McCain, no doubt, would have preferred a huge margin of victory. Some will contend this is proof positive of something — his weakness in the South or with conservatives or with people who listen to talk radio. But realistically he is on track to win the nomination and should not take the bait, redesign his persona and run hard right. If he did, he would lose his “straight talk” image and do damage to his general election prospects. What he could do is what he began at CPAC: begin to draw contrasts between himself and the Democrats. There is plenty of material (e.g. Iraq, FISA, taxes) which he can talk more forcefully about, explaining both to conservatives and the average, middle of the road voter what a vast difference there is between the two parties. That, rather than running right or getting into any day-to-day battle with Huckabee would, it seems, be useful at this stage in the game.
Contentions
One Response to “McCain’s Options”
May 2013
-
Articles
-
"My Negro Problem-and Ours" at 50
Norman Podhoretz -
Gay Marriage, the Court, and Federalism
Tara Helfman -
The Spirit of '75?
Algis ValiunasAn audacious, and wrong, argument about the American Revolution.
Fiction
-
Onto a Good Thing
Joseph Epstein
Politics & Ideas
-
The Bureaucrat-Driven Life
Heather Wilhelm -
The Making of an Education Reformer
Sohrab Ahmari -
Bork's Watergate
James Rosen -
Dear Prudence
Paul O. Carrese -
Whose Accomplishments?
Mona Charen
Culture & Civilization
-
The Parenting Trap
Dana Mack -
George Saunders, Anti-Minimalist
Fernanda Moore -
A Chekhov in Training
Terry Teachout -
What Ailes the Liberal Media?
Andrew Ferguson
John Podhoretz
-
Taking Obama's Foreign Policy Seriously
John Podhoretz
Threat Assessment
-
More Genocide Threats from Iran
Jonathan S. Tobin
Letters
-
Denying Jewish Peoplehood-and Reality
Our ReadersResponses to Robert S. Wistrich's "The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism"
-
Gun Laws, Crime, and Freedom
Our ReadersResponses to Benjamin Domenech's "The Truth About Mass Shootings and Gun Control"
-
Don't Confuse Principle and Pose
Our ReadersResponses to Matthew Continetti's "Poseur Politics in the Era of Obama"
-
Jews and Sports
Our Readers
Enter Laughing
-
Get Our Free Newsletter
Except for the specific area of free trade, exactly what “interdependence” means in the minds of the incoming administration can be understood by checking out the two essays below:
The Hudson Institute
October 4, 2006
The Enablers Of Transnational Progressivism
Is the Nation-State Threatened?
By John Fonte
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=4232&pubType=HI_Reports
——————–
The Hudson Institute
May 14, 2008
Global Governance vs. the Liberal Democratic Nation-State: What Is the Best Regime?
By John Fonte
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=5599&pubType=HI_Reports
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/01/this-is-a-genuine-ie-not-a-modest-proposal-walt-and-mearsheimer-were-successful-because-of-aipac-everyone-knows-about.html
aipac inviting walt and mearsheimer to it’s spring policy conference?
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Excellent post, Abe. The Obama change is fully revealed. Coddle the democracy with the same messianic language that won the campaign, (all global problems will melt away, the oceans will heal, and everyone will be post-whatever they used to believe) while adhering to the principles of the previous administration they tarred and feathered.
Its the strangest cognitive dissonance I have seen from a political party in charge of governing. Shabbati Tzvi redemption language as a cover for the continuation of the detested Bush doctrine. very weird.
Ultimate Fakism, as you correctly coined.
Yep, good summary. And again, when military force IS used in this climate of Fakism, the basic operational premise is punch-pulling, and the results range from extended and ineffective deployments that distort local conditions around the globe, to opportune attacks on US soldiers, whose military purpose is to sit there and take it.
JE Dyer, excellent point. Its the underlying philosophy of the UN. Sit there and take it. In practice, sit until violence erupts and evacuate.
“Smart power” at its root is power in the hands of smart people, like Obama and Hillary. The demonstrable stupidity of Bush, Condi, Feith, Tenet & Co. has cost our country and the world dearly.
Bruce Reed in Slate
“While it will be nice to have another Great Communicator as president, we need a Grand Bargainer even more. Down the road, on every domestic front, a grand and necessary bargain is waiting to happen. Obama has already identified quite a few: paying teachers more in return for measuring performance; expanding access to health care in return for reforms and innovations that hold costs down; increasing energy efficiency and alternatives in return for making sure energy reflects the costs and consequences of carbon emissions; opening college to all in return for asking them to earn their way through it with work or service; passing a rescue package that keeps the financial system sound in return for overhauling financial oversight and regulation; and promoting an economic recovery plan that helps create millions of jobs in return for new transparency in how the money is spent and new accountability for results.”
According to Reed, the above represents the pragmatism of Obama. Why does this sort of “pragmatism” appear to be part and parcel of the Hope and Change mantra from the campaign. Mouthing the words will not make things happen. Are these ‘just words, just words?’
I’ve read William James and this is not the pragmatism of William James. It’s like Hillary taking the traditional methods of diplomacy and making them – abbracadabra – the new and improved “Smart Power.” Yes, ‘just words, just words.’
Nice to know that Commentary is against faking it. Not that, say, Commentary objects to Bernie Madoff’s faking it. The chronicler of Jewish culture and life in America doesn’t seem to think that a $50 billion fraud deserves any mention. I guess that sort of faking it is perfectly okay with the Podhoretz family. Hmm. I (don’t) wonder why.
Then there is Commentary’s neocon tool, the outgoing president, who faked his way into a devastating war. Hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of refugees and a trillion dollars later, Commentary doesn’t have a problem with that sort of fake. Why? Because, like Israel, Commentary has become somewhat enamored of death, suffering, blood, and torture, as long as untermenchen are the victims.
Faking it, you say. Interesting choice of words.
Hillary’s hair colour is perfect.
#9 whaddya saying? Is Bernie Jewish? Noooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhh!
“These fakists have settled on a language to use in public and this is it. Global, interconnected, diplomatic, sustainable, endurable, smart, multilateral, non-ideological. You know — Obamese. The biggest change Barack Obama has brought to American politics is linguistic. Leaders are now required to create cuddly, meaningless word salads while continuing the implementation of aggressive policies.”
To be overly charitable, this *is* the post-modern, deconstructionist solution. They really do seem to believe in the power of language to dictate reality, and why not it has proven a very successful approach in the domestic culture wars. The fatal flaw in this approach is that it assumes a leverage over international actors that relies on a common moral baseline which simply doesn’t exist. The new foreign policy being sold is based on the notion that bad actors can be shamed into changing their behavior. But our enemies have no shame . . . which is something it appears some of us are only going to learn the hard way.
#9
trolling…trolling…trolling on a river!
“Trolling” is Internet-ese for “stop, I can’t handle it!”
ooooh, Hartland, smart retort. Wow. ShamWow! It must be 1:36 out your way. Insomniac, schumck?
#13 – working for the man every night and day, but I never lost a minute of sleepin, writin’ all my nonsense on the Commentary page! big wheel keep on turnin’!