Rage Against the McCain
The conservative base’s anti-McCain revolt—emanating from Rush Limbaugh, Human Events, and the non-Ponnuru wing of NR—reached apotheosis, or self-parody, on Thursday as Ann Coulter threatened to vote for Hillary if McCain got the GOP nomination—even campaign for the woman.
One should look upon this spectacle with a jaundiced eye. For as Mark Levin, Coulter, and & Co. exhort the troops to “rally for Romney!,” they don’t seem particularly eager to inquire as to whether the man from Massachusetts is worthy of the conservative mantle being thrust upon him. They’re even less interested in asking whether McCain’s proposals for amnesty, his “reaching out across the aisle” when some big government is in the works, and his vague assertions that Washington must “do something” about global warming make him look awfully similar to that self-described “conservative” in the White House whom the talk radio set still adore.
This aside, it would be wrong to dismiss the revolt as merely wild irrational flailing.
John O’Sullivan has written the definitive apologetic for the “I hate McCain” movement (perhaps putting words into the mouths of some, expressing what’s really in the hearts of others).
O’Sullivan stresses that it’s too easy to simply tell the McCain-haters that they should “swallow [their] differences … in order to avert worse from the Democrats.”
”This is the logic of political coalitions—which national parties are in a two-party system—and most of the time it’s valid. But it’s not always valid.
“Many conservatives believe that the key question in this election is: Are there to be two multiculturalist open-borders parties or one? If McCain’s election were to make the GOP fundamentally similar to the Democrats on immigration, bilingualism, racial preferences, and all the National Question issues, that would be a resounding historical defeat for conservatives.”
O’Sullivan’s mention of the National Question is important and reveals that the situation is more complicated than a fracturing between the “extremist” and the “moderate,” as the New York Times has reported. The GOP has run three successive national elections on national security, and yet the war in Iraq actually has little to nothing to do with the anti-McCain revolt; indeed, each attack is prefaced with a rather perfunctory “McCain is an American hero and great on defense but…”
(As an aside, Coulter’s “endorsement” is slightly different in that she seems to believe that Hillary would be a better terror warrior than McCain, whose opposition to Gitmo and torture has greatly disappointed her. While Hannity recites the “she’d cut ‘n’ run” Mantra, Fieldmarshall Ann grasps that Clinton ain’t antiwar and would be a fine coalition partners for neocons and hawks—something Justin has been telling us for years.)
In my last post on the anti-McCain phenomenon, I argued that McCain is very much the “candidate the anti-McCainites deserve” in that he represents the triumph of the “war on terror” über alles. Levin, Coulter, and Rush are reaping the fruits of defining conservatism on the basis of “do you support the war?”—a philosophy that usually delivers them up some patriotic leftists who are good on the war but terrible on everything else (Joe Lieberman being the best example).
While this might be true, I’d be remiss to look the other way when conservatives actually make friend/enemy distinctions on a criterion other than the war on terror and actually reject McCain, the ultra terror warrior, for what are generally good reasons—his wrongness on the National Question, his pink economics, and conviviality with liberals.
Furthermore, Rush & Co. have been rather forthright in targeting Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol, David Brooks, and other Weekly Standard-ites for scorn—the exact people who’ve sought to “modernize” the conservative movement, counseling its members to deemphasize limited government and social concerns and embrace an activist foreign policy. And it is, of course, these former conservative movement darlings who now find themselves scorned by much of the base for their insisting that conservatives ”grow up” and accept McCain as the leader of the GOP.
It’s far, far too early to speak of a purge of neoconservatism—and it’s naïve to think that a movement rallied around Romney would be dramatically better than one loyal to Dubya—but it would also be wrong to dismiss or ignore signs that the GOP might actually be something more than a war party.
Comments
THE IRONY OF THE ANTI-MCCAIN VIEWS EXPRESSED BY LIMBAUGH, COULTER, AND OTHER CONSERVATIVE PUNDITS IS THAT THEY SHARE MCCAIN’S MILITARISM, JINGOISM, AND REFLEXIVELY PRO-ISRAEL/ANTI-ARAB PHILOSOPHY. IN THE PRESENT POLITICAL CLIMATE, IT IS ACCEPTABLE TO CRITICIZE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY AND UNWILLINGNESS TO ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAWS. IT IS TABOO TO OPPOSE THE IRAQ WAR AND THIS NATION’S FANATICAL SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I want to see Bloomberg get into the race to dilute the neo-con vote even more. I would love to see Romney stay in even if he doesn’t get the nomination but that probably won’t happen. Unfortunately the Republican party bunker mentality will take over.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
have to disagree Mr Spencer. I have not seen Limbaugh and co. attacking barnes, kristol and the rest at all even though they have brough nothing but ruin to the GOP. they still buy into they hate us for our freedoms and took no offense when kristol called them yahoos.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Consider this scenario:
Clinton and McCain are the Democrat and Republican nominees.
