The Fantasy-World McCain Presidency
Ramesh asks
I wonder what would have happened if McCain had won the nomination in 2000. I think he would probably have won the general election. He wouldn’t have cut taxes as much as Bush, but he would have prosecuted the Iraq war better and left the Republican party in better shape. Would he have nominated judges of the caliber of John Roberts and Samuel Alito? I’m not sure.
Perhaps it’s obvious that I’m a McCain admirer. I think the world would be a far better place had McCain defeated Bush in 2000. I also think, contra Matt, that McCain is not a reflexive hawk. My sense is that he would have sought regime change in Iraq, but that he’d be far more responsive to arguments for restraint stemming from questions of preparedness and the extent of the coalition. Our failure to adequately reassure the Turks, for example, had obviously negative consequences for our ability to control Iraq. As someone deeply informed on military and, yes, diplomatic matters, McCain wouldn’t have behaved so cavalierly. Perhaps this is wishful thinking on my part, as McCain certainly has a longstanding reputation as a short-fused loon.
Because of McCain’s reform orientation, perhaps his tax cuts would have taken the form of coalition-expanding tax reform. Kevin Hassett is hardly a Bolshevik, and he was McCain’s chief economic advisor. As for the judicial nominees question, I always imagine that McCain would have nominated someone like Luttig. (Silberman is too old.) But who knows? I can also imagine him nominating a Maureen Mahoney, the better to preserve bipartisan comity. And imagine the stars that would have emerged during a McCain presidency, the talented younger Republicans who would have come to the fore and the Democratic defectors. Some McCain Democrats would surely have become McCain Republicans. Candidate recruitment at all levels might have been stronger, thanks to the broader partisan realignment, the McCain majority, that Brooks and Kristol imagined in 2000. Granted, it is just as easy to imagine a Republican base that would remain fiercely antagonistic towards McCain’s efforts, which may have led to intraparty strife — or the marginalization of the most recalcitrant elements of the base. (Hurray!)
In Comeback, David Frum offers another scenario: Gore defeats Bush in 2000 (or rather, Gore defeats Bush indisputably) and Giuliani defeats Gore in 2004. This suggests a fascinating alternate history, in which a very different post-Reaganite Republican party emerges. Untainted by Bush’s incompetence, a Giuliani-led party in 2004 could’ve been pan-ethnic, pro-market, forward-looking. Or it could have been something far less pleasant.
McCain was pretty eager to invade Iraq in 1998. Deposing Saddam Hussein would have been on the agenda from the beginning in a 2000-era McCain Administration.
On the other hand, he faulted Bush (or, more properly, Rumsfeld) from the beginning for their terrible planning for the war.
So the question becomes: how would McCain have reacted to General Shinseki telling him we’d need 400,000 troops to do the war properly – and to his head of the Joint Chiefs telling him that they didn’t have those troops to spare? And how would he have treated the “intelligence” being peddled by the INC?
But you can go back further. Would 9-11 have even happened if the incoming foreign policy team have paid more attention to terrorism? Would McCain’s team have paid more attention to terrorism? Who knows?
It’s very hard to play this game of counterfactual as anything but just that: a game. The question before us now is: what would a McCain Administration for the next four years look like? How much do we have to worry about his hawkisness and his reckless temper were he to be conducting American foreign policy?
In that regard, I will say this about the Senator: every person I’ve heard of him going off on half-cocked – and there’ve been a bunch of them – has been a United States citizen.
— Noah Millman · Jan 2, 10:25 PM · #
The fantasy of a McCain presidency 00-08 is something I think about practically every day.
I for one don’t think that he would have started the Iraq War. This may be my French perspective, but it just never made sense. More importantly, I don’t think someone with his Vietnam experience or his interest in history could have seriously thought that regime change in a country like Iraq would have resulted in anything other than a long and painful counter-insurgency.
As far as his seeking tax cuts in the form of a broader reform is concerned, it sounds a little like wishful thinking. But it certainly sounds good.
And as far as turning McCain Democrats into McCain Republicans, well, I always thought of McCain as a sort of American Sarkozy… Or the other way around.
— PEG · Jan 2, 10:54 PM · #
It’s worth noting that calls for regime change circa 1998 or even 2000 were of a significantly different nature from what came later on.
What if a US president had, for example, gone in and cleared out Ansar al-Islam, deployed troops to Iraqi Kurdistan, and pursued a tougher inspections regime.
— Reihan · Jan 2, 11:22 PM · #
Does 9/11 happen in Comeback? I ask mainly because I don’t believe an incumbent, whoever he was, could have lost in 2004 following 9/11. The groundswell of support for pre-existing leadership and the presidency in particular was just too powerful. (I never really thought John Kerry had a chance for that reason.)
— Freddie · Jan 2, 11:34 PM · #
always imagine that McCain would have nominated someone like Luttig.
