TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 4:05 PM
July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
05.09.2008
Don't Believe the Hype: McCain Is Still a Bush Republican

How did it play politically? Will it energize the base? Will it make swing voters swoon?

As usual, your guess is as good as mine--or any of the pundits you see yapping on the television right now. Until the focus groups and polls come in, we're all just speculating.

But I can register a verdict on substance. If this was McCain's answer to voter anxiety about the economy, it wasn't too impressive.

As you've been reading--or, perhaps, as you've noticed on your own--economic policy has not been a big theme this week in Minneapolis. The Republicans have been campaigning heavily on McCain's character and supposed leadership skills. To the extent they recognzied the high anxiety over employment, wages, or health care costs, they have spent most of their time criticizing Barack Obama's plans for relief rather than offering their own. Only when they have made the case for more oil drilling--or that old Republican standby of cutting taxes--have they talked substance. And even that's been pretty thin gruel.

At times tonight, it looked like McCain might take a different approach. He made a point of acknowledging the financial difficulties confronting many Americans:

These are tough times for many of you. You're worried about keeping your job or finding a new one, and are struggling to put food on the table and stay in your home. All you ever asked of government is to stand on your side, not in your way. And that's just what I intend to do: stand on your side and fight for your future. 

He repeated the argument later, saying, "I know some of you have been left behind in the changing economy and it often seems your government hasn't even noticed." 

But what, besides "noticing" people's economic struggles, did McCain actually propose to do? Nothing terribly useful, I would argue.

McCain reiterated his interest in drilling for more oil--a strategy that, as noted in this space, wouldn't actually do much to reduce gas prices. He also vowed to cut taxes, failing to mention that most of the cuts would go to the very wealthy--and that paying for those cuts would require slashing entitlements or running up huge deficits. (And, don't forget, unmanageable deficits will ultimately hurt poor and middle-income workers, too.) 

McCain did talk about his health care plan--something, as best as I can recall, no other prime time speaker did. But his suggestion that it would "make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance" is just plain wrong. As numerous experts have noted, its primary effect will be to move people out of employer-sponsored insurance and into the individual market, where the benefits are less comprehensive and insurers refuse coverage to anybody with pre-exsiting medical conditions.

Of course, McCain's primary argument about the economy has never been about specific policies. It's been about character. And tonight's speech hit those themes over and over again. I'm a maverick. I buck my own party. I will clean up Washington.

But will he really? McCain's tax cut proposal looks an awful lot like President Bush's. So does his plan for oil drilling. So do his health insurance reforms. When it comes to economic policy, McCain is just another Bush Republican. 

And, yes, McCain has tried to curb the influence of special interests in Washington. These were good, important fights and McCain deserves real credit for waging them.

But what, ultimately, do special interests have to do with the financial anxiety of the poor and middle class? Tectonic economic forces like globalization and the increasing linkage between skills and wages are the real problem here. To the extent special interests have a role, it's because they've blocked measures that would ease labor union organizing, tilt the tax code more towards lower-income Americans, and make health insurance universally available. McCain has made it quite clear that he opposes all of these things.

In the end, tonight's speech merely confirmed what many of us knew along: McCain just doesn't have good answers to our troubled economy. I don't know whether the voters will care about this, but I do know they should.

Update: Kevin Drum notices something I didn't: McCain made a plug for wage insurance. It's a smart idea, one that McCain has mentioned before. The trouble, as I understand it, is that McCain isn't willing to put serious money behind it. And how could he, given the huge shortfalls his tax cuts would create? Still, he deserves credit for mentioning the idea. Funded properly, it would indeed help.

--Jonathan Cohn

 

Posted: Friday, September 05, 2008 12:19 AM with 22 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

tomeg said:

I hadn't imagined it, but now it is a matter of record. The oddest, most confounding convention of any party I have ever witnessed. Stunned.

September 5, 2008 12:24 AM

CharlesFosterKane said:

You are essentially correct. Outside of the economy, McCain did an excellent job as positioning himself far outside the realm of Bush - and for that matter, the convention audience which could barely summon up the energy to convincingly applaud (it applied far more gusto to its booing and jingoistic shouting-down of protestors - and did I see someone throw a cup at that woman's head?).

