Policy on the margins matters
Not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good
By Kevin Holtsberry Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Energy Policy | John McCain — Comments (24) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Everyday seems to bring another article on how McCain has not unified the base; how conservatives haven't warmed to his campaign. Conservative leaders and disgruntled activists alike seem intent on feeding this media story line. And I have heard many conservatives speak as if this election offers no real choice; that both candidates are liberals so a pox on them both.
Now, I don't have a problem with intelligent criticism or defending conservative ideas and policies in the public square. But much of this animus against McCain is shortsighted and counter productive. I want to stress that much of it is well intentioned. That there are a lot of honorable and intelligent people who have major issues with McCain and often for good reason.
But in a cycle where the game is tilted so far to the left, and where the GOP has been beat to a pulp in the media, now is not the time to forget that policy is often made on the margins and that center-right is better than far left.
A Wall Street Journal article on energy policy highlights this point. To see how read below.
Here is the key section of a WSJ article on how Obama and McCain approach energy policy (emphasis mine):
Sen. McCain's and Sen. Obama's goals may sound similar, but the candidates would pursue drastically different paths to achieve them. Those differences are coming into sharper focus, with the end of the contentious Democratic nomination battle and the surge in oil prices, which on Friday shot up nearly $11 a barrel.
Sen. Obama is pushing a bigger government role in fostering the development of technologies to reduce emissions and alternatives to fossil fuels. Sen. McCain, meanwhile, argues for a more hands-off approach, saying "unintended consequences" can result from wrongheaded interference in the marketplace.
For example, while Sen. McCain says he favors an effort to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, his voting record shows a reluctance to support mandates, tax credits and other policies often touted by other politicians, including Sen. Obama, as ways to spur greater use of alternative energies and energy efficiency.
Sen. McCain argues that many of the steps are little more than subsidies that enrich special interests. He has long called for scrapping the federal ethanol tax credit, saying America's corn-ethanol industry can and should stand on its own. He has also voted against requiring electric utilities to boost their use of renewable energy sources, preferring to let cities and states set their own targets for renewable energy.
At a roundtable with business leaders in Washington state last month, Sen. McCain expressed reluctance to support government incentives such as tax credits for wind and solar energy. He compared his stance on the matter to his position on corn ethanol. "I'm a little wary -- I have to give you straight talk -- about government subsidies," he said. "When government jumps in and distorts the market, then there's unintended consequences as well as intended."
Sen. Obama has no such compunction about using the government's means to achieve his ends on energy and climate change. He says the U.S. doesn't do enough to move promising but risky clean-energy technologies from the research lab to the marketplace.
He's promising to invest $150 billion over the next decade in alternative fuels such as cellulosic ethanol that can be made from materials such as switchgrass and wood chips. He'd push a requirement that the U.S. by 2025 get at least 25% of its electricity from renewable sources like the wind, the sun and geothermal energy (which together currently account for less than 1% of U.S. electricity supply).
Sen. Obama is also framing the climate-change debate in more explicit language than Sen. McCain. "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees [Fahrenheit] at all times and then just expect that every other country's going to say OK. That's not -- that's not leadership," he told a crowd in Portland, Oregon, last month.
One candidate is for bigger government, more subsidies, and for less freedom and less flexibility for voters and businesses alike. The other candidate prefers market forces, less government intervention, opposes subsidies that warp the market, and prefers to give voters more choices to solve their problems. Please explain to me why this isn't an important difference.
I'm not arguing that McCain is a true blue libertarian or supply sider or fiscal conservative or whatever term you prefer. I am saying we have a candidate who is center-right and we have one that is left-left; one that wants more government and one who wants less.
This is a real difference and one that will have real consequences. Obama is a leftist who believes that government is the solution to every problem and that Americans need to make do with less so other countries don't hate us so much. How much harm could he do with a Democratic congress should be get elected? A great deal.
John McCain may not be perfect, but harping on his views on global warming doesn't change the fact that he is light years better than Obama on critical issue after critical issue when it comes to energy policy.
