Zach over at the Michigan Dems blog digs into John McCain:
I’ve been thinking a lot about why I had been fooled by the straight-talk express. Was it because I was young and naive - no doubt partially. But though Sen. McCain has always been very conservative, his conservatism was, until recently tempered with common sense and a moral compass…You have to ask yourself, has he gotten dumber, or just more desperate to be nominated?
While certainly John McCain’s pandering needs criticism and media play, let’s not get overboard with attacks on his character. This is what campaigns do to people, beat candidates down and then force them to take uncharacteristic positions. Let’s not forget about Hillary’s employment of lobbyists and her stance of flag burning or Obama’s pandering to AIPAC and NAFTA. All three of course have flip-flopped on ethanol. But let us remember that for a large part of their lives before McCain lost his spine, Hillary became a b*tch, and Obama was naive, McCain was a war hero, Hillary was the first ever student to give the Wellesley commencement address, and Obama was the heroic community organizer. Yes it is unfortunate that McCain has sold out, but he still has plenty of spine left in the tank.
Zach’s stories are an anecdote of the sad nature of partisan politics in general. But deep down, do I believe that McCain actually does have a moderate disposition, or that Hillary will tone down her rhetoric, or that Obama won’t be clueless in foreign affairs if either of them take office? Yes. Of course what people say matters, but when each candidate is guilty of pandering, one must instead focus on these respective candidate’s actions over a broader period of time. Otherwise we are just cherry picking selective instances that do not indicate a broad overall trend.
Overall lessons learned from all of this? All politicians are Machiavellian, some are just better at concealing it than others.
There is a huge difference between changing your position on an ever-developing and complex issue such as globalization policy (NAFTA) or having a murky position on lobbyists and flag burning and flip flopping on torture. Generally, people accept that torture is wrong. President Bush may say differently, but how in touch with the American people do we really think he is? Supporting the use of torture is unforgivable, and it is not a position open to nuance or complexity. Policy areas such as globalization and lobbyist involvement require nuance and complexity because they are complex issues. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are not innocent of pandering, but their offenses are nowhere near as bad as those of John McCain.
I do not want to be in a position to defend McCain’s position on applying the Army Field Manual to the CIA, I whole heartedly disagree with it. But there is no nuance in his position on waterboarding, which he has stated, unequivocally, in this presidential campaign, that he opposes. It’s not as if he all of a sudden opposes the Detainee Treatment Act he worked to support (ala the Clinton and the bankruptcy bill).
So he says that certain other techniques such as stress positions and sensory deprivation may be appropriate for detainees not classified as POWs (again, I disagree on this). And let’s keep in mind, that we never tried people at Nurmeburg or executed Japanese soldiers for the use of these techniques unlike waterboarding.
So should John McCain be more clear on a specific position on what exactly the CIA does now that the Army does not that would not be considered torture? Of course. But let’s not get into these grand absolutes about how he all of a sudden lost his moral spine. There are reasons that we treat POWs and other guys like terrorists under different standards (among them that unlike terrorists, we expect other nations to treat our prisoners with the utmost care and respect), and yes, they require nuance and complexity.