But the economy is what voters seem to care about most right now, and it just isn't McCain's cup of tea. His reform credentials are excellent and convictions on that matter seem entirely genuine. But cleaning up government is not the same thing as fixing the economy and there was a bit of a disconnect when he kept harping on reformist themes as if they were a response to the woes of those families he mentioned in the speech.

But, economics aside, I don't think your title is fair because it misses the essential take-away from this speech: McCain very effectively reminded viewers of why he is/was considered an independent, and he altered the course of a convention which has been entirely focused on shoring up the base to the complete exclusion (save Lieberman's speech) of making any appeal to those outside of The Party.

He basically said, "I feel your pain," but couldn't articulate what he was going to do about it.

September 5, 2008 12:30 AM

ironyroad said:

The problem is that Republicans won't ever admit that anything happens in the world that can't be wrestled to the floor by straight-talking warriors of the people taking on special interests and the "liberal media."

If they laid out a real picture that explained how corporations are not branches of the U.S. government and don't behave as if they were, they might have to admit that the market isn't the answer to every problem.

The degree of disconnect between the Convention and the real world is obvioius in the way the delegates cheer any attack on the government (the one they were responsible for for eight years) while at the same time imagining that business will act like one.

September 5, 2008 12:43 AM

oldmanwinther said:

I've got an idea: how about a Bill/Obama add revisting "It's the economy stupid."  It worked once---

September 5, 2008 1:09 AM

Bulbman1066 said:

The best speech of the evening was that of Lindsay Graham.  He pointed out that Obama and most of the Democrats have deliberately sought the defeat of this country in a war for their own political advantage.  Senator Graham didn't say so, but there is a name for that stance, and it is spelled t-r-e-a-s-o-n.  Do I question Obama's patriotism?   You’re damned right I do.

Liberals think the more anti-American you are, the hipper you are.   If that's the case, then to hell with hipness.  Liberals believe that America is a bad country, and that working class people like Sarah Palin are a bunch of white trash.   To quote a great but unfashionable poet, they make mock of heroes who guard them while they sleep.

Since 1968 history has reversed itself.  The Republican Party is for the most part the party of the popular classes, while the Democrats represent the snotty and the privileged.

September 5, 2008 1:42 AM

scrubbyoak said:

Bulbman writes "The Republican party is for the most part the party of the popular classes, while Democrats represent the snotty and the privileged."

Yeah, Bulbman.  Also Europeans are mostly black, while the Africans are all white. And I'm the prince of Wales, of course.

September 5, 2008 7:01 AM

roidubouloi said:

The only thing that surprises me about the standard Republican tactics of stoking rural-urban resentment, sexual resentment, racial resentment, class resentment, and educational resentment and generally doing everything possible to persuade the least privileged that they are a moral vanguard saving the nation from the treason and moral pollution of "educated elites" is that historical memory is so short.  These are the same tactics honed by the fascists (and, you know, the guys we are not aloud to mention) and have always been the tactics of right-wing demogoguery going back at least to Rome.

The reason is simple:  The wealthy elite who are the party of the Right can never, by definition, be more than a small minority.  They most always surround themselves with Brownshirts who are just cannon-fodder for the wealthy.  And the exploited never learn -- the party of the popular classes indeed, bulbman.

September 5, 2008 7:53 AM

magrick said:

This is to "bulbman1066."  Is the "1066" referring to the crusades?  I think that was when they started.  If so, I can draw a comparison between that [1066] and your reasoning--you are certain in your own mind that you are 100 percent correct and no one is that correct.  100 percent correct is what perfection is.  George Will said something to the effect that "perfect is the enemy of good," when he (George Will) was criticizing McCain, even as he plans to vote for McCain.  No one is perfect or 100 percent, and it's dangerous to fall into that doctrine.

September 5, 2008 7:53 AM

fougasseu said:

People of the Lie, as Scott Peck would say.

They are the party of the elite, running as the party of the common man.

They are the party in power, running as the party of change.

They are the party of Big Oil, running as the party for "energy".

They are the party that got us into the biggest foreign policy disaster of the last 100 years, telling us we've won the war.

They are shameless and dishonest.

Lindsay Graham said that the Democrats DELIBERATELY sought the defeat of this country in a war for their own political advantage. It is the most outrageous, dishonest, and disgusting statement made by anyone in either party about any candidate. This from the party that got us into the war.