Either John McCain or Barack Obama will be president. That is the choice. Spin it, however, you want. I think that choice fores us to think strategically about who we support. And I think it is a mistake to allow a committed leftist to gain power because his center-right opponent isn't ideologically pure enough.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Oh, sure, *now* the Netroots care about anti-Semitism in Tennessee. — Comments (1) »
Policy on the margins matters 24 Comments (0 topical, 24 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Just to play devil's advocate. It is not at all clear to many of us that the difference between a McCain presidency with Democrat control of the congress will be all that much different than an Obama presidency with the minority party actually opposing him.
It is also not at all clear that the long run goals of less government will be furthered. A good case can be made that you are only delaying the inevitable since the Democrats get their way and republicans continue to be blamed for everything bad, so you end up with more socialism, and a Democrat in the white house in four years anyway.
There is far more to it than just being thin skinned. So get off of your hobby horse.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I don't share the anger and vitriol of the comment I think you are repling to, but if you have an argument for how letting a committed leftist win is better than electing a conservative with some centrist tendencies I would love to hear it.
Policy is mostly made on the margins. Obama starts far left and McCain starts center-right. How does having Obama in the White House help conservatives?
----------------
Kevin Holtsberry
www.shnblog.com
I'am saying that the scenarios might be pretty close to the same thing. Look, I agree that if circumstances were different, if we had a Republican control of even one house of congress, or if we had not had eight years of Bush. Then it would make infinite sense to elect McCain.
But one thing is certain, none of us can predict the future. I think that the People (in this case meaning all the Democrats, almost all independents and a sizable minority of republicans) want a real change in direction. Now, because we have a two party system this means they are going to vote for Democrats.
The biggest fallacy in democratic systems is the belief that you can successfully keep the their side, and their ideas out of powere forever. You cannot. The republicans have had their chance and they pretty much blew it.
There is much to be said for the idea that the people should get what they want. Because the memories of people are short and they sometimes need to learn the hard way.
If you get a goo dose of socialism and all the ills that come with it, then there is a good chance that the people will throw them out and swing back to conservatism.
But what if the water is muddied? Then you get a liberal congress and a centrist republican president. So you still get some liberal policies, and the economy still tanks, but not as much. And then people still want change, so four years later they elect a Democrat. Then all you get is more liberalism, for a longer period of time.
It is like peeling the bandaid off slowly instead of all at once.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I'm going to post this because it can't be said or stated enough - Bush didn't blow it, the GOP did.
In 2005 the Republicans had a golden opportunity to come through on one of the biggest issues that the party base cared about, judges.
President Bush worked hard to get more GOP senators elected in 2002 and 2004, and what did he get for it? McCain, Graham, DeWine and others went into a back room and capitulated on an issue that we could have won on had it been but for a little backbone on the senate leadership's part.
You may not believe it, but that was the day in June 2005 when the GOP lost control of both houses of Congress. I personally know people who quit supporting the Republicans because of that sellout. When the Amnesty Bill came up and some of the same people - McCain and Graham specifically - attacked loyal supporters of the party and they also packed it in and left. I was among them.
The bottom line? You can't expect people to vote for you if all you want to do is run ON an issue and not support DOING something about it when you can.
You can't make a logical argument for SocCons and others to vote for McCain when he has gone out of his way to betray us.
One last thing, McCain won't win points from those he needs to re-energize if he keeps attacking President Bush. I'm tired and sick of it. Never has a principled man like Bush had to put up with so much back-stabbing by petty people who don't act like leaders. Bush did what he was supposed to, the U.S. Senate did not on the judges issue. That's a fact.
They ran and hid like the wusses they are as soon as the "Bush Sucks!" narrative took hold in the media and in the general public. If they would have defended him from the beginning the whole brand wouldn't be in the SNAFU they are in now.
