-
I Try to Explain Debt on CBN News
May 23, 2012 | 13 comments
-
More on Wright
May 21, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Missing the Point on Rev. Wright
May 21, 2012 | 10 comments
-
Exorcise DeGioia and Company From Georgetown
May 19, 2012 | 23 comments
-
McMorris Rodgers Gains Attention
May 19, 2012 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Last week's column expressing my "non-endorsement" of McCain, which laid out the best intellectual case I could make for him while first acknowledging that there are at least a few countervailing arguments, evoked quite a response from readers. Shorn of all the lengthy introductory paragraphs, here is that case again:
Here is why John McCain should be the next president of the United States:
There is something special about this country. The United States is exceptional. We are blessed by the good Lord, and in turn we have done more, far more, than any other people to spread freedom across the globe, and prosperity across the globe, and human rights across this great good Earth. We are a particularly good people -- and John McCain understands all this and believes it with every fiber of his being, down to his very marrow, in a way that is deeply spiritual in nature. There is nothing fake about McCain's belief in American Exceptionalism. His belief in this is as genuine, and as deeply felt, as is a son's love for his father. He will defend this country, fight for this country, with every last breath in his body.
And McCain has a record of making the right calls, again and again, when it comes to securing the American national interest around the world. He was right to back Ronald Reagan to the hilt in the greatest foreign challenge of the past 60 years, namely the victorious effort to win the Cold War despite the strenuous and at times vicious opposition of the American Left. But he was right to oppose Reagan when Reagan, with all good intentions, decided to station Marines in Lebanon. McCain broke with his entire party, and warned that the Marines would be sitting ducks, and voted against the deployment. Tragically, McCain was right: More than 200 Americans died in Lebanon in a suicide truck bombing about a month after McCain's warning.
McCain was right to support -- and Joe Biden was wrong to oppose -- the first Gulf War against Saddam Hussein in 1991. McCain was right to support intervention in Kosovo later that decade: It worked. He was right to support a stronger military and greater numbers of personnel when Bill Clinton was cutting it. He was right to fight against wasteful weapons systems, and against corruption in military contracting. He was right to fight a specific boondoggle involving an Air Force tanker; he brought corruption to light (the perpetrators both in the Air Force and at the contractor went to jail) and saved the public $6 billion.
McCain was right to say that Saddam Hussein could be overthrown fairly quickly, with little loss of American life. He was right to say that Hussein was a terrible threat. But he was right, very early on, well before anybody else in the Senate, to say that it would take more troops and a different strategy to secure the peace after we had won the war. He broke with President Bush to say so, way back in 2003, and he was right.
John McCain has suffered for his country in a way only a tiny slice of the population ever has. The story is well known -- not just that he suffered in Vietcong captivity, but that he turned down early release in a profound expression of solidarity with his fellow prisoners. Yet McCain had the grace, when the time was right, to hold out an olive branch to the Vietnamese a couple of decades later when they showed a movement toward greater economic freedom.
John McCain is committed to reaching beyond party labels. Whether always right or wrong to do so, he really cares about doing what he thinks is right no matter whose political ox is gored. Barack Obama may talk a bipartisan game, but he never has actually played on that field. The reality, meanwhile, is that sometimes it helps conservative ends to work with people from the other party. Ronald Reagan knew this. Ronald Reagan knew how to bring Democratic congressmen his way -- for tax cuts and for defense improvements and for spending discipline. McCain, because of his long record of bipartisanship, can do likewise -- especially when it comes to spending. McCain has promised to veto any bill, any bill at all, that contains purely local-interest earmarks -- and with a veto, he can make it stick, even against a Democratic Congress. Eventually, once he makes it stick a few times, he can start bringing Democratic "Blue Dogs" his way on spending. Just watch it happen: Yes, it will.
This bears repeating: No candidate for president since Barry Goldwater has been as committed to spending discipline across the board as John McCain is. His entire record for 25 years gives evidence of that reality. Reagan came close to the Goldwater/McCain level of commitment, but McCain has kept up that fight, a lonely fight, for a quarter century. For limited-government conservatives -- actually, that's a redundancy -- this McCainite stubbornness should be cause for far deeper appreciation than it has received.
McCain also has the right instincts on the key issue of the judiciary. It may not be at the top of his list of importance, but he does, unambiguously, favor the appointment of judges who carefully construe the actual text of the Constitution and laws and are willing to be bound by those texts no matter what their own policy preferences. McCain's judicial nominees would be far more likely, by light years, than would be Obama's nominees, to maintain the Constitution's balance between national and state governments, and its restrictions on Congress's powers. His judges would be less likely to make decisions based on their preferred policy results -- but, because the Constitution is written as it is, a close adherence to the text would result in less hostility to religion, less hostility to honest police action, less hostility to private property, and less hostility to local community standards than would the radically liberal judges of the sort Obama favors.
