The Republican Party’s identity struggle was only partially
resolved with the choice of Sen. John McCain as its nominee for
2008. Just six months before he prevailed in the chase for the
nomination, McCain had been given up for dead as a candidate.
Respected as a war hero, understood as an independent man given
to straight talk but sometimes unorthodox policy positions,
McCain was nonetheless the first choice of few in his party.
Today, in order for his candidacy to succeed, few issues matter
more than McCain’s own first choice: who should be his running
mate?
The short answer is that Senator McCain should pick someone who
reflects and reinforces his strengths but who also accomplishes
something the GOP primary proved incapable of achieving: uniting
the party’s economic, social and foreign policy wings. Right now,
a few scars are still visible from the difficult primary and
caucus battle waged within the GOP. That battle was difficult but
it wasn’t trivial. The Republican rivals disagreed about major
issues like immigration, global warming, the right to life, the
need for a federal marriage amendment, and tax policy. The points
in dispute had a pedigree, with a history of party leaders and
candidates trying to downplay one or more of the issues,
typically the social conservative topics that actually fuel a
majority of the GOP base.
Couple that with the disappointing performance of Congressional
Republicans over the past several years, and disillusionment and
demoralization have proved irresistible for many at the
grassroots. Quick; name any major piece of social conservative
legislation the Congress passed after 2002. It’s tough to do, and
even tougher in that dark period between 2004 and 2006 when the
reputation of Congress became more associated with out-of-control
earmarks and sexual abuse of pages than with significant pieces
of legislation. Despite its sway over Congress, the GOP majority
was unable to pass a ban on human cloning, the Child Interstate
Abortion Notification Act (to keep minors from being shipped
across state lines to have clandestine abortions), a permanent
child tax credit, or social security reform.
Instead of a post-election-loss course correction the newly
minted GOP minority in 2007 continued down the same path. Earmark
reform faltered, Congress continued to spend beyond the nation’s
means, good judges were stymied, and the Democratic majority
dallied with such salient needs as protecting transgenders in the
workplace and nationalizing U.S. oil companies, all with tepid
GOP response.
In fact, John McCain’s reputation rests, in large part, on his
ability to distinguish himself from the morass of profligacy and
ethical lapses in Congress and Washington generally. He has
resolutely opposed earmarks and the narrow scavenging for votes
and personal advantage they represent. He led the fight to bring
Jack Abramoff to earth and to end the sullying of Congress’s
reputation as a place where influence peddling had become so
brazen it was no longer even an art form. He helped devise the
surge that has carried the United States close to victory in
Iraq. While his policy solutions, like McCain-Feingold, sometimes
only compounded the problems, his revulsion at the buying and
selling of Congressional votes like a day at the bazaar was
commendable.
These issues, partly because of McCain’s own mixed success as a
legislator, are not enough, however, to carry him beyond the role
of an image-changer. There is a deeper policy vision that has
carried conservatives to success in the past, and this vision too
was offended by the practices represented by people like Don
Young and Ted Stevens. McCain’s choice of a running mate must tap
that deeper vision. The conservative vision not only believes in
an economically free, militarily secure, and values-strong
America, it believes that each of these “legs of the stool”
requires the others in order to endure.
WHO, THEN, EMBODIES this vision and completes Senator McCain’s
distinguished service career, ethical integrity, and
understanding of our dangerous world? The good news is that he
has a deep bench of options, men and women who embody both his
reformist streak and a deep commitment to smaller government,
national defense, the sanctity of human life, and marriage and
family. It may say something that if I were to name names that
fit this profile, I might not be helping their chances. That
would be the case if the McCain campaign comes to believe,
falsely, that capturing “moderate” voters means abandoning
conservatives and their ideals. On the contrary, many voters
today call themselves independent because they no longer believe
the GOP has the will to contest the historical inevitability
arguments made by liberals.
I can, however, suggest the character of the person McCain should
be seeking. He could pick a member of Congress, of either House,
but not one who is associated with the do-nothing era just past
or the dismissal of scandals that rankled voters but barely
ruffled many House leaders. He has a number of GOP governors to
choose from, who are diverse in age, ethnic background, sex, and
region (including outside the lower 48), but united in a deep
commitment to defend the homeland, protect the family, and clean
house. He has several rivals who ran well in the party primaries
who could bring fresh support to his ticket.
In short, John McCain won the GOP nomination not just as the last
man standing, but as a man standing on his own two feet.
Conservatives are looking for that type of leadership, but it
must be unified leadership, one that embraces and demonstrates a
conservative vision that can hold the conservative movement and
the nation together not just at a time of war but a time of
renewed opportunity and freedom. In its own way, in today’s
superficial media environment, taking a bold step and picking a
thoroughgoing conservative is just what a maverick would do.
