John McCain as the UAW
And the Democrats as the ever-caving GM and Ford
By Neil Stevens Posted in 2008 | Compromise | GM | John McCain | UAW — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I listened in to part of Senator John McCain's Blogger Call this morning, briefly taking on the role of the amateur reporter with the personal goal of searching for a reason to be content with the possibility that McCain could be the Republican nominee this year.
I intended to ask a question, actually, but he effectively answered me before I got a chance to ask. In discussing issues related to Michigan (as he was coming to us from Grand Rapids, making a run through the state before going next to South Carolina), he brought up an agreement the UAW recently made to cover long-term medical costs for its members. This is relevant because he said that in Washington, he intends to work with Democrats in the way the UAW and auto workers worked to solve that problem.
That's a deep answer, and is worth unpacking.
Read On...
As a long time opponent of the Senator, my first inclination is to take that statement as proof of everything I've disliked in his record as Senator. The conventional wisdom being that the UAW always gets what it wants, and the auto makers cave even when it costs them their ability to compete in the market.
I think there's more to it than that, though. A Republican President and a Democratic Congress in a sense have a relationship much like that of GM, Ford, and the UAW. Both sides have goals, those goals often conflict, and their relationship is reasonably modeled by the classic Prisoner's Dilemma of game theory, where cooperation benefits everyone more than antagonism, but if one side cooperates and the other antagonizes, the defector wins big, leading to a situation where everyone defects and is worse off.
UAW has exploited this well. Because it deals with more than one company, it negotiates with them all, and as soon as one is convinced to cooperate, it exploits that and forces the result onto the other employers. It has the advantage of unity, so it tends to win.
So in this sense, it is President McCain who would play the role of the UAW to the Senate's GM and the House's Ford. He being the sole voice of the executive branch can simultaneously negotiate and compromise with the Senate and the House, take the best of the two deals, and press the other house to accept the better deal! He'll still be compromising, and following the model that has served him well in getting his way in the Senate, but basic game theory will carry the day for him in a way that it can't for the divided team.
This analysis actually causes me to reconsider whether a McCain Presidency would split the party as much as I've long believed it would. He still has the problem of illegal immigration, and he addressed that in his call by emphasizing his endorsement by Governor Tom Ridge as being a man who is "committed to securing the borders." But we can survive a division on that issue, as proven by the fact that we already are split on that issue by President Bush, so I now believe that President McCain would not split us the way Senator McCain has, and so I no longer oppose his nomination.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | The McCain Blog Call — Comments (27) »
John McCain as the UAW 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
John McCain's version of negotiation is to give the other side whatever they want without getting anything in return.
How did Republicans benefit in any way from McCain-
Feingold. He gave away our fund raising advantage and our Constitutional Rights.
How did Republicans gain in anyway from the Gang of 14. He threw a bunch of good conservative judges under the bus to preserve an unconstitutional right to filibuster that was being abused by Democrats and has never been used by Republicans.
How did Republicans gain in anyway from the Kennedy-McCain Shamnesty. It was opposed by 80% of Republican Senators and an even higher percentage of the Republican base. Thank god it failed but how could that have in anyway been put in the Republican win column.
From the perspective of a Republican, John McCain is the worst negotiator anybody could imagine. It might be true that he would be in a good position to negotiate but what good is that when the person doing the negotiating is basically playing for the other team?
I see little about this analysis that is unique to John McCain. A weak, damaged an unpopular President Bush is already more or less using this strategy to dominate the Democrat controlled Congress. The difference between Bush and McCain is that Bush in most things is on our side whereas McCain is all too happy to jump into bed and fully adopt the liberal policies of Kennedy, Feingold and Dashle while getting nothing in return.
Regards,
Jack
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
To say they were is to say that McCain's desired position was the same as ours. McCain agreed to McCain-Feingold not because he was a strong First Amendment guy and caved in but because he was more "moderate" on the issue to begin with, leaving us witha compromise that was left-of-center (and it was a compromise - do you think that Feingold really wanted the legislation as written as opposed to strict limits on money and/or complete public financing?).
