McCain’s supposed advantage

John McCain, as Eugene Robinson says today, has “a big head start in the Fiesta of Forced Smiles — the post-primary, pre-convention phase of the presidential campaign in which former opponents and party elders pledge their support for the presumptive nominee in a photogenic show of unity.”

But that does not mean that McCain has a huge advantage over his as-yet-unnamed opponent.

That’s because, as Robinson says, he “intends to run on positions that most voters reject,” while tying himself to an increasingly irrelevent incumbent. McCain remains very much in favor of the Iraq War, a supporter of the long-war theory that could have us stuck in the desert sands indefinitely with little to gain.

E.J. Dionne Jr. points out how McCain’s thinking could have delitirious effects beyond Iraq and the Muslim world.

(O)ne of John McCain‘s favorite lines — his declaration that “the transcendent challenge of the 21st century is radical Islamic extremists,” or, as he sometimes says, “extremism” — could define the 2008 election.

Whether McCain is right or wrong matters to everything the United States will do in the coming years. It is incumbent upon McCain to explain what he really means by “transcendent challenge.”

Presumably, he’s saying that Islamic extremism is more important than everything else — the rise of China and India as global powers, growing resistance to American influence in Europe, the weakening of America’s global economic position, the disorder and poverty in large parts of Africa, the alienation of significant parts of Latin America from the United States. Is it in our national interest for all these issues to take a back seat to terrorism?

McCain makes his claim even stronger when he uses the phrase “21st century.” Does he mean that in the year 2100, Americans will look back and say that everything else that happened in the century paled in comparison with the war against terrorism?

I know people who answer yes, but the fact remains that terrorism is not an ideology and our battle with it has to be part of a larger, more comprehensive approach to the world. While Osama bin Laden makes for a nice poster boy for extremism, the inferno that has been blazing in Iraq — and in Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, etc. — is a result of the power imbalance. Equalize the power — more democracy, of course (though, not by the barrel of a gun), but also more sharing of resources and a greater willingness on the part of the remaining great power to listen and cooperate — and you have a chance to neutralize the disaffection that results in car bombings.

Given this, one has to wonder whether McCain’s vaunted foreign policy credentials will offer a boost to his candidacy in November, or end up an albatross.

If he can’t make the foreign policy argument, his candidacy is dead. As Robinson points out, his thinking on our increasingly dour economic climate is …. well, let’s just say that his admission a while back that he knows little about economics sums things up.

Both candidates will enter the general election cycle with some baggage, and perhaps some bloody wounds, but they still have to be considered the favorites to win a four-year lease to the White House.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Unknown's avatar

Author: hankkalet

Hank Kalet is a poet and freelance journalist. He is the economic needs reporter for NJ Spotlight, teaches journalism at Rutgers University and writing at Middlesex County College and Brookdale Community College. He writes a semi-monthly column for the Progressive Populist. He is a lifelong fan of the New York Mets and New York Knicks, drinks too much coffee and attends as many Bruce Springsteen concerts as his meager finances will allow. He lives in South Brunswick with his wife Annie.

4 thoughts on “McCain’s supposed advantage”

  1. Well it does appear that NO candidate will get us out of Iraq. Neither Hillary or Obama is committed to that. So what is the electorate to do? This is supposed to be a democratic republic. That\’s one problem with the current system. Ron Paul was the ONLY candidate with a clear exit strategy.

  2. To set a new course for U.S. policy that can bring a responsible end to the war, Senator Obama introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act in January 2007. The legislation begins redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group.

  3. From Hillary Clinton:\”I believe that we must bring an end to the war in Iraq. As the first New York Senator to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I remain focused on the many challenges we face there. I have urged the Bush Administration to end the failed policy in Iraq that forces our troops to police a civil war. And I am working hard in the Senate to advance a strategy to redeploy our troops out of Iraq as quickly and as safely as possible. Unfortunately, the Administration continues to pursue the same broken policy in Iraq. Our troops have done everything we have asked of them and more. I believe it is time to start bringing them home. Throughout 2007, I voted in favor of numerous legislative efforts requiring the Administration to begin to withdraw our troops and to complete the redeployment of combat troops in 2008. I will continue to be a strong advocate for such efforts to end the war.I have also called on the Administration to be clear that the United States will not seek and will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq. Attempts to establish such permanent bases would damage U.S. interests in Iraq and the broader region, and I will continue to strongly oppose such efforts.\”

Leave a comment