The fallacy of your argument is here:
It is not at all clear to many of us that the difference between a McCain presidency with Democrat control of the congress will be all that much different than an Obama presidency with the minority party actually opposing him.
The difference should be clear. A far-left Democrat running an unfettered far-left Congress is going to be infinitely more dangerous and less responsive to the people than will a "moderate" Republican and a far-left Congress.
Do you think the far-left Congress would have responded as well to the illegal immigration revolt with an Obama in the White House as did the same (although less strong) group last summer with Bush in the O Office? True, it's not that simple, but it was part of the equation.
Why do you think the minority party will be less powerful under McCain than it was under Bush? Why would it be less inclined to oppose McCain than it was to oppose Bush when it was appropriate? It will certainly be less powerful under Obama, especially since the Senate seems to have amended the filibuster process out of existence. And it will have zero ability to amend Obama's ideas before they hit the floor of Congress. At least McCain might be more inclined to listen, contrary to the accepted wisdom about him.
Do you not believe that an Obama Presidency over the last few years would have meant premature withdrawal from Iraq and probably Afghanistan, and not in victory, either? Who would have held the final line against Murtha and Reid and Pelosi and the other cut-and-runners? Even though Bush didn't have to veto that kind of bill, the threat that he'd bash Congress about every cut-and-run type proposal was enough to keep them from trying one.
If we were talking about a Hillary Administration, I wouldn't be so down on the "Let the Democrats take the blame for four years of misery" concept. Hillary and Bill are too concerned about their "legacy" to completely trash foreign policy and the county with it. But we're talking about Obama, a far leftist, someone whom we know very little about, someone who grew up far from the mainstream of America, someone who is "friendly" with an admitted terrorist family, someone whose campaign workers have a poster of Che Guevara on the office wall, someone who is apparently clueless when it comes to dealing with people who are truly our ENEMIES. There is no telling just what he might believe is OK.
It really is a chance we shouldn't take just because we want to make a point.
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
I am not trying to make a point, and I am not in a state of pique. Nor am I swayed by your doomsday fear speech.
If the public will support putting a marxist in office, then they deserve some marxism. It might not be POSSIBLE to keep people from hurting themselves. You, and others seem to think that if we can just elect McCain, then all our problems are solved.
Such is not the case. What I am trying to get across is that the people are stupid, uninvolved, and most are too young to remember what left wing policies are like. It might be better to get this over with fast instead of a lingering death.
My scenario of a very left wing oriented and short lived McCain administration, followed by a democrat is a very real possibility and born out by a quick study of history.
That is all I am saying. It is not a slam dunk that we should support McCain. Like I said before I might vote for him but it all depends on his VP pick, both because of his age, and the reality that he might not win, and the VP pick becomes the heir apparent.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Not necessary to shout. You write well and clearly. I understood what you said. I took issue with one specific statement, the statement that there might not be much difference between a McCainistration and an Obamanation. My entire comment was an exposition to logically contradict that statement, complete with examples and mental experiments. There was no doomsday fear speech, unless you call my final sentence a speech:
"It really is a chance we shouldn't take just because we want to make a point."
But my final sentence was directed more generally at those who seem to think that the American people will find Conservatism after two to four years of an Obamanation, with little damage having been done to the country in the meantime; that by ignoring the McCain campaign they will teach the Republican Party a lesson about how much it needs Conservatives. You didn't say that at all in Comment #2. Others have implied as much, however, and you were caught in the crossfire. But that sentence still stands as my opinion.
As for making a point--surely you were making some point, or there would have been no reason to write. Ordinarily, acting as devil's advocate entails affirming a proposition with which you don't actually agree in order to illustrate a point. You seem to firmly agree with what you wrote. Wasn't it your point that there isn't much difference between Obama and McCain, at least regarding its effect on the country? That there might be benefits to electing Obama that aren't outweighed by the drawbacks? That we're going to end up with a Democrat President and Congress eventually, anyway?
