Is John McCain Good News for Conservatives?
by Mark Noonan on February 12th, 2008 at 06:55am
Bill Kristol thinks so:
Here’s the good news–and it’s really quite good. A reasonably conservative presidential candidate, leading a reasonably conservative party, has a good chance to win the general election. With a difficult task ahead of it–holding on to the White House for a third term, and in this case for the sixth out of the last eight–the GOP has lucked into having as its nominee John McCain, one of the most popular politicians in America.
What’s more, conservatism as a set of ideas is in pretty good shape. “Neoconservative” thinking on America’s place in the world has beaten back attempts to revive the crabbed “realism” of some congressional Republicans in the 1990s as a plausible approach for dealing with the world of the 21st century. And there is a resurgence of creative thinking on domestic policy, reminiscent of the neoconservatism of an earlier generation. Younger conservatives are displaying a welcome heterodoxy in their approach to health care, taxes, and family policy issues…
…Conservatives, in short, are adjusting to the times. This is a good thing, and is one of the neglected lessons of Ronald Reagan’s success: Reagan’s 1980 platform differed from Barry Goldwater’s in 1964. Consider further that 2008 is as far removed from 1980, as 1960 was from 1932. Movement liberalism in 1960 yearned for a purer, more orthodox FDR-style liberal than John F. Kennedy. Eleanor Roosevelt was appalled that the old guard had to give way. But it was surely better for liberals and liberalism that JFK called for a New Frontier rather than an extension of the New Deal.
And it may end up better for movement conservatism that we have McCain on top of the party, able to deflect the more absurd charges against conservatism (you know - the liberal shriek that we’re all a bunch of racist, sexist, homophobic theocrat-imperialists), while conservatism - as a political ideology - is able to advance. What we want is judges and bureaucrats who will adhere to the conservative line; what John McCain does on global warming is small beans compared to our ability to overturn anti-constitutional judicial rulings and use our regulatory power to actually de-regulate.
Think carefully, fellow conservatives, about what is at stake in November.
Click here to create an account on Blogs For Victory and post comments!
February 12th, 2008 at 8:14 am
wow - Mark Noonan is the biggest flip flopper ever. So now you supporting a candidate who in your own words:
(1) supports amnesty for immigrants
(2) authored McCain-Feyngold
(3) supported abortion rights for women i
I love to see how you jump through hoops to justify your failed ideology. Its dead. Dead dead. At worst we will have McCain - whose main objection I have with is his view on the Iraq ware and his ideas on the economy. But compared to Bush - he is a LIBERAL SAINT.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:31 am
And each “give” on the conservative side is yet another incremental move toward all-out socialism and loss of personal and economic liberties.
I don’t know why Bill Kristol is celebrating.
There is nothing, I repeat nothing that the liberals have to offer that is in any way compassionate.
An increasing demand for servitude to the State in a free society is not compassionate. Nor is it anything to celebrate.
This is the time for movement conservatives to stand up for conservative principles, and demand that candidates adhere to them, or conservatism, like classical liberalism, is doomed to the ash-heap of “good ideas” that were compromised in the name of expediency.
Politicians who pine for the support of the Republican Party should be required to earn that support, not expect it. The time to fight for what we believe, is now.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:35 am
“A welcome heterodoxy?” since when was that welcomed? Kristol, yeech! That’s the same bad taste I had in my mouth after reading the letter he sent from PNAC to Bill Clinton. The problem with these AEI freaks is that they have no idea what they really want.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I don’t know why Bill Kristol is celebrating.Leo Pusateri | February 12th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Are you kidding me? McCain is for a 100 year war. Nothing would make Bill “The Bloody” Kristol and his neocon buddies more happy.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:18 am
markristol
seriously?
i’m dissapointed in you
you’re sounding desperate or foolish or something?
global warming? small beans?
i thought acknowleding and embracing it was going to destroy the u.s. economy
i’m cosmically confused again……
please clarify
February 12th, 2008 at 11:15 am
LiberalT,
Huh? John McCain has a rock-solid pro-life record. Tell me, are you just being stupid, or did you really not know?
February 12th, 2008 at 11:18 am
bagni,
Because he won’t be able to do that much - people also need to realise how limited is the ability to make vast changes such as that desired by the global warming fanatics…the risk on global warming is that a Democrat will get in and thus the bureaucracy will be in the hands of a bunch of junior-league Leninists with an itch to regulate; they won’t stop global warming, but they will choke off the economy. With a President McCain, the regulatory aspects will be under conservative control.
Meanwhile, the McCain Global Warming Act of 2009 will be stymied in the Senate until it is re–written to protect free market principles…
February 12th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Leo,
With a President McCain, we’ll be able to insert conservatism in to whatever comes down the pike - with a President Obama or Hillary, we are shut out completely and only the GOP’s filibuster power in the Senate stands between us and socialism. Point blank, a failure to back McCain is an anti-conservative act in the realm of practical politics.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Mark: Meanwhile, the McCain Global Warming Act of 2009 will be stymied in the Senate until it is re–written to protect free market principles…
I’m not sure I understand the argument here. Are you saying that the McCain Global Warming Act of 2009 will be too liberal? If so, then wouldn’t the same argument apply to the Obama/Clinton Global Warming Act of 2009?