There is such an upwelling of support for the “conservative” Mitt Romney that he throws his hat in for a 3rd party bid (with someone like Congoleezza Rice as a running-"mate").
Then Michael Bloomburg doesn’t want to be upstaged, especially knowing the electorate is being pulled in three separate ways, knowing a divided House just may choose him to be President.
Ron Paul says “I promised not to run as 3rd party candidate, but I never said anything about a 5th party.” He then runs under something that might be called the “Patriot Party”.
The Libertarians, Greens, Constitutions, etc. all run their candidates as well.
In the end, Ron Paul is chosen President by the House, and John McCain is chosen Vice-President by the Senate.
Crazy, I know, but what would happen next?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Spencer is on target, as usual. The refusal to accept McCain is a good thing, and may even lead to better things.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I am for Ron Paul and hope he runs third party.But Romney has five good reasons not to go to war. 5 sons that he couldn’t keep hiding if wars are continued or expanded.Insane McCain puts his kids where his mouth is and has 2 sons in the military.It would give him the authority to ask for the draft.Mcain must be stoped even Hilary isn’t as big a war monger.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
McCain is a classic Snopes type, and his family even comes from Mississippi.
I agree with Tom Piatak, that this could be, if not the beginning of the end, than at least the beginning of the process of the de-Neoconification of mainstream “conservatives.” Or at least a process by which more people will see the games Neocons play.
Put it another way, if a good number of folks begin to question the Neocons and their control of the alleged (but not real) conservative establishment, then we might be taking the first step in the necessary long walk to at least re-take the term conservative or make those looking to that term to re-think what it is they really believe, let alone what those, like the Neocons who have chosen to speak in that name really believe and actually do.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Time to invent a new label. How about ABM--anybody but McCain--conservatives? The strident rightwing opposition to McCain “from Rush Limbaugh, Human Events, and the non-Ponnuru wing of NR” is just a symptom of the continuing breakdown of the ideological coalition that has defined the establishment right. At the same time, it shows the reemergence and growing popularity of paleo-views like opposition to illegal immigration, or-- though Rush Limbaugh & Co. would never admit it--a peaceful, mind-your-own business foreign policy on the right.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Anyone who would vote for Hillary is an idiot. Remember that both the Huse and Senate are Democratic now, and will probably be so in ‘08. Do you want her to have an “Amen Chorus” for her agenda. I assume Mr. Capp’s typo is unintentional. Otherwise he’s a racist and should go back to playing the banjo. At least McCain isn’t an “armchair warrior” as Taki so aptly describes it. Ron Paul is the best choice. However, if he chooses not to run as an independent, suck it up and vote for the best option. Or don’t vote at all.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@mc brown: A vibrant and principled rightwing opposition to Obama or Clinton would be preferable to a castrated or phony right led by McCain. Other than fighting wars, McCain has no passion for conservatism and probably ceased being a conservative a decade ago. McCain also has made has made a name for himself by screwing the right. This is why the establishment media love the guy, and I do not see this changing if McCain gets tothe presidency. McCain also knows by that he has a clear path to the nomination with or without Rush Limbaugh’s blessing as McCain’s base are independents, liberal Republicans, and the New York Times. Furthermore, in a primary, conservative activists play a much bigger role. But what happens when McCain gets to the general election? McCain will move substantially to the left, in the direction of his pal and possible VP, Joe Lieberman, because where is the right going to go? This is why Dr. Paul really should consider running third party in the general election. Rightwingers will want an alternative to McCain. Dr. Paul would be well positioned to get their votes, and their might be many surprises along the way (e.g., see Ann Coulter above).
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@ GM, But there won’t be a “vibrant and pricipled rightwing opposition to Obama or Clinton”. If RP ran as an independent or Libertarian, he would simply siphon off votes from McCain, aiding Hillary or Obama. Manifestly, McCain may move to the left. However, he will never be as far to the left as H or O. As I see it, it’s the same as the Nader influence in 2000, which hurt Al Gore. As fo r Limbaugh, he is not a true conservative, and never has been. He, and Coulter, are simply people playing a role to maximize their income.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I like the explanation offerd in Keith Olbermann’s
last night. That both Coulter and Limbaugh would have
better ratings (and sales) if they got President Hillary
to rant against.
Olbermann was quite *shocked, shocked* to think that
they would prefer millions of dollars to the good of
their Party. “The Republicans are setting themselves
on fire! Bring the marshmallows!”
I tell you, he is my guilty pleasure, and he does a
good job of denouncing the war and its lies.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.