People of the Lie.

September 5, 2008 8:03 AM

Nippers said:

Bulbman, you write: "Liberals think the more anti-American you are, the hipper you are.   If that's the case, then to hell with hipness."

"If that's the case," which, of course, it isn't. But I bet it makes you feel good to think so. Have fun!

September 5, 2008 8:24 AM

mjhollerich said:

1066 a crusade?  Not if you think that the Normans were on a crusade against the Anglo-Saxons in England.  Although they did have a papal blessing on their venture.

September 5, 2008 8:28 AM

fougasseu said:

Now we have the Abramoff - McCain connection to ponder. This should be interesting.

ap.google.com/.../ALeqM5gMZw4dYnLxr5AKkDn0bKGqH0epYAD930EBDG0

September 5, 2008 8:49 AM

sdemuth said:

Bulbman: I am, presumably, one of those elites you write about.  I certainly am a well educated, well off Democrat.

But I will not stand to be called treasonous for opposing the Iraq war, or for expecting a plan from the new administration to end it.   Iraq was  a war of choice, not one of national defense - every one of the reasons given by the Bush administration to try to paint it as a necessary war of urgent national defense were false - and not simply wrong upon examination in the hindsight of the occupation, but false in the sense of being known untrue by the people promoting the war,  To put it in plain language, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, et al LIED TO THIS NATION in order to make a justification for war.

And, I, liberal elitist that I am, have nonetheless never supported an abrupt pull out from Iraq that left that country and region in chaos and turmoil.  That would be dangerous for this country, and yet another act of (indirect) war against the Iraqis and neighboring countries, not to mention a gift to Iran.  We are in Iraq wrongly to be sure, but we can't rightly leave, without some serious nation building first.  Compare this to the legions of Republicans who once enthusiastically and thoughtlessly supported the war, but who now just want out - and don't tell me there aren't any - the war is hugely unpopular across the political spectrum.

Finally this is AN UNDECLARED WAR, legally.  For all you constitutionalist Republicans out there, endlessly prattling about legislation from the bench, I've got news for you: taking the country to war without a declaration of war from Congress is anti-constitutional and constitutes the same sort of anti-democratic  violation of separation of powers that "legislation from the bench" does.  Again in plain language: by any legal definition, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld at least are guilty of treason: they started a war anti-constitutionally, on false premises, against no imminent threat to the country.

I have never supported impeaching Bush and Cheney, because, given that we must finish somehow what we have started in Iraq anyway, I think the cost of an impeachment, that would fail of conviction, to the political fabric of the country is simply unbearable.  That doesn't make them less wrong though; just protected by harsh realities.

September 5, 2008 8:51 AM

lesserliz said:

“Democrats have deliberately sought the defeat of this country in a war for their own

political advantage.”

I don’t know about that but Republicans have done worse things-like getting us into wars and prolonging wars for their own political advantage!

Leaving out the obvious Iraq example, remember that back in 1968 LBJ was trying to

negotiate and end to the Viet Nam War. Candidate Nixon sent his own emissary(Anna

Chennault) to SVN President Thieu to sabotage the upcoming negotiations. Result-Nixon elected and the direct U.S. role in the Vietnam War continued for more than four years with additional American casualties of 20,763 dead and 111,230 wounded. Talk about treason!

Similiarly the Republicans were active in thwarting the release of the Iranian hostages before President Carter’s reelection. As Obama has said that the Republicans are not good at governing but their good(sic)at campaigning.  I hope he doesn't give them an inch on the patriotism issue.  

September 5, 2008 9:16 AM

icarusr said:

Ah, 1066 ... I remember it well; those were the days ...

It was when Guillaume le Bâtard, known to history as William the Bastard (he was the illegitimate son of the Duke of Normandy and a milkmaid), already in an incestuous marriage, launched an invasion of England on a false pretense of a "promise" by a dead king.  Arrived in the new land, he dispossessed the local gentry, imposed a draconian centralised rule and commissioned the "Domesday Book" (yes, Doom's Day, Day of Judgement - by the Divine King); appointed his cronies to high office and lordships all over the country, built castles across the land better to terrify the local populations and imposed a foreign culture on the Anglo-Saxons.

Exactly in line Bulbman's thinking in 2008.