Same with Gang of 14 - McCain was not a believer in the nuclear option - so he didn't "cave." He didn't "give them everything" because he was already agreeing with them on half of it (by the way, I think that the outlook this year has to lead even the "haters" on this issue quiet - even if Democrats invoke the "nuclear option" to stop Republican filibusters of uber-liberals that a President Clinton or Obama might nominate - that is still egg on their faces. And in the short-term, we might need that filibuster in the next year or so).
Your problem here is not with John McCain's negotiation skills, it's with his underlying policy positions. Can you point out to me a policy where McCain is known to have a strong conservative position in which he sought to negotiate with liberals and wound up "caving?" I can't think of anything - where he has caved it has been on things where he wasn't totally "with us" in the first place - which as Neil points out, is not all that different from Bush (who wasn't "with us" on Part D, NCLB, immigration, etc.).
"Can you point out to me a policy where McCain is known to have a strong conservative position in which he sought to negotiate with liberals and wound up "caving?""
John McCain is known to be a strong fiscal conservative. Well at least half-way strong. He is terrible on tax cuts but he has always been a recognized and well regarded spending hawk. I think most everybody would agree that McCain is with us on spending and small government.
But then he got involved in the Kennedy-McCain Shamnesty bill and agreed to things that would have added billions or trillions of dollars of new spending to the Federal Budget. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation put the NET cost of McCain's shamnesty at $2.6 trillion dollars. That is a LOT of new spending.
Amnesty Will Cost U.S. Taxpayers at Least $2.6 Trillion
Despite McCain's well known conservative position on government spending it doesn't seem like Republicans came out to well in this negotiation.
"Your problem here is not with John McCain's negotiation skills, it's with his underlying policy positions."
I absolutely agree with this. For me, I see little value in having a Republican in the Whitehouse if more often than not he is playing for the other team. It does not matter if he is a good negotiator in a good negotiating position if his natural inclination is to give away the ship and get nothing in return.
As a long-time Arizonan, I can tell you that with McCain, you don't even know what side he will negotiate from.
This is the senator that voted against the Bush tax cuts, twice. The babble about spending cuts is pure, after-the-fact spin. He voted against Anwar and has now jumped on the global warming band wagon. I don't know that HE has settled on his position on the border and illegal immigration. That's the problem; maverick and spotlight grabber is more important than are his 'convictions', whatever they may be at the time.
Bottom line: McCain cannot be trusted. His ONLY strong, consistent position is on the GWOT. That is great but it is NOT ENOUGH. He is more glib than intelligent. He would be a HORRIBLE president.
It just dawned upon me that McCain's global warming pandering will no go over well in the swing voters of Michigan. It appears the consensus if for Romney to stay positive, but I think his camp should bring up this point just enough to give voters pause. Michigan is made for Romney. It's all about jobs there.
McCain may not split the party, but he would destroy it. You can see how a person would govern in the future by how they governed or voted in the past. When he voted for amnesty, he lost all chance of getting my vote, especially after he mnetioned the other day that he did not regret that vote! If we do not protect our borders, what country do we have. He was supported by the Carbon Coalition in NH, who lists at the top of their charter members, the Sierra Club! If he is the nominee and if he somehow wins. I see a 3rd party movement in '12 for a Conservative Party. And if he is the nominee, I cannot with a good conscience vote for him!
Hint: There is NO DAYLIGHT between Bush and McCain on the issues you list.
The administration's position is that global warming is happening and is caused by mankind, and Bush has been taking steps to reduce global carbon emissions, particularly working with China and India to give them cleaner coal tech.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Bush and McCain are night and day on that issue and it is critically important to the party. Remember where 41's failings on this issue left us in 1992?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
He said today that tax hikes are the last thing we need in a slowing economy, and that suggests to me he's now squarely on the side of defending President Bush's tax relief.
I just checked my notes. He said that lower taxes are important when the economy turns down. So that's even better.
So at least he knows what he has to say now that he's trying to win the nomination, but why should that have any credibility at all? Why support the renewal of tax cuts that you oppose? If the tax cuts were too big and benefited the rich too much, that's still true today. His position makes no sense.