In this current comment, I don't dispute anything that you say is fact or your opinion. I do dispute your characterization of what I wrote. Nothing in my comment could reasonably be construed as saying or implying that "if we can just elect McCain, then all our problems are solved." I wouldn't say that, because I don't believe it.
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
It has been difficult for me to make the fine point which I have been making without several people just accusing me of being all in a snit on account of McCain and wanting to take my ball and go home.
My doomsday scenario is one which I really fear. Right now I am on the fence to support McCain or not, but arguments like the one I originally responded to are not likely to sway me or anyone else for that matter.
Your own point is a good one. Things won't be the same beteween McCain and Obama, my fear is we will get both McCain and then Obama or some other odious liberal.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
we would also not be getting an Obama plan on energy. With a Democratic Congress, the chances are better that McCain would use the veto pen than Obama. McCain would continue the current surge strategy in Iraq, and Obama would gut it. McCain would appoint judges in the mold of Roberts and Alito, and Obama would appoint Ginsburgs and Stevens's. Your contentions truly make no sense to me.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
I absolutely have to pay the taxes that an Obama presidency will bring. Whether it's windfall taxes, capital gains, I don't care. I don't need a 4 year lesson in why higher taxes are bad.
I don't have a hobby horse. I think it's weak to think a taste of socialism is necessary to appreciate freedom. I don't think free capitalism is only good when compared to a socialist nightmare. It's better than anything. So regardless of whether McCain is a moderate, in 4 years a true freedom-loving candidate could enunciate how much better it would be to be even more free, not how to fix a bunch of problems we ourselves asked for with Obama. If you think you need Carter to get Reagan, you don't really believe in Reagan's ideas.
I also think it's unrealistic to imagine we'll just roll back the problems an Obama presidency would bring in. Judges take forever. Laws are not that often reprealed.
As for thin-skinned-ness, I am specifically referring to the North Carolina Republican Party and the kerfuffle over those ads and the 'out-of-the-mainstream' comment, but it applies in general. I don't personally care if John McCain says my my wife is a whore-- he's not my friend, he's not an idol, and he knows nothing about me personally. He, to me, is a set of priciples, and those principles align with mine enough to earn my vote. His character matters in that I believe he is honest, and that I can trust what I believe he will do. I listen to probably too much talk radio, but between Ingraham and Hannity and Rush it's just getting old hearing every speech parsed for some personal slight. Not a policy issue but just feelings of disrespect. Feelings. Oh, man.
Anyway, I know you're playing devil's advocate, and I'm sure I sound more strident than I really intend. But I cannot be strident enough when I say:
Whether you are conservative or socialist, I AM NOT WILLING TO PAY MORE TAXES TO ADVANCE WHAT YOU SEE AS YOUR GOALS. Conservatives think 4-8 years of a doubled capital gains tax is worth it to wake people up? Great, send me a check to cover mine, I already learned my freedom lessons, spare me yours. I have to live through and pay for those years. Wake people up by leading by example, not by capitulating and hoping for a different future. Like Demint, like Coburn, like Kyl, like Shadegg. Please.
Mark my words, the probability is very very high that we get a McCain who will wreck the economy with cap and trade, and fight constantly with the congress over foreign policy. He will get no good judges through because they wont let him.
Everything will be blamed on the Republicans and it will be called Bush's third term.
Then we end up with a democrat anyway.
By the way YES you do have to have a Carter before you can get a Reagan, if you believe he would have ever been elected if things had not been so bad, you are not correct at all.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Far be it from me to defend those with serious concerns about social issues - they do well themselves, but to lump ME into their group, welll.....thank you!
Respect, please, the idea that some people have been so fed up with the status quo that to take one more bite is to choke on our own vomit.
This is the man that wants to protect us, by leaving 20 million illegals wander around our country?
This is the man that wants to limit government, by taxing production?
This is the man that wants judges to adhere to conservative principles - when he himself offers no such assurances FOR HIMSELF?
Sorry. I have seen the promised land and I think I prefer the desert.