(Guillaume le Bâtard died when he fell on the pommle of his saddle and ruptured a few blood vessels.  All his sons save one abandoned him - great family values - and because he was so fat, when the Monks tried to force him into his coffin, his body exploded, causing a "royal stench" in Abbey.  Don't know about the "royal", but "stench" aptly described the effect of Bulbman's views.)

Yeah, 1066 and all that ...

Magrick: the First Crusade was launched thirty years after this.

September 5, 2008 10:34 AM

singlespeed said:

bulbman should change that handle to dimbulb for the consistent posts made about how (predictably) libruls are the root of all evil in America while the republicants are the emblem of Freedom, Truth and the American Way or at least that's what they keep telling themselves and everyone else.

IT writes:

"The Republican Party is for the most part the party of the popular classes, while the Democrats represent the snotty and the privileged."

I've never read anything so completely delusional and self-serving in a long time and laughable at best. To say that Republicans are the party of the people is the greatest con the Republican party  have played upon the American people. That the RP actually cares about the individual or collective working class people of America is demonstrably false. The only thing the RP offers any American is condescending snarkiness regarding culture-war issues which do nothing to solve real hard issues that face the majority of Americans who actually..you know...honestly go to work every day and earn their income instead of through capital gains and inheritance tax shelters. But then if you can convince someone that a gay person is out to get their child you'll be able to steal their wallet with the other hand.

When ever I hear a Republican get up and make these fake protestations on behalf of the "working people" of America I recall the song 'Common Man' by the Blasters.

"He knows all your problems,

He shares all your dreams,

When he laughs,

His wife laughs too as they ride in their limousine

So wave the flag and take a stand

Stand in line and shake his hand

He says he's your friend,

A friend of the Common Man"

September 5, 2008 10:51 AM

cspencef said:

Many, many extra points to fougasseu for dropping in a Scott Peck reference on tnr.com and making it work.

September 5, 2008 11:17 AM

The Plank said:

We've had a lot to say about John McCain's speech last night. A roundup of TNR's analysis

September 5, 2008 12:12 PM

Daily Intel said:

How could you possibly allow another puke-green background!?!

September 5, 2008 12:19 PM

TrackBack said:

It’s Friday ya Bastids. After 4 days of shrill shrieking FRAUD I need a nap OR a booby bounce. CHANGE. A man who voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time. A woman who , like George W. Bush, believes God is a card-carrying Republican who can't possi

September 5, 2008 1:59 PM

Political Animal said:

THE POLITICS OF HEALTHCARE.... John McCain's acceptance speech last night was strikingly thin on substance, but there was a portion, about halfway through, in which the Republican nominee ran through a handful of policy issues. At one point, he told.

September 5, 2008 2:00 PM

sportdoc62 said:

McCain's speech was a complete flop, seemilngly engineered to make him look like Sarah Palin's affable (a second term Reagan?) running mate.  Given the call over the last 24 hours for Democrats to pay no attention to Sarah Palin, whose credentials as a frighteningly aimless demagogue and opportunist are becoming ever more apparent, some serious issues of substance about her are being lost.  Let's hope someone confronts her directly for her very aggressive pursuit of Federal pork, which she lied about on Wednesday night, and which no major news organization has pursued (apart from the LA Times).  

"In her second term as Mayor of tiny Wasilla, Palin hired the Anchorage-based lobbying firm of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh to lobby for earmarks for Wasilla. The effort was led by Steven Silver, a former chief of staff for Senator Ted Stevens,[29] and it secured nearly $27 million in earmarked funds. The earmarks included $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project linking Wasilla and the ski resort community of Girdwood.[30] Some of the earmarks were criticized by Senator McCain.  LA Times, September 4.

Sarah Palin does not reflect change from trom greedy, self-interest and trough-feeding in Washington--she's an example of it.  Her ability to deliver this stuff to her home town explains her success.  She just happened to practice it under the helpful wing of Ted Stevens and in a state no one paid attention to until last Friday.  Interest in exploiting her star power is evidently outweighing getting at her actual biography, and the usual cast of Bush cast offs, Karl Rove the leader among them, are out defending her.  Thanks to Jon Stewart, and almost no one else, for calling our attention to it.

September 5, 2008 2:39 PM