McCain’s Excellent Speech
Largely overlooked in the drama of Hillary Clinton’s wins last night was John McCain’s excellent speech upon becoming the presumptive Republican nominee. While any Republican faces a very uphill battle against any Democrat in 2008, he used this speech to lay out a set of policies that could be the basis of a very smart campaign in the general election.
He began, as expected, with foreign policy. He wisely insisted that the relevant question vis-à-vis Iraq is not “What would you have done in 2002?”, but is instead “What should we do in 2009?”
He then moved to domestic policy, which has previously seemed to be less compelling to him. Maybe it still is, but I think he laid out a set of positions that are mostly good policy, and are likely to be good politics.
He started with:
I will leave it to my opponent to argue that we should abrogate trade treaties, and pretend the global economy will go away and Americans can secure our future by trading and investing only among ourselves. We will campaign in favor of seizing the opportunities presented by the growth of free markets throughout the world, helping displaced workers acquire new and lasting employment and educating our children to prepare them for the new economic realities by giving parents choices about their children’s education they do not have now.
This is a great one-paragraph summary of an economic strategy that recognizes that we should not stick our heads in the sand and pretend that we are not competing with the rest of the world. The last point about linking school choice to economic competitiveness is not one that I’ve seen him make before, and exactly the argument that I made in NRODT a couple of weeks ago.
He then proceeded with:
I will leave it to my opponent to claim that they can keep companies and jobs from going overseas by making it harder for them to do business here at home. We will campaign to strengthen job growth in America by helping businesses become more competitive with lower taxes and less regulation.
I will leave it to my opponent to propose returning to the failed, big government mandates of the sixties and seventies to address problems such as the lack of health care insurance for some Americans. I will campaign to make health care more accessible to more Americans with reforms that will bring down costs in the health care industry down without ruining the quality of the world’s best medical care.
And I will campaign to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil with an energy policy that encourages American industry and technology to make our country safer, cleaner and more prosperous by leading the world in the use, development and discovery of alternative sources of energy.
While in the specific case of global warming, I think his proposed solution of a cap-and-trade system is mistaken, the approach that he takes in each of these paragraphs – recognize a problem and present a more market-oriented solution than his opponent – strikes me as a sound strategy.
(cross-posted at The Corner)
I think there’s a lot of room to ding the Dems on trade. The trade deals themselves are not particularly popular, but there’s a clear disconnect when Hillary or Obama say that they will unilaterally pull out from NAFTA if it’s not renegotiated to their liking, and simultaneously complain about Bush’s cowboy diplomacy.
— Sam · Mar 5, 05:04 PM · #
Along these lines, while both Clinton and Obama argue against NAFTA, they also declare that we’ll solve illegal immigration by helping Mexico develop its economy. While somehow making sure they aren’t actually competing with us.
— Matt Frost · Mar 5, 05:47 PM · #
You know, this flippant conflation of reworking trade policy with unilateral invasions and occupations of foreign countries that have not attacked has really got to go. It scores cheap points, but it says nothing.
— Freddie · Mar 5, 07:26 PM · #
This was a good speech primarily because it was so good at hiding the reasons why no real conservative should vote for McCain.
The key question really IS what would you have done in 2002 – that is, do you have a grandiose, even imperial vision for the US role in the world (as Bush and McCain do) or a more humble view of the limits of government action, abroad as well as at home?
Many of the other failures of the Bush administration flow directly from this primary huge blunder, and there is no indication that McCain has learned anything from it.
— Peter · Mar 5, 09:02 PM · #
Freddie / Peter:
I think he is wise to focus on the future both as in (wise = politically smart) and as in (wise = we can only change the future, not the past).
Obviously, I agree that to the extent one presents one’s judgement as relevant to deciding what to do, then one’s track record in making similar judgments is highly relevant.
— Jim Manzi · Mar 5, 09:51 PM · #
Jim/Freddie/Peter:
I generally agree with Jim about the wisdom of McCain’s approach, in both senses. But here’s the one retrospective question regarding Iraq I’d like to hear McCain (and Clinton) answer in a debate:
“No leader makes decisions without taking input and advice from multiple sources, and I’m sure you did the same in the run-up to the 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq War. Looking back on the advice you received, is there anyone whose advice was, in retrospect, particularly bad? And is there anyone among that group who you would say you no longer rely on as a consequence?”
Hillary Clinton would probably answer that question in a flip manner – “George Bush,” for example. But I’d be genuinely curious to hear how McCain would answer it.
— Noah Millman · Mar 5, 11:32 PM · #
The fact that he’s recommending “Fiasco” and “Cobra II” should tell something about which information sources he’s soured on:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/03/okay_okay_okay_the_mccain_bbq.html#more
— CTD · Mar 6, 02:32 AM · #
Ah, c’mon. McCain is a fool and a tool. The “free trade” and “education!” nostrums that he’s mouthing are as vacuous as the populist pixie dust that the Dems are spreading around. The difference is that Obama and Clinton know they’re talking baloney, while I think McCain takes lobbyists’ tutorials as gospel. None of these clowns is up to grappling with America’s very serious economic predicament.
Matt – Yes, it’s a good thing NAFTA as it stands is helping Mexico develop its economy, otherwise we’d be having problems with illegal immigration.
— Rohan Swee · Mar 6, 04:30 PM · #