Balkinization: George Orwell would be proud

George Orwell would be proud

Sandy Levinson

One of the lead stories in today's Washington Post is entitled "McCain Praised as His Own Man." But, of course, with regard to the choice of the egregious Gov. Palin, this is absolutely and utterly false. The McCain who cared about the interests of the country, by all accounts, wanted to pick either Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge. But his politically-oriented advisers, who are interested only in what might win the election, said they were tainted on the abortion issue. He could, of course, have picked someone "right" on abortion with genuine administrative experience, such as Mike Huckabee, but he was, alas, of the wrong sex (and, possibly, too truly "compassionate"--Richard Viguerie, who loves Sarah Palin, had accused Gov. Huckabee of being a "Christian Socialist"--to appeal to the Social Darwinist right). So he decided that Gov. Palin was the one.

John McCain might at one time been "his own man." But that time ended when he pandered to South Carolina confederates on the flag in 2000 (and then regretted doing so afterward, because he recognized that it was the crassest sort of "unmanly" submission to those who still, in the back of their hearts, believe that secession (to preserve slavery) was perfectly reasonable and those who fought for it admirable). But the point is he did it, and might well have prevailed had not the Bushies pulled out every dirty trick in the playbook to defeat the far more qualified and then- admirable John McCain.

Gary Trudeau once memorably referred to George H. W. Bush's placing his convictions in a "blind trust" in order to accept his position as running mate with Ronald Reagan, the partisan of "voodoo economics," among other things. So has John McCain placed any sense of genuine "independence" in his own blind trust, since for him (as for any ordinary non-maverick politican?), winning is the only thing he cares about. The interests of the country (in having a competent VP who might in fact be able to govern the country should a 72-year-old cancer survivor come to an untimely demise) come a distant second.

Alexander Hamilton, who detested Thomas Jefferson, nonetheless threw his support to Jefferson in the aftermath of the Election of 1800 because he believed that Aaron Burr was unfit to be President. That is, Hamilton was imbued with a significant measure of "civil republican virtue" to put the interests of his country against the interests of his party in derailing the leader of the Republican Party. Where are today's Hamiltons who are willing to say that McCain has betrayed any conception of "republican virtue" in order to demonstrate to James Dobson that he has "Republican virtue"?

For all that I politically disagree with Joseph Lieberman, I do believe that the best explanation for his support of John McCain is that he does in fact believe that he is the best person to be president with regard to what Lieberman regards as the central issue of the day. I think he is completely mistaken, but I grant that Lieberman displays "republican virtue" in making his choice and taking the arrows from people like me. Ditto Republicans like Jim Leach or Doug Kmiec, the latter of whom has even been denied communion because of his effrontery in supporting Obama. But John McCain is trading on his "standing up to the Vietnamese" in order to justify capitulating to people one strongly suspects he privately disagrees with, if not despises (or at least did in 2000).

This is, of course, a "political rant," but it is also very much linked to the Constitution, inasmuch as members of the founding generation, with very few exceptions, did believe in the importance of "republican virtue" as necessary to maintain a constitutional republic. Perhaps they were wrong, but let no one say that John McCain has displayed anything close to it this past week.

[Addendum: Indeed, I would concede that George W. Bush displayed "republican virtue" in selecting Dick Cheney in 2000. Though I have grown to despise to Cheney, for what I regard as all sorts of good reasons, there is no doubt that in 2000 Bush could reasonably have believed that Cheney was a man of wide experience who was certainly competent to take over the presidency should anything happen to him. It's hard to figure out any other reason for selecting Cheney. Cheney, of course, exemplifies the importance of attributes other than "experience," but that's the topic for a different conversation.]

Posted 12:20 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]

Comments:

George Orwell is going to rise from his grave, grab a rifle, storm the RNC, and tell everyone:

"It was a cautionary tale! Not an instruction manual!"

Also:

"He's dead, but he won't lie down." - Popular Song

(Introductory quote to Coming Up For Air)

# posted by

S.G.E.W. : 1:03 PM

I think I'll go re-read 'Gerrymandering and the Brooding Omnipresence of Proportional Representation: Why Won’t It Go Away?'.

