s commitment to not torturing, he has refused to support it, but has supported Bush vetoing it on grounds so murky I’m not even clear on what they are. If it is even the least bit contentious (i.e. if the CIA whine that it impedes them, or the DoJ asserts that it will harm their ability to prosecute, or the NSA complain that any reaffirmation of the rule of law makes it more difficult for them to spy), he has so far not just balked, but roundly (if mealy-mouthed) supported the Republican position.
On some of the more glaring problems facing civil liberties—habeas corpus in the MCA, say—he has flatly refused to believe that such measures could ever be used to subvert the Geneva Conventions or moral decency, even when all available evidence as to how they are ACTUALLY being used flies in the face of that. When attempts are made to at least clarify, say a bill that would amend only the section of the MCA relating to habeas corpus, he has reacted with decided prickliness, apparently viewing it as an admission of failure in the Act itself, and thus has refused to support it.
McCain’s rhetoric on torture is one of his biggest saving graces for me, also. And, I don’t doubt that, under a McCain administration, the intra-message sent to government branches and agencies will be “don’t torture”. However, at no point has McCain put forward or supported any actual policy changes, and has knee-capped or flat-out ignored most attempts to address it in Congress. His commitment to not torture, which again I don’t doubt, ends the day he leaves office, at which point, presumably (lots can happen in the interim, of course) the same gray area that is allowing it now will still be around then, just waiting for the next Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush to take office. His word on this, which I do trust, nevertheless only lasts as long as he does. Now that he’s faced in Congress with anti-torture legislation, he has made this more and more clear.
Comment by Brad — 4/1/2008 @ 1:41 am
McCain want Russia out of G8. Why does he go looking for these fights? He is an extremist on foreign policy, clearly, no matter how much Adam bangs his fist on the table to the contrary.
Comment by daveg — 4/1/2008 @ 7:07 am
Good grief. You can say something that’s true in a considered manner so as to make the point, or you can wrap it in hysterical hyperbole and misrepresentation. One of those is the right course of action. You decide.
Comment by Adam — 4/1/2008 @ 8:04 am
As for kicking Russia out of G8, it won’t happen and calling it for it was a mistake. Calling for India to join was a good idea but the headlines are about his calls for Russia to be kicked out (justifiably).
He’s been right on Russia and Putin, but you can’t deal with them by trying to get them excluded from all the clubs you’re in.
Comment by Adam — 4/1/2008 @ 8:07 am
Also, on torture, the best solution to whatever remaining loophole the current administration is weaselling through is an Executive Order from the president also excluding torture; you say that McCain won’t issue one of those? As for ‘doing anything legislatively’, what does that mean? Congress generate bills for him to sign; is he saying that he won’t sign another anti-torture bill (which would be his role in the process).
This torture thing seems like campaign politics, which is fair enough (a campaign is ongoing, after all), where hacks take someone’s strengths and make weaselly suggestions trying to undercut it. I’m not sure it’s as much fun as the political discussions that take place outside campaigns (or when campaigns are lower-key, such as earlier on in the process). I didn’t like it in 2004, either.
Comment by Adam — 4/1/2008 @ 8:14 am
He could send legislation to Congress as President if he wanted to. No guarantee it would come out of Congress looking the same as it went in, but the bully pulpit is a powerful thing. Adam, you and I discussed this before and you said patience was a virtue with his record on torture, that progress in the Senate was slow and measured. Now it seems like you are backing off even further and saying as President he would merely sign something or issue an Executive Order rather than using his new power to drive this issue.
Comment by tessellated — 4/1/2008 @ 9:56 am
Yeah, I do think that McCain will put an end to torture (well, it being legal; I expect it will still happen, because it always has). If the loophole resides in executive privelege, then an Executive Order is the way to do it, though (as legislation passed, per my understanding, can’t remove Executive Privilege). It may well be, however, that the loophole doesn’t actually exist at all and that such torture has been illegal and the only reason that it’s not been prosecuted is that the administration have used secrecy/national security arguments to make such a prosecution infeasible. Again, that may not be something amenable to legislation because the issue is not whether the law is being broken but that the administration have used their powers of office to conceal what’s going on and make prosecution impossible; if the power to do that is, in fact, one that the constitution allows the President then preventing it would require a change to the Constitution.