February 12th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
markain
whew
glad you have it all figured out
i can close my extraterrestial eyes and sleep now
thanks
February 12th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
no stupid that would be you
http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL999/mccain.html
February 12th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
LiberalT,
Wow, that took some looking - you do realise that the report you have is from 1999, right? Couldn’t find any 21st century info on McCain?
While NRLC has a lot of arguments with McCain (as do I, over embyronic stem cell research…but that is rapidly becoming a moot issue), lets take a look at how pro-abortion fanatics look at him:
http://prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/mccain.html
I’ll take that as a ringing endorsement of John McCain’s pro-life views…
February 12th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Ricorun,
Oh, an Obama/Hillary GW Act of 2009 would also be stymied…but while we’re stopping them from making laws, their minions in the federal agencies would be busily acting as if their GW Act had become law…with McCain in office, we don’t have that problem…(Republicans having this odd habit of enforcing laws, not making them up as they go along…)
February 12th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Mark: Republicans having this odd habit of enforcing laws, not making them up as they go along…
To be perfectly fair, wouldn’t you be required to ignore Bush’s odd habit of so many signing statements in order to make that case?
February 12th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Deleted - slanderous attack.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Mark: with a President Obama or Hillary, we are shut out completely and only the GOP’s filibuster power in the Senate stands between us and socialism.
And you people yelled at the Dems for blocking some of the things you Repubs did from 2001-2006. So Dems were “obstructionists”, if Repubs do it, what are they??? Saving America?
I would certainly hope that you would call the Repubs “obstructionists” as well. After all, they would be blocking the will of the majority.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
yeah - wouldn’t want to look at what he said in 1999 - as that is (oh my god - a decade ago!). That is , indeed, the whole point of the flip flop is it not my dear Mark.
Anyway it doesn’t matter - Obama is going to win and then you are going to have to make a blog crying over it for the next 8 years.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Joe,
Our complaint on the Democratic filibuster was the use of it against judicial nominees who clearly had majority support in the Senate - a far cry from using it to delay legislative affairs with a mind towards changing the political dyanmic.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Ricorun,
If you can find me a statute against signing statements, that would be helpful…
February 12th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
liberalT,
What is funny is that you had to dredge up something which was intended to harm McCain in the 2000 primary season. Geesh!
McCain is pro-life; get used to it.
February 12th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
[...] good friend and co-blogger Mark Noonan at Blogs for Victory cited an article in which Bill Kristol extolled the virtues of a McCain candidacy: Here’s the [...]
February 12th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
ah - i see. Its only flip floping when its a democrat. Typical Mark Noonan. Typical
February 12th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
liberalT,
No, its flip-flopping when someone changes a position purely for political advantage…like being in favor of the funding before being against it.
McCain has not been 100%, down-the-line pro-life, but he’s never switched from being pro-life to being pro-abortion or vice-versa.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Sometimes I wonder. Did you even bother to read the article that I posted. That is precisely what he is accused of doing. You just can’t handle that you support someone who may be pro-choice. How does that feel. YOu are supporting someone who may very well flip again and nominate only pro-choice supreme court justices. How does it feel? oooh oohh I bet you want Jebby to run.. So sad- its Obama all the way
February 12th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
I would certainly hope that you would call the Repubs “obstructionists” as well. After all, they would be blocking the will of the majority.
Hell, Republicans freely admit that they’ve been obstructionists since November, 2006. And look at all the condemnations Noonan has throw at them for it!
Oh, that’s right, not a peep about it. Because obstructionism is only wrong when somebody else does it.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
If McCain would come out in opposition to two things, it would help to put my full faith in him.
1. Be in opposition to Emybryonic stem cell research.
2. Be in opposition to same-sex marriage.
–Jeremiah–
February 12th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Wow, Jerry just directly cribbed from Ned Flanders:
“We should join together to fight our common enemies: Monogamous gays and stem cells!”
Life imitates comedic parody of life. Fantastic.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
The main problem we have, and I know that most everyone will disagree.
We need someone in the White House, that if a ban on same-sex marriage were to take place, McCain would put in the hands of the states, and naturally, where Liberal majorities rule, and thus, would not go into effect Nation-wide. The same would be true with a ban on ESCR. That, in my view is obstructionism. The good thing, is it’s still there, and…
The only hope we would have of a Pro-Life, Pro-marriage amendments going Nationwide is in the next possible Conservative presidency who would in fact, sign it into law.
Can we wait that long? Well, I guess, but we can’t go for too much longer.
If a Democrat is nominated, might as well forget about democracy.
–Jeremiah–