# posted by

Asher : 4:45 PM

Senator Lieberman accompanied Sarah to her meeting with the AIPAC board of directors yesterday, prior to his speech. Both his speech and Sarah’s this evening, should be evaluated in light of this meeting, and Senator Obama’s fiasco before the membership.

Although I have fundamental disagreements with AIPAC on matters both strategic and tactical, I find it difficult to imagine they would informally endorse McCain/Palin if they thought Sarah less than competent to govern. I would also be greatly surprised if they were mistaken in their evaluation.

Seen in this light, the selection of Sarah appears an instance of "civil republican virtue," and not the reverse.

# posted by

Ron : 6:39 PM

Prof. Levinson:

One correction from your addendum: " Indeed, I would concede that George W. Bush displayed "republican virtue" in selecting Dick Cheney in 2000.

Please recall that Cheney selected Cheney to be VP in 2000, and Bush acceded to that selection. IIRC, he asked Cheney to vet his potential running mates and, about two weeks later, announced that Cheney concluded that he would be the best choice. I wouldn't call that republican virtue, and would appreciate your explanation of how that self-selection fits the definition.

Thank you,

Fraud Guy

# posted by

Fraud Guy : 9:09 PM

Sandy Levinson said,
>>>>>>> But that time ended when he pandered to South Carolina confederates on the flag in 2000 (and then regretted doing so afterward, because he recognized that it was the crassest sort of "unmanly" submission to those who still, in the back of their hearts, believe that secession (to preserve slavery) was perfectly reasonable and those who fought for it admirable). <<<<<<<

I am really tired of this dumping on the Confederate flag. The place to debate the causes of secession and the Civil War are in Civil War Roundtable discussion groups, not in our legislatures.

Dumping on the Confederate flag destroys objectivity in the interpretation of history. It is possible to "prove" almost any interpretation of history, depending on what facts (or fabrications) are selected and how they are interpreted. For example, it is easy to argue that the slavery issue was just a pretext for secession. Secession did nothing for the slaveowners -- secession hurt their interests instead of helping their interests. Some of the biggest supporters of secession were abolitionists because secession drastically reduced the power of the slave states in the federal government. And if you want to see some real racism, consider this excerpt of Stephen Douglas's opening speech in the first Lincoln-Douglas debate:

We are told by Lincoln that he is utterly opposed to the Dred Scott decision, and will not submit to it, for the reason that he says it deprives the negro of the rights and privileges of citizenship. (Laughter and applause.) . . . . .Do you desire to strike out of our State Constitution that clause which keeps slaves and free negroes out of the State, and allow the free negroes to flow in, ("never,") and cover your prairies with black settlements? Do you desire to turn this beautiful State into a free negro colony, ("no, no,") in order that when Missouri abolishes slavery she can send one hundred thousand emancipated slaves into Illinois, to become citizens and voters, on an equality with yourselves? ("Never," "no.") . . . . For one, I am opposed to negro citizenship in any and every form. (Cheers.) I believe this Government was made on the white basis. ("Good.") I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity for ever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians, and other inferior races. ("Good for you." "Douglas forever.")

The compromise on the Confederate flag at the South Carolina statehouse was a fair compromise and most people have accepted it. Three flags were removed from the statehouse (one over the dome and two in the chambers) and one flag was placed over the monument on statehouse grounds.

# posted by

Larry Fafarman : 10:32 PM

Without going into a full-scale debate about the causes of the War of 1861-65, it is beyond argument that John McCain believed that he had pandered in supporting white South Carolinians and wrote that he regretted it. Let Mr. Fafarman take up his dispute with Mr. Straight Talk.

As for AIPAC, they're just another single issue organization that is more than happy to subordinate any sense of "what is best for America" to what is best for its favorite cause, in this case a particular view of Israel. If members of AIPAC ended up supporting McCain-Palin, that has nothingn to do with a disinterested view about "capacity to govern" and everything to do with the belief that they will be a more dependable supporter of right-wing Israeli politicians and, of course, a potential supporter of an Israeli attack on Iran. (To forestall inevitable misunderstandings, I do not believe that AIPAC is any different from any other single-issue organization; it is the nature of single-issue organizations not to care about other issues. That's what allows us to identify them as "single-issue" organizations. One hopes that political leaders will rise above "single-issuedom.")