Also, John McCain is an individualist. He believes in private action. He believes that individuals can live their lives responsibly without government acting as nanny and overseer and ultimate decision-maker on virtually every aspect of daily life. McCain trusts people with their own hard-earned money. McCain has never voted for a tax hike. McCain has supported almost every important tax-cut proposal for 25 years. Even on the two cuts he opposed, he stringently has supported keeping the lower level once it was set: It is a point of honor to him that American taxpayers should be able to count on lower tax rates once they are established and once they have begun to make plans based on those rates. McCain particularly understands that investors -- pensioners, 401(k) holders, homeowners -- are the engine of the economy, and that American investors right now are at a huge disadvantage to the entire rest of the developed world because our investment taxes are higher. McCain will cut investment taxes, and that's a very good thing for everybody.
Finally, there can be no doubt, none whatsoever, that John McCain will brook no corruption in his administration. Woe be to the appointee who would risk sullying McCain's vaunted honor by crooked deals and self-serving actions. It is likely that no administration in history will be so concerned with maintaining high ethical standards as a McCain administration would. And it will be blessed relief to have an administration where not even a hint of scandal will be even whispered by honest observers.
So there you have it: John McCain as a patriot firmly rooted in the American traditions of free enterprise, limited government, strong defense, personal accountability, and a decent respect for the cultural standards of the broad middle of the American public. Those are the constituent elements of American exceptionalism -- and to his great credit, John McCain is an American exceptionalist, and an exceptional American.
View all comments (15) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2008/11/03/the-non-endorsement-of-mccain
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Why I Voted "No" on Ryan
- United Faiths of America
- A Case of Intracoastal Blues
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Captain America| 11.3.08 @ 6:23PM
Quin,
Sen. McCain was not my first choice but he is now the only choice. All other ruminations are not really relevant, with all due respect.
Personally, next to his heroic military background, his selection of Gov. Palin and the current ambitious campaign he is waging today are his personal finest hours.
William R| 11.3.08 @ 6:35PM
McCain was wrong on Kosovo and Iraq. Back during Clinton's little war Republicans were acting like well, Republicans. Non interventionist realism. If McCain loses and I suspect he will, Iraq more than anyting else will be responsible. The NeoCons have gutted and destroyed the GOP.
Henry| 11.3.08 @ 6:43PM
For God's sake, let's make it simple: Obama is a Marxist who wants to take away the freedoms of Americans. This election is not about preferences or some grudge someone has. McCain wasn't my first choice for the Republican candidate, but Obama is sure as hell not my choice for President.
This is the stark, gritty reality of where we stand today. God have mercy on us.
Dave| 11.3.08 @ 6:53PM
This is a surprisingly well written and persuasive argument. If the Republicans had said this for the last 3 months instead of inundating us with lies and smears, I think McCain might have won this thing.
Herb Philbrick| 11.3.08 @ 6:57PM
I imagine that everyone who reads articles on this website and then posts comments is either a CEO or an investment banker. How else is it possible that folks can buy into trickle down economics that has demonstrated over and over again to trickle down no further than to the top five percent of the population, though who are investment bankers and CEOs.
Obama isn't preaching Marxism, but rather a tax system that considers not only income taxes but payroll taxes that fall most heavily on those at the bottom of the economic ladder. He preaches fairness and for that he is called a socialist. Far better to characterize him as a social democrat in the model of countries in Europe who actually give a damn about the person in need of health coverage.
It appears the lousy state of the economy, the product of de-regulation for all the investment bankers who've been reaping the rich rewards of the last cycle of tax cuts, has finally led a few thinking folks to ponder the question whether sleeping with Republicans is a smart thing to do. Wedge politics can only work so long before folks get wise to the shell game being played. Sorry Karl, your acolytes have found a much less gullible electorate this time around.
Go Obama!
Carner York| 11.3.08 @ 7:02PM
I was SO angry at McCain after his amnesty effort and his attempt at late night political manuevers. I swore I would never vote for him. I will vote for him however. He is no conservative, in my opinion. His continued nonsense about reaching across the aisle makes me sick. These libs have to be defeated, not included. What has reaching across the aisle ever accomplished for McCain but terrible legislation like McCain/Feingold? Reaching across the aisle was one of Bush's greatest weaknesses. That having been said, as Quin writes, McCain bleeds American. As much as I disagree with him on so many issues, he knows and deeply appreciates the uniqueness of America and would NEVER consider tearing her apart and attempting to re-build her with the dictates of Marxism. Go Redksins!
WendyG| 11.3.08 @ 7:16PM
I'm with Henry. Not for nothing did Obama worship at a "church" with a pastor that said "God Damn America," This is your new President folks.
More like God Help America.
tod| 11.3.08 @ 7:22PM
For God's sake, let's make it simple: McCain is a Facist who wants to take away the freedoms of Americans.
Go Obama/Biden 08
Joy| 11.3.08 @ 7:28PM
I must disagree with Herb Philbrick. He said, "countries in Europe who actually give a damn about the person in need of health coverage"
A close friend of mine in Holland has no functional health coverage. He works a full-time job at a factory. He's poverty-level, basically. Thing is, Holland has a multi-tiered system, and he can't pay enough into the government healthcare system to get into a higher tier.