He has much less credibility on taxes than when 41 was going around telling people to read his lips... and there were some warning signs there too.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
We don't have anybody who's never strayed on major issues, not even Fred Thompson and his BCRA support. At least McCain is saying the right thing now.
Does not involve carrying around global warming signs and telling people, just in the past few weeks, that you were right to vote against the tax cuts and would do it again.
McCain is #4 on my list for that reason. Neither Mitt, Rudy, nor Fred are out on the campaign trail telling people the Bush tax cuts were a bad idea. Heck, even Huck isn't doing that. Taxes aren't just an issue you can be wrong on like immigration or energy policy... they are consistently one of the top few issues to the party and to the public in general. We ignore that at our own peril.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"If we do not protect our borders, what country do we have"
Like many others, you equate what happens with illegals with border security. That is the same "comprehensive" mindset that is so widely reviled.
Border security and what to do with illegal aliens are two related issues, they are not one issue.
absentee
Thompson | McCain | Romney | Giuliani
http://colecurtis-colecurtis.blogspot.com
You are a bunch of complainers and there is no pleasing any of you. The next time you want to say something negative about someone complaining and whining you may need to look in the mirror. What Have You Done Today to Make You Feel Proud? Senator McCain has done sevred his country and is still contributing what are all of you doing besides sitting on this blogsite complaining and whining about what ain't going right in your world? Check this out:
http://mccain08olc.blogspot.com/2008/01/mccain-pridethe-new-video.html
I took the trouble to join on his Blogger Call, listened to a lot of what he said, and wrote this piece making the case for why I no longer oppose the man as President. Is there no pleasing you?
and I am getting all sorts of flack for not making him my #1 choice. People are forgetting the purpose of a primary.
I may retract my acceptance of McCain just to raise some blood pressure.
I'm guessing this is a "reply to this" problem. We have a lot of new readers and commenters right now.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
So what!
I'm grateful for John McCain's military service and much less grateful for his political service which in my estimation has been mainly self-serving in his quest to win the Presidency.
He has taken positions that have hurt his party and which have betrayed the Constitution that he swore to defend and which have therefore hurt the country. All, it seems to me, so that he could portray himself as a maverick and to garner headlines that would propel him to Presidential Power.
I'm grateful for McCain's military service but I would not vote for him for dog catcher.
That just a rude and foolish broadside, pal. A WHOLE BUNCH of RedStaters have served in the military, and some have been under fire. And thene there's Jeff, who has his own category.
And likewise many of us are contributing to a better United States in ways you know nothing about.
And finally, EVERY MOTHER-GRABBING ONE OF US are paying taxes, and in conficscatory amounts.
Wanna see the useless whiner? Go look above your bathroom sink.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
McCain against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.
McCain for McCain-Feingold and limiting free speech.
McCain for human embryo stem cell research.
McCain thinks pharmaceutical companies are bad guys - voted for Sarbanes-Oxley that is hurting small business.
McCain is against repealing the death tax.
McCain supports forced government regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.
McCain voted against drilling in Anwar.
McCain would raise social security taxes.
McCain would allow invaders [illegal immigrants] to stay indefinitely after [haha] paying a fine, BUT don't you dare call it amnesty!
McCain would rather thousands [millions with a nuke] of Americans die than pour water up a terrorists nose for thirty seconds - something all SEALS go through as part of their training.
McCain thinks being chummy and cooperating with Ted Kennedy is cool. Perhaps Ted can provide a list of Supreme nominees.
Sometimes a statement is only a string of words that sounds good together at the time....
I don't think Mccain had any deeper meaning than to use a 'local' example when referencing negotiating with the dems. He's just not that sharp of an off-the-cuff speaker (not meant is a derogatory way).
Other than the war with radical islam, there is little to nothing, Conservative-wise, that would be advanced with a Mccain presidency.
I would like to see a comparison of positions on major issues that separate either obama or mrs.clinton and John Mccain. I am serious - on what substantive issues does Mccain differentiate himself from the dems?
Just to jump start it, here's a few topics:
Taxes increases
Domestic oil production
Global whining warming
Border security
Illegals/Amnesty
Gitmo
Terrorist's rights
Judical nominations
Tort reform
Social Security reform
I'll be waiting over there for any mccainiac's response......
nt