Finally, as to Cheney's being on th 2000 ticket: Yes, he ultimately recommended himself, but it was Bush who made the decision, and it is implausible to view it as having been based on crass political considerations. One might even say that W. knew he needed the wise counsel of an elder statesman. He simply was catastrophically mistaken in believing that Cheney would provide it. What needs greater explanation is why Bush kept him on the ticket in 2004, given that, among other things, it guaranteed a wide-open Republican field. (Or perhaps they figured that the field would be left wide open for Jeb, who could scarcely have been selected as VP in 2004.)

# posted by

Sandy Levinson : 11:45 PM

I wouldn't say letting Cheney choose himself was crass political consideration. At the time, I would have sworn it was a campaign killer, and viewed it two ways.

First, the cartoon character led by the nose by a conman, while repeating his precious refrain "well, that sounds logical."

Second, a colossal lack of self-confidence.

We have since found out that GWB does not lack in self confidence (self-awareness is another story...).

# posted by

Fraud Guy : 12:56 AM

Sandy:

Given that McCain thinks of himself as a maverick outsider and occasionally is one, who among the GOP political elite do you think would have fit that role as VP better than Palin?

Folks are royally tired of Washington. Thus, what the GOP needed was a candidate who can run against D.C ala Reagan. Sadly, Reagan revolutionaries are far and few between in the comfortable incumbent GOP salons of Washington. While McCain likes to think he is one, he has also strayed seriously. In Palin, he found a Reagan revolutionary outsider in spades...or should I say in heels. The addition of Plain to the ticket reinforces McCain's maverick brand where the addition of Biden to the ticket only reinforced the perception that Obama lacks gravitas and substance and requires tutors.

You are badly misunderestimating this "pitbull with lipstick." After finally seeing her in person last night, the more serious pundits on the left now recognize what I have been telling you since her pick was announced and I actually listened to her previous interviews - that the Dems have a serious problem with this woman.

I am sure that this will be ridiculed, but I will offer the anecdote anyway. My wife is a no nonsense woman who does not put up with foolishness from anyone. I have seen her reduce store managers defending bad service into quaking blobs. My lady also does not think much of the political class and had to be convinced to watch the Palin speech by her political junkie husband. However, my tough wife was in tears about half way through the Palin speech and she was hardly alone in that RNC crowd.

Take Palin lightly at your own risk. She knows how to speak to the folks.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:51 AM

Sadly, Reagan revolutionaries are far and few between....

Some would say "mythical". That is to say, "imaginary".

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 9:07 AM

If this was the '60s:

"Palin, Palin, Hey!, Hey!,
How many books did you burn today?"

;-)

Perfect candidate for the RW foamer battalions to put up there .... and perfect candidate for the rest of the nation to lampoon, and rightly so). We need a CRW eedjit anti-science, anti-Eyvull-lu-shun foamer just to show what the Rethuglicans have reduced themselves to. Maybe that will bring real tears to Mrs. "No Nonsense" "Bart"'s eyes....

Yes, McSame is showing the same "maverick" tendency that Dubya did: "I'm always right, and to hell with anyone else." But at the same time, McSame is destroying the very "maverickness" that kept him from being nominated by the eedjit Rethuglcan party previously. A man of "principle": Principle #1: You need to kiss RW a$$ to get nominated. And nce you've taken that step, they (or the Devil) own[s] you....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 9:17 AM

Bart's wife's tears were for the tragic decline in political discourse apparent in Palin's substance-deprived, teleprompter-driven, yet ecstatically received diatribe.

I wanted to weep too, when I saw the way they made that old lady stand up during one of the inane "standing ovations" -- she was clearly thinking "oh, my poor back!"

She couldn't tell that to Bart, of course.