Personally, from what little I know, I think that the torture (including waterboarding) that has taken place has been illegal and that the administration has abused its power to prevent prosecution. If that’s true, the solution to that is some mix of Executive Order, Congress using investigative powers and perhaps compelling a prosecution in concert with the administration and a longer and probably protracted test of where the Executive’s constitutional powers can and cannot be used to prevent secrets leaking out. I don’t see that making it “more illegal” will solve the problem; what is needed is a way to prosecute the illegal activity.
Comment by Adam — 4/1/2008 @ 10:59 am
Also, I wasn’t backpedalling, my point in the earlier comments to was to point out that the Greenwald piece is a steaming turd and question what possessed Brad to ’second all that’ (he is hardly lacking the ability to construct a sober piece himself, after all, without resorting to endorsing a crappy one).
As an aside, given that Brad linked to it, I wanted to make it clear that I still completely disagree with Brad’s characterisation of himself as a centrist. Additionally, I disagree with the implicit idea that centrism has some intrinsic intellectual or moral merit, which is sometimes used to dress up its manifest political merit.
Comment by Adam — 4/1/2008 @ 11:03 am
Adam 16:
Just to be clear: I’m not advocating making it “more illegal” provided that our laws already clearly delineate that torture is indeed illegal. What I have gathered from the debate thus far is that semantics have cleverly and maliciously been abused to give weasel room to the executive so that it could torture. I think part of the solution then is to remove that semantic wiggle room through legislation. The problem with that is more legal text don’t always clarify, they sometimes just further muddy. One loophole is closed and another is opened. Nevertheless, I think something written in to law will be necessary, and I wonder how motivated McCain will be to finally get something passed. He’s had chances and not acted. Your confidence in him is higher than mine.
That’s not diminish your important points about the issue of executive privilege and Congress’s right to oversight. It’s just that I don’t expect anything concrete out of that aspect of the debate to emerge. It’s nearly unimaginable that the Constitution will be changed. I’m not even sure that it should. In any event, the struggle of power between Congress and the President has more to do, in practice, with the political climate and style of the players involved. In that respect, I have a hard time imagining McCain running a similar presidency as Bush. I just can’t see him being incredibly secretive, weaselly, and power hungry.
Comment by tessellated — 4/1/2008 @ 11:59 am
OK, my understanding is that the administration has stood on Executive Privilege and has, in particular, used their powers to conceal what are probably prosecutable acts under existing law. I don’t think that McCain has any motivation to keep loopholes open in case he wants to use them, either.
However, I should add that I’m not a lawyer, much less a government one. I just don’t see that McCain’s reported claim that it’s already illegal is a sign that he actually thinks that the administration have the power to order torture and that he might want to use it (and if they don’t have that power, of course, he’s right) nor that the claim is ridiculous on the face of it. However, much of the argument, when it revolves around seperation of powers, is a big morass of constitutional law, precedent and legal thought in which I confess I lack expertise. I could certainly be wrong (as could McCain) and I don’t feel confident in making definite claims about the current legality of torture (if I had to guess, I’d say that it was illegal; the Bush administration may agree or may not, and they certainly seem to disagree about what actually is torture). If McCain did turn out to be wrong, however, I do think that he’d do whatever was necessary/required/appropriate to achieve the situation, with respect to the legality of torture, that he has been calling for all along.
I repeat that, of course, torture will still happen and, in fact, future administrations may endorse, order or facilitate it. The important thing is that it’s against the law and that there is a mechanism in place to bring the law to bear on perpetrators.
Comment by Adam — 4/1/2008 @ 12:19 pm
So, your problem with the Greenwald piece isn’t that it’s at all wrong, just that it’s too mean?
Comment by Brad — 4/1/2008 @ 9:47 pm
No, clearly that it contains some truth and he’s decorated it with hysterical wussy meandering bollocks. My main mystification relates to your enthusiastic endorsement of the piece itself (not the simple fact of the “McCain isn’t a centrist on Iraq” but all the points, by implication including the nonsense).
Comment by Adam — 4/1/2008 @ 10:52 pm
What’s the nonsense part again?
That he called him bad names?
Comment by Brad — 4/2/2008 @ 12:20 am
I already went through it. And ‘bad names’ is a silly way to describe it, too; you could defend almost any attack that way in an effort to make objections seem unreasonable, which is presumably your intent.
Comment by Adam — 4/2/2008 @ 7:42 am