Therefore, the government will cover NOTHING for him until he has spent a couple hundred dollars of his own money. He doesn't have it to spend. He has untreated vision problems and rheumatism pain that imperils his job situation with disabling flareups. He receives no healthcare.
I know other people in Holland who are middle-class in their earnings, and they haven't much trouble getting healthcare. It's just the poor that this wonderful advanced "social democrat" system doesn't care enough to help.
In addition, higher payroll taxes and a general sense that 'the government takes care of it' have sapped the strength of the charities which, in the U.S., would have taken up the slack.
Is this what we want in the U.S.?
WendyG| 11.3.08 @ 7:31PM
>>>>For God's sake, let's make it simple: McCain is a Facist who wants to take away the freedoms of America.
Tod, if you are going to accuse someone of being a fascist, you could at least spell the word correctly.
I guess this is what we can look forward to when Obama and his goons get their mitts on our public schools.
Carner York| 11.3.08 @ 9:15PM
Someone tell me how trickle up economics works. Has anyone gotten a job from a poor man? Would Obama believers vote for Fidel Castro? I am betting they would. Have you heard the stories from Cuban immigrants who say they believed with all their heart in Castro but THEY LIVED the reality that he brought and then risked their lives to come to America to escape it? Think I am exaggerating? What makes you think that it can't happen in the U.S.? Why would we be invulnerable to the worst inclination of the human experience, the all knowing, all powerful, all knowing government over the people? Our freedom is precious but apparently taken for granted and subject to the spoiled rants of those who can so easily believe that socialism is a better anecodote to our problems than the free market place that created our prosperity.
Deborah Durkee| 11.4.08 @ 5:23AM
Mr. York,
You are so right, sir. I fear what an Obama presidency will bring. I hope the American people can pull a rabbit out of the hat today, but as R.S. McCain says, "Hope is for chumps." Let's see if some trickle up, grass roots conservative movement-building will work in the meantime to combat what appears to be a left-leaning majority.
Bob| 11.4.08 @ 8:37AM
Carner, I can't write a full discourse on "trickle up economics" here, but it is just as strong a theory as trickle down. Trickle down is a theory which has not been fully proven in macro-economic results. The real disposable income for the middle class has declined under trickle down and we now have the greatest difference between rich and poor than we've had since the early 20th century. Simpletons have your point of view. Even Laffer, who created the Laffer curve for Reagan, now says that trickle down has not worked in real life.
IMO, trickle up is not the solution either -- that is also too simplistic. We know that just providing welfare will also not work.
The big problem with trickle down, is that those who make the most keep it. They use their wealth to make more wealth. They use their wealth to get legislators to give them special tax breaks. I think the place it breaks down is that in this computerized economy, wealth does not create jobs as it did 3 decades ago. It used to be that you needed to hire lots of people to build cars -- now we just install robots.
Therefore, we must give the middle class more disposable income to create their own small businesses which will be less computerized and more likely to hire people. If that trade-off means that upper income people must pay 4% more, we should at least be pragmatic and try it.
The vast majority of voters don't understand macro-economics. I've spent my life both at Fortune 100 companies and starting new businesses. I know how it works. None of us have all of the answers, but to disregard results because a simplistic answer sounds good is just stupidity.
Henry| 11.4.08 @ 12:24PM
Further evidence of our poor economics education.
Lower marginal income tax rates have been successful every time they are tried: greater economic activity and (unfortunately) greater tax revenues to government.
As Carner York relates, poor people do not hire workers. People who have the proper incentives (lower tax rates, favorable treatment of capital, fewer regulatory impediments) create businesses, hire workers and take risks. There is no place in "trickle up" economics where this happens. Nowhere does taxing the well-to-do make this happen. Remember the luxury tax of the '90s? Nearly put the boat industry out of business, all while collecting much less revenue than projected.
Liberals are constantly fomenting class envy and doing dangerous things with the tax code. Some states will exhibit marginal tax rates of 60% under Obama. (Sounds like a good time for more leisure.) Only a lunatic would think that high marginal tax rates are the road to prosperity for all. Only lunatics think Obama knows economics. At least McCain says economics are not his forte. Obama is just plain dangerous.
Bob| 11.4.08 @ 10:34PM
Henry, you still don't understand macro-economics. Lower marginal income tax rates work when they are kept in a band balanced by reasonable debt levels. In the longer term, the way they have been implemented, it has led to income declines of the middle class, fewer jobs, and income redistribution to the very rich. If you combine lower taxes with decreased spending, of course they will work. There is no prima facia evidence that trickle down currently works. That's because the model has changed since the time of Reagan. The current model with increased use of computerization and productivity improvement has an adverse effect on employment levels. Being simplistic does not change this.
I agree that Obama is not a very good economist -- but his advisors, Buffet/Volcker/Rubin/etc., understand the change in the model. By the way, Greenspan also understands the change in the model.
The key is to have a balanced plan.
We'll see how well Obama does since it is evident that he is our next President.