Member, American Conservative Party
My first choice was not John McCain it was FDT, but I will guarantee you come election day I will be pulling the lever for John McCain.
I may not agree with him on some things, but I know that the alternative(Obama)is very dangerous to this country and I will not be a part of getting him elected.
The main reason why evangelical conservatives don't like McCain is that he dissed them personally. He called them "agents of intolerance" once. McCain rarely even mentions his Christian faith in his speeches. That doesn't compare well with born-again Christian Bush, or with pastor Huckabee. It's disquieting symbolism for conservatives, like Obama's refusing to wear a flag pin.
And McCain sponsored the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation. For most Americans, McCain-Feingold doesn't even show up on the radar screen as an issue this year. But pro-life activists considered it a restriction on the kinds of political activities they could do. McCain-Feingold is for social conservatives what the PATRIOT Act is for liberals--they suspect it's a threat aimed at them.
Conservatives are used to being schmoozed by the GOP nominee for President. That's because for over 20 years, there were enough registered Republicans that elections could be won by turning out the GOP base. McCain is the first GOP candidate to have to deal with a GOP base that has shrunk to the point that turnout won't win the election for him. Hence he's forced to reach out to voters beyond the base--and the base feels left out.
It's not that the GOP is "moving to the left" or has "abandoned conservatism" or "gone squishy." It's that we are reverting to the days before 1980, when there were far fewer registered Republicans than Democrats. So a Republican can only be elected President who has appeal way beyond the GOP base. Eisenhower and Nixon could not have been elected following the Karl Rove playbook.
Looking back on it, would we be better off if Nixon had not been elected? Who knows, certainly he was not a good president, and a disaster for the republican party and for conservatism.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Although I agree in principle with your point, there is no right-of-center candidate in this race.
On issues of importance to traditionally reliable GOP voters - Social Conservatives - McCain has made no efforts at reproachment or reconcilliation.
There are those here (some that have posted in response already), who marginalize or ridicule SocCons and post things like "go ahead and stay home in November, we don't want you anyway." I fail to see how this rhetoric helps McCain.
I'm not planning on voting for McCain and have been attacked routinely for stating so on RS. Each time I'm attacked, the attackers accuse me of helping elect Obama and tell me I'm not a 'true' conservative. This is an oxy-moronic and ironic comparison coming from those who support a man who has taken great pride in giving SocCons the middle finger on judges, free political speech, supporting his President and radical, monolithic enviromentalism.
I will state as I've stated in many previous posts. McCain is responsible for getting people to vote FOR him and I owe him nothing just because he's the GOP nominee. The sooner he and his supporters get that, the better.
Regardless of McCain, I will vote for true Conservative Republicans in November as I've never missed a vote. Maybe between now and then I will hear some concillatory words or gestures from McCain that might make me rethink my blood oath to never vote for him. Perhaps selecting a solid SocCon as his VP would win my vote.
Perhaps.
The rest depends on Mr. McCain.
Haley, waitaminute.
"On issues of importance to traditionally reliable GOP voters - Social Conservatives - McCain has made no efforts at reproachment or reconcilliation.... has taken great pride in giving SocCons the middle finger on judges"
Does not the promise to nominate Justices like Roberts and Alito constitute a reconciliation and outreach to Social Conservatives?
I consider my self a "true Conservative," but I imagine you and I are on opposite sides of the stem cell research debate.
McCain is wrong on some of his environmental statements, and wrong on McCain-Feingold (so were FDT and some other conservatives). Whether he was wrong in his support (or lack thereof) for President Bush I think depends on just which instance you want to bring up. McCain has generally voted with the majority of Republicans, and I'm sure there are statistics available to spin that any way you want to.
You're giving yourself away as a single-range-of-issues voter--Social Conservatism. You don't mention his shortcomings in the area of national defense, or fiscal responsibility, or even tax policy.
