John McCain is a loser. He seemed to like straight talk. Well, I’m here to tell it straight. He is a loser. The man is many good things. He’s a war hero, loyal, dedicated, and bold. Heck, he’s even got a foxy wife. But he’s a loser. He lacked the leadership conservatives, classical liberals, libertarians, and this nation need. He was not a political leader, his campaign was weak (and even spineless at times), and his centralist politics are worthless.
Here’s my foremost complaint: John McCain ran for president billing himself as a “maverick”. But I don’t want a maverick for an executive. I want leader. Leadership and being a maverick are close to mutually exclusive. A maverick is one who is unpredictable, makes rash decisions, and acts on impulse. A leader has a comprehensive vision of what is good and acts on it. They execute decisions with principle, not emotion. Most importantly, a leader is someone you can follow. They are a beacon, standing out, fearlessly lighting the way. And even if you can’t see them in person, you can follow their well-lit path. Where did John McCain lead us? What did he stand for? What torch of truth did he passionately carry? He ran on being a maverick and his war record. He left us nothing to follow, no principles to fight for. He may have been a leader in war. But in politics and ideas, he was rash and unpredictable: the last thing a leader can afford to be.
On a second note, his campaign was painfully weak. The outstanding example is his use of Alaskan governor Sarah Palin. He poised himself to jump-start life into the conservative movement. He found a leader (way up nort dere, ya) to fight for what he could not. At the first sign of trouble, his campaign stuffed her away, hiding her as though they were ashamed. After Palin’s painful stumbling with haughty (and embarrassing failure) Katie Couric, she was never allowed to recover. The McCain camp had her on such a short leash she wasn’t able to come back swinging.
Furthermore, McCain had yet another opportunity to hit a home-run and really stand out. When talk of the Federal “bailout” plan started toxically seeping out from D.C., the people were outraged. The American people spoke clearly and correctly: we will not plunge into the socialist, half-witted plan to give the Treasury a $700 billion check book. McCain could have stood proudly against this asinine asset recovery plan. It was economically absurd, it was not just, and it was sorely foolish. It doesn’t take a genius to ask, “so all these companies who foolishly managed their finances, we’re going to help ourselves by giving them more money to flush down Paulsen’s toilet?” Missed opportunities sting in politics. McCain had an opportunity with Palin and—ya, you betcha—he blew it. He had a pitch in the wheelhouse with the bailout and whiffed pathetically.
Finally, the politics of moderation don’t work. This speaks to my earlier point about leadership. It doesn’t motivate anyone to vote when you brag about reaching across the aisle. It doesn’t motivate the people who have passion for principles. What do we have to fight for? Compromise? That’s not worth getting fired up. The logic is flawed: people who like compromise aren’t interested in winning!
The larger point here is that McCain didn’t get a message out to those who would campaign for him in the lunchroom, at the water cooler, or at a dinner party. If you can capture the power of those who have a passion for good laws, economic freedom, and limited government they will make the most eloquent arguments for you. But I for one had nothing to say other than, “well, I like that he doesn’t support pork-spending”. That’s not inspiring. That’s not about principled governance. It isn’t passion.
We won’t see victory again until we have a leader: a leader that stands for what we passionately believe and will fight vigorously for. It may cost an election once or twice. But when the politics of socialism, elitism, and eco-repression fail, the voters will turn to the opposition. And what if they can’t tell the difference between the governing and the opposing parties? What will be left? That is the road we are on. That is why we failed. We need those who will stand tall, hold fast, and defend what’s good and right in this world: principles know no bounds and fear no failure.
3 comments:
"principles know no bounds and fear no failure"
I think that's one of the "famous last words", pretty inspiring though. You should write speeches for el padre.
Good point about "compromise." It's not an ideal.
Fortunately, this "new generation" of "sam's club republicans" and david brooks conservatives can't tell us in 2012 that we have to try a moderate candidate - because we did in 2008 and he failed.
Inability to inspire was not the reason John McCain lost; it was because he was fighting a losing battle from the beginning. No Republican candidate would have been able to win. The fact that he kept it fairly close for most of the campaign is amazing. McCain faced the perfect storm: 1. The economy went in the toilet 2. The President's poll numbers were abysmal 3. The incumbent was a Republican. Thus, the Republican candidate was essentially running for a "third" term, always a factor that has historically worked against presidential candidates.
History has shown us that all three of these factors are the kiss of death for a candidate. For more information, please read James E. Campbell's article "Why Bush Won the Presidential Election of 2004: Incumbency, Ideology, Terrorism, and Turnout." (Political Science Quarterly, Volume 120:2, 2005, pgs 219-241).
Moderates are what the Republican Party needs. I would still be an active organizer for the GOP if people like McCain had more power. The problem with the GOP is that people suspect all Republicans are members of the close-minded base. Intelligent and reasonable people are always better leaders than ideologues. Country before Party, my friend.
Post a Comment