January 27, 2010

I was wrr.. wrro.. wrooon..

Last week I cast our friend McCain as a RINO. That was not quite precise. A better description would be Progressive.

McCain was best described as a progressive - like Teddy Roosevelt, whom he cited constantly. McCain tended to see politics as a contest between the national interest and the selfishness of private agendas, and he favored a role for government in counterbalancing the excesses of organized wealth.

But that's not all. He's also a flip-flip-flopper.

This is the consensus: McCain's basically a right-winger, but at least you know where he stands.

Actually, this assessment gets McCain almost totally backward. He has diverged wildly and repeatedly from conservative orthodoxy, but he has also reinvented himself so completely that it has become nearly impossible to figure out what he really believes.

Political conversions are hardly new or scandalous. McCain's ideological transformation is unusual for two reasons: First, he has moved across the political spectrum not once - like Al Smith or Mitt Romney - but twice. And, second, he refuses to acknowledge his change.

I wasn't wrr..ong only about RINO vs. Progressive, but also when I parenthetically noted, "I'm even OK with it" [McCain winning re-election on Tea Party coattails.] While consciously aware of the fact that personality often distracts voters from a politician's policies, I was subconsciously taken in. Just as our government needs massive structural reform to rescue the nation economically, the GOP can no longer include Progressives in its Big Tent. They don't help us, you see, they neuter us. There's a place for those people and it's called the DNC, as lap dogs to The One.

And it's not just McCain, to whom I had ascribed Chait's "unwavering authenticity" whose personality clouded my judgement, but Palin as well. These people are right - "Time to pick a side, Sarah - Are you with the people, or against them?" I'll reiterate my willingness to kick her to the curb if she ever strays from the small-government playbook, and if she follows through on plans to campaign for McCain that's either a massive miscalculation or an admission of guilt. Either way, it'll be tough to recover.

2010 Posted by JohnGalt at January 27, 2010 3:33 PM

I suspect you're rrrr....right. He does aspire to TRism.

Question is: does a big tent GOP have room for progressives? This pragmatist has to say yes.

Posted by: jk at January 27, 2010 5:07 PM

Progressive in TR's day didn't mean the same as it does today - or for that matter, what it did in Lincoln's day. Ask today's self-styled "progressives," and you're talking about central-planning, tax-raising former listeners of Air America.

Perhaps the problem is that, in both parties, people run for office and seek to get into government because they believe government can fix the problems. Not much future for, or much appeal to, someone hopinge to dismantle large parts of government. Among the Dems, that attracts lefty statists to swell the nannystate; among the Reps, it still attracts people who want to fiddle with the levers of government.

We'd vote for someone who wanted to assume office because he promised to dismantle the EPA, the Dept. of Education, the Dept. af Agriculture, and dozens of others - but why would that guy ever want to run?

Posted by: Keith at January 27, 2010 7:07 PM

Surprise! We disagree:

"Just as our government needs massive structural reform to rescue the nation economically, the GOP can no longer include Progressives in its Big Tent."

Posted by: johngalt at January 28, 2010 1:55 AM | What do you think? [3]