Say-So

The political discussion in America in the last three weeks throughout the Democratic and Republican conventions and thereafter has been riveting. The 2008 presidential elections are called “historical”, “critical” and “change-bringing” by both parties. Seven weeks before the elections and despite the hop-scotching poll results the stance of the Republican party is clearly defensive indicating that this time it is the Democratic candidate who is endowed not only with progressive ideas and inclusive attitudes but also with likability, charm and charisma, the very qualities which remembering past elections, seem to matter more to voters than intelligence of a candidate and his knowledge of domestic or international issues. John McCain’s campaign oafishly emulates the Democratic party successes by hijacking Hillary Clinton’s achievement in mobilizing women’s support in the Democratic primary elections and putting forth Sarah Palin as the Republican Vice Presidentential choice. Both Hillary Clinton in the primaries and John McCain in his nomination acceptance speech blatantly stole Barack Obama’s slogan of campaigning for “change” and thus perhaps inadvertently admitted that it is He who has the upper hand. Most surprisingly, in a knee jerk reaction that was placing Sarah Palin’s name on the Republican ticket, McCain’s campaign relinquished their most widely trumpeted argument against Barack Obama’s candidacy - his youth and relatively short serving time as a Senator. In a great departure from his campaign mantra of “country first” McCain has made a strategic choice by picking the very conservative Palin as his running mate and put the needs of his electoral campaign ahead of those of the country. This “cut to measure” approach appears to be a true trademark of McCain’s 2008 presidential tender. The so called “man of principles” and a “maverick” recanted his position on most every single issue he held. The list is only too long.

On tax cuts (CNN Money, February 19 2008)

McCain now advocates extending the Bush tax cuts that he twice voted against.

On waterboarding (Dallas News, Mar 12, 2008):

McCain has been unequivocal in stating his conviction that waterboarding is torture, and is illegal. He also traded on his public reputation for probity on this question to lay into his GOP presidential opponents who were anything short of forthrightly condemning waterboarding. He even said in that debate that the Army Field Manual ought to be the standard, and said he doesn’t understand how anybody could want an American to torture. So now he comes out to vote against a bill that would actually have banned waterboarding. How does he justify it? With what strikes me as incomprehensible legalism. Seriously, can someone please explain how McCain’s rationale makes sense? Because I’m not seeing it. I think he’s flip-flopping — and on an issue that he’s not given any of his opponents any wiggle room on.

On aid to some mortgage holders (The New York Times, April 11, 2008):

Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, had been painted as uncaring by Democrats, and drew murmurs of concern from some Republicans, after a speech in California last month in which he cautioned that “it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers,” and noted that the crisis had been brought on by both lenders and borrowers.Since then, he has gone out of his way to try to signal that he understands that times are tough and that people are hurting. His speech in Brooklyn — which is to be followed by what aides are billing as a major economic address next week — was a shift in tone (…)

On domestic spying (Wired BlogNetwork, June 03, 2008):

McCain’s new position plainly contradicts statements he made in a December 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe where he implicitly criticized Bush’s five-year secret end-run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. “I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is,” McCain said. The Globe’s Charlie Savage pushed further, asking , “So is that a no, in other words, federal statute trumps inherent power in that case, warrantless surveillance?” To which McCain answered, “I don’t think the president has the right to disobey any law.” McCain’s embrace of extrajudicial domestic wiretapping is effectively a bounce-back from Fish’s comments, made at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference in Connecticut last month.

On offshore oil drilling (Washington Post, June 17, 2008):

“We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil,” McCain told reporters yesterday. In a speech today, he plans to add that “we have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. . . . It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions.” McCain’s announcement is a reversal of the position he took in his 2000 presidential campaign and a break with environmental activists (…)

On immigration (CNN Politics, July 16, 2008):

n 2005, he angered some in his party when he and Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy unsuccessfully pushed for a comprehensive immigration overhaul bill that included a path to citizenship. His sponsorship of the legislation angered some conservatives and nearly derailed his presidential campaign in 2007. But at a Republican debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in January, McCain was asked whether he would still vote for his original measure. “No, I would not … because we know what the situation is today … that people want the borders secured first,” he said, prompting accusations that he had flip-flopped.

On timetable for withdrawal from Iraq (FirstRead MSNBC, July 25, 2008):

In an interview on CNN today — which the DNC is passing around — McCain said that withdrawal from Iraq in 16 months is “a pretty good timetable.” That answer came when McCain was asked about Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki’s earlier claim to Der Spiegel that Obama’s 16-month plan “would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”Of course, McCain did stress that such a withdrawal would “have to be based on conditions on the ground.” But calling 16 months a “good timetable” is something McCain hasn’t said before — and probably never would have said a week ago.

On affirmative action (ABC News, July 27, 2008):

McCain has long opposed quotas but his new support for ending affirmative action programs which stop short of quotas puts him at odds not only with Democratic rival Barack Obama but also with the Arizona senator’s own views in 1998.

The persistent rightward drift on most of the above issues has put McCain more in line with the canonical position of his party. The nomination of ultra conservative running mate has cemented the support of the initially lukewarm Republican base towards his candidacy for president. The poll ratings have surged. It is clear that nonconformism and individualism have no place in the GOP cosmology - it is partisan loyalty even if dishonest - that scores marks.

Sarah Palin has been called a “Rovian pick” and her RNC podium appearance - a “Rovian speech”. Karl Rove who advises John McCain’s campaign, unlike Machiavelli, did not lay down his views, principles or doctrine explicitly in writing, hence the “ian” suffix (Rov-ian) creating an adjective is a misnomer. Much has been written about Karl Rove however and his demagogic tactics. What comes across at the first glance as Palin’s weakness as a VP candidate, her small town roots and lack of governing experience, he saw as an asset. It wasn’t her wisdom, prior accomplishments nor the ability to gather bi-partisan support. On the contrary, it is the lack of thereof, her being a small town mayor, a plain talking hockey mom, a mother of pregnant and unwed teenage daughter and a parent of a child with Down’s syndrome that excited the Republican party proponents.

Jonathan Haidt an associate professor of psychology at the University of Virginia in a recent, fascinating article “What Makes People Vote Republican?” speaks of “ingroup/loyalty” as one of five values which are particularly important to social conservatives who constitute the Republican party base. He describes it as one “involving mechanisms that evolved during the long human history of tribalism”. His formal dissertation confirms what is patent to any keen observing eye, that the “Hockey moms 4 Palin” phenomenon is an expression of partisan unity based on identity, not policy. It is the same reason for which sport fans celebrate while shouting “we won” without having set a foot on a playing field.

Loyalty based on identity rather than social and political issues can be observed on the Democrats’ side as well with Blacks united
behind Barack Obama and Women rallied behind Hillary Clinton when the two opposed each other in the Democratic primaries. They are both accomplished, brilliant and exceptional individuals however, who also happen to be one “a woman” and the other “a black man”. In light of their popularity among their respective fan camps - Palin’s addition to the McCain ticket glares flatly and transparently like a patch of worn out fabric. She is to rake in the votes of working women who struggle with raising children and sustaining a traditional family unit. She is the “everyman” heroine and the Republican party tool.