And, post-Padilla, you still think this is a good thing. Jeebus. Non-snarky question: does “civil liberties” mean much to a communitarian? Are those issues handled in some other way, or are they ignored with the expectation that the tradeoff remains a net positive?
— SomeCallMeTim · Jan 2, 11:47 PM · #
I’ve always believed that if Gore defeated Bush in 2000 that McCain (under the “next in line” principle) would have soundly defeated Gore in 2004. This would also have been my preferred outcome, which may have something to do with my belief.
— right · Jan 3, 05:28 AM · #
Tim — I don’t think every decision made by Fantasy McCain would be good. Also, did you read Luttig re: why he resigned from the 4th Circuit and how he talks about the Padilla decision now? Perhaps not. He claims that the Bush Administration made extraordinary claims regarding Padilla that no longer hold water. That won’t convince you (I say that with confidence, as you’re admirably consistent), but it’s useful context.
I don’t think of myself as a communitarian, so I couldn’t tell you. Civil liberties certainly matter to me, but I’ll bet I think about them differently: I have my own hobbyhorses, e.g., the control of one’s personal data, the danger posed by national ID cards, a Schneierian approach to the evils of profile and overreaction to security threats, etc. On data-mining and related issues my skepticism mostly derives from the limits of the technology.
Again, this is almost useless as I get the impression you read these posts and see “blah blah blah REPUBLICAN GOP REPUBLICAN blah blah blah,” when that “blah blah blah” is some kind of explicit and favorable reference to some deservedly obscure left manifesto or an unfunny joke or a policy stance with no obvious partisan valence.
But what can I do?
— Reihan · Jan 3, 05:32 AM · #
Another thing to keep in mind about a McCain presidency is that McCain would probably have secured a (much) more decisive win over Gore in ’00, what with having more charisma and crossover appeal than Bush. This would have bypassed entirely the Florida debacle which humiliated US democracy in the eyes of outsiders and sullied the political process in the eyes of many Americans.
Let’s not forget (as we often do) that, post-Monica, both Bush and Gore campaigned strongly on a “return” to integrity in the White House — only to undermine that promise right on Election Night to dive in the mud. Doubtless McCain would have campaigned on similar themes (if only because he has a stronger claim on integrity than the other two), and a clean win (added to a blissful lack of Cheney & Rove) would have given him a chance to actually act on it and restore some much-needed lustre to the American political process.
— PEG · Jan 3, 12:12 PM · #
Another thing to keep in mind about a McCain presidency is that McCain would probably have secured a (much) more decisive win over Gore in ’00, what with having more charisma and crossover appeal than Bush.
See I just fundamentally disagree with this reading of McCain as a politician. You hear this all the time, that McCain is a very popular Senator who rides this upswell of popular support…. I don’t think that’s ever been true. The media loves McCain, and as in all things, they confuse their own prejudices with those of the public. What people seem to forget is that McCain’s loss in 2000 wasn’t just a product of Rovian dirty tricks but also of McCain’s basic incompetence as a campaigner. His supporters like to portray him as hating politics as usual, but really, he seems to hate politics, period. He’s a poor campaigner and organizationally a mess, as this primary has demonstrated. I don’t think he would have beaten Gore at all, frankly.
— Freddie · Jan 3, 02:12 PM · #
Tim — I don’t think every decision made by Fantasy McCain would be good.
I took you to be responding to Ponnuru by reassuring him.
Also, did you read Luttig re: why he resigned from the 4th Circuit and how he talks about the Padilla decision now?
My recollection is that at the time he resigned, he said that his resignation was unconnected to Padilla. He said it was in response to upcoming college costs, I think. If you have a link to something else that he has since said, I’d love to see it.
He claims that the Bush Administration made extraordinary claims regarding Padilla that no longer hold water.
What I’ve seen suggests that he made a similar claim: the Administration said this was an extraordinary situation. If you have a link to something he has said something about specific, detailed claims made by the Administration, I’d love to see it.
don’t think of myself as a communitarian
Huh.
Civil liberties certainly matter to me, but I’ll bet I think about them differently
That’s almost certainly true. Given your list, I’m not sure if you think these liberties are to be traded, one for another, or not, or whether characteristics like “well-founded” seem like nonsense to you (a plausible belief, I think).
this is almost useless as I get the impression you read these posts and see “blah blah blah REPUBLICAN GOP REPUBLICAN blah blah blah,” when that “blah blah blah” is some kind of explicit and favorable reference to some deservedly obscure left manifesto or an unfunny joke or a policy stance with no obvious partisan valence.
That seems like a strange reading of my comment in this case, where I’ve expressly allowed that your specific view on Luttig (or civil liberties) might be driven by a valid (but unfamiliar to me) ideology. My very little reading on communitarianism, and some half-remembered recollection of some of the ur-texts of the same, suggested that civil liberties were deemed over-emphasized by communitarians. But, then, I wrongly thought you self-identified as in that neighborhood.
— SomeCallMeTim · Jan 3, 03:53 PM · #