Let me point out something. For eight years under George W. Bush Republicans have had to fight the battles he picked, and aside from the GWOT, the biggest battlefront has been fought on behalf of Social Conservatives. Stem cell research debates, faith-based initiatives, promotion of abstinence-based plans for personal behavior. Meanwhile, the FisCons have been in great part ignored: Medicare prescriptions--No vetoes of pork-laden spending bills--A half-hearted attempt at Social Security reform.
Specifically, if the SoCons aren't getting just what they want in John McCain, I just say "Welcome to the club." The FisCon leg of the party has been limping along without much help for the last eight years. McCain may be an improvement for us.
If you don't like McCain, fine, don't vote for him. He was just about my last choice, too, just ahead of Huckabee. I'd like him to see the light on immigration, and on drilling for oil here and now, and on "global warming," and a few other lesser problems. But I have no doubt that either he or Obama will be the next President, and he's far superior to Obama.
I know exactly what I'd like to see changed in McCain, and exactly what I'd like to hear him say. What, exactly, do you want him to say or do that would constitute "some concillatory words or gestures from McCain that might make (you rethink your) blood oath to never vote for him"?
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
The free exchange of ideas inevitably yields both heat and light.
Here Here.
While McCain might not have been my first, second, or third choice, he is my choice now.
You can take each and every issue and for the most part McCain will fall center right, while Obama is Far Far Left, Which is better?
While McCain has his problems with the evangelical conservatives, they should see he'll be much better for their cause then Barack "Babies are a Burden" Obama. McCain may fight with you, but he'll push the right people we need into the SCOTUS.
McCain will try to bring back as much of a small government as he can, while Obama will, tax, give away, tax, pocket, tax, throw a party.
The last reason we all should rally behind McCain is the idea that people vote tickets. New Jersey, 1952, Dwight Eisenhow running for President. People here voted Republican, not only for President, but for every position. If people still go into a booth with that mindset, then maybe we can change some seats over where we need them.
If we attack our new party leader, we damn not only him, but our party and ourselves.
Voting for the Sexy(Pres) - Sexy(VP) Dream Ticket
Jindal/Palin 2012
I see a thread full of what I call "sledgehammer unity". If you don't submit to the will of the party and vote for the annointed one then you aren't a true believer.
I find it interesting that the base of both parties don't like the nominee.
I find that there are worse things than losing elections.
Reaching out, making conciliatory gestures, blah blah blah. What is McCain running for, Diaper Changer General? This is exactly what I'm referring to. I bet I'd totally dislike the guy personally. I bet he'd say I'm out of the mainstream. WHO CARES?
Again, the guy is openly pro-life and openly anti-gay-marriage. On Ellen's own show, to boot.
If I was voting for Fuzzy-Blanket-in-Chief I would probably not vote McCain. Hopefully by November people will remember we're voting for President.
Reality is either McCain or Obama will be our next president. Like most, McCain was not my first choice - however, the choice is now between McCain & Obama. For me, there is no difficulty choosing. I'm only 41 & have seen the damage a Democrat/left president can do in 4 & 2 years. McCain is with me more than he's not, & a heckuva lot more than Obama. If McCain comes out with something I feel is wrong, I'll oppose it vigorously - as I have with President Bush. I will support him on things with which I agree. McCain is exponentially a better choice for president of the US.
'Center-right is better than far left.'
It's not just better-- it's the difference between Europe and the US. It's not even close. To sit out this election is to admit you're a child, unwilling to play by the rules once you don't enjoy the game anymore.
Primaries are OVER. That was the time to find a 'true' conservative. Now is the time to survive.
As for social conservatives-- if you can't get off your rear and vote for an openly pro-life and anti-gay-marriage candidate then just stay home for good. Nobody needs your thin-skinned feigned righteous indignation at every perceived McCain slight. Man, it's old.
As for me, taxes and judges are more than enough for me to vote for, contribute to, and work toward a McCain victory. The guy is honest, I do not expect to be blindsided by as far left a turn as Bush made, and that's that.
Obama is unacceptable. There is no 'moral' defeat. Let's win.