# posted by

C2H50H : 10:04 AM

I have little doubt that Bart speaks accurately for many disguntled Reagan conservatives, and, as Jack indicated, one should not underestimate Palin's abilities as a potential pit bull with lipstick. That being said, John McCain simply isn't running an "insurgency" candidacy. How could he, given his career over the past 50 years, when he has never been off the government payroll and, for most of those years, serving in the Congress. And Republcans are going to have to explain why Palin was so clearly his third choice, behind Lieberman and Ridge, scarcely models of Bart's kind of conservatism. It is true that McCain-who's-not-really-his-own-man ultmately capitulated to his Rovean advisers and through Bart a big, big bone.

I remain curious if Bart would wish Palin to become the presidential candidate if the 72-year-old McCain keels over prior to the November election.

# posted by

Sandy Levinson : 10:08 AM

Sandy said...

I remain curious if Bart would wish Palin to become the presidential candidate if the 72-year-old McCain keels over prior to the November election.

The more I learn about Governor Palin, the more I wish she was heading the ticket heading into the fall rather than McCain, who I view as the best of two poor to middling options.

I would suggest that there are two ways of looking at experience. The first, which has dominated the conversation to date, is the resume approach of totaling up the years spent in various jobs. The other is taking a look at how the candidate performed the job he or she held. I think we should be looking harder at the latter.

Palin reminds me of a cross between a Maggie Thatcher who is easier on the eyes and Teddy Roosevelt.

Like Thatcher, she governs by the same conservative principles on which she campaigns. One cannot say this of John McCain with a straight face.

Like Roosevelt, Palin is willing to take on her own comfortable and corrupt party establishment to govern the way she was elected to. When she took office as governor, she discovered that the corrupt GOP establishment was in bed with the oil industry and was allowing that industry to under pay their state taxes. Palin stopped that arrangement and renegotiated the state relationship with the oil companies, resulting in higher revenues which she used to lower the taxes of her constituents rather than wasting it in attempting to buy votes with additional government spending.

That is the kind of governance that causes a tingly sensation to run up the leg of this Reagan conservative and appears to do likewise for the 80% of her constituents whose give her a thumbs up in the polls.

What really ought to horrify you Dems on the left is not that Palin is an inexperienced naif who would be rolled by a Dem Congress and the liberal State Department if McCain were to keel over in office, but rather that she could be the next Iron Lady returning the GOP to first principles and rolling the divided Dem Congress with a very Reagan-like coalition of Blue Dog Dems and the GOP.

The office of VP is actually a waste of this woman's demonstrated talents, but perhaps a good way to gain national experience and exposure if she decides to go after the top job in the future. However, I am not at all sure that she and her family will want to remain in the DC snake pit away from their beloved Alaska.

Time will tell if she can maintain her current electoral success in this cycle and whether she wishes to do so in the future. However, so far, so good.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:39 PM

I don't share your opinion about Lieberman's noble motives. Lieberman is and always has been for Lieberman first. The little prick recognizes that the Democrats will come out of November with a comfortable majority in the Senate, which means he can safely be ignored. His only chance to be a player is a cabinet position in a McCain administration.
Unlike Bart's wife, my wife is not only tough, but smart. She recognizes political speechmaking for the cynical and manipulative skill that it is, and therefore was able to sit through both conventions without once reaching for a tissue.

# posted by

Mr.Poindexter : 12:52 PM

The more I learn about Governor Palin, the more I wish she was heading the ticket heading into the fall rather than McCain, who I view as the best of two poor to middling options.....

... because "Bart" luvs him some creationism-espousing, book-banning, frothing RW extremists, who have at best a very dim understanding of U.S. history, much less [and that's the proper usage, not the stoopid "nevertheless" you keep using inappropriately] an understanding of basic Constitutional law and gummint.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 2:07 PM

Like Roosevelt, Palin is willing to take on her own comfortable and corrupt party establishment to govern the way she was elected to....

... and what better way to do this than head up Ted "Earmark" Stevens's 527 PAC. Eyes on the inside, you know, to make sure she can dig deep into the corruption before rooting it out.... Oh... Waidaminnit She still supports Stevens.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 2:11 PM