Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Election 2008

The Race John McCain Will Run

By Ira Chernus, AlterNet. Posted February 10, 2008.


Mitt Romney showed us which way McCain will go this fall.
Advertisement

Nothing in Mitt Romney's campaign for president became him like the leaving of it. In his swan song, delivered to the Conservative Political Action Committee, Romney trotted out all the cliches that right-wingers love to hear. He warmed up the crowd with their perennial favorite villain, the "60s: "The threat to our culture comes from within. In the 1960s, there were welfare programs that created a culture of poverty. The attack on faith and religion is no less relentless. And tolerance for pornography, even celebration of it, and sexual promiscuity."

But the culture war no longer sells the way it used to, as Mike Huckabee is finding out the hard way. And despite Romney's obligatory praise of private enterprise capitalism, Republicans can hardly expect to win by running on economic issues. Even Barack Obama would be glad to hit the campaign trail asking, "Are you better off now, after seven years of conservative rule, than you were when Bill Clinton left office?" Case closed.

So Romney hastened through the economic gauntlet to get to the main attraction, the only issue that John McCain has any chance of winning on: "The greatest challenge facing America, and for that matter facing the entire civilized world: the threat of radical, violent jihad." They hate us and we hate them, Romney declared. So "we are a nation at war. We cannot allow the next president of the United States to retreat in the face of evil extremism."

But what if the next president were a black man or a woman? For conservatives, Barack and Hillary are equally frightening symbols of '60s culture, peace movement and all. They "would retreat, declare defeat," Romney solemnly warned. "And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that would make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child's play. About this, I have no doubt. I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

How inspiring! A superpatriot, putting country above self, quits the race so that we can all rally around the fighting maverick, the war hero who never says die, the only man who can save the civilized world: John McCain.

McCain's campaign strategists will put up one big sign in their headquarters: "It's the war on terrorism, stupid." They will do their damnedest to make the election a referendum on America's strength and resolve to achieve what Romney called "the burden of liberty to preserve this country." McCain will carry a banner inscribed with Romney's words: "By the providence of the Almighty, we will succeed beyond our fondest hope. America must always remain, as it has always been, the hope of the Earth" -- no matter how many bombs we have to drop to do it.

The McCain campaign may try to paint their opponent as the "peace candidate" -- the '60s liberal Democrat, too weak-willed, too relativist, too morally promiscuous to keep America strong. McCain's writers will surely insist that "victory" in Iraq is the litmus test of America's strength and resolve everywhere (though they'll never tell us exactly what "victory" might mean). What other script can they write and hope to win?

The last thing the Democratic strategists want is to let their candidate be backed into the "peace" corner. The Dems want the campaign to be, once again, all about "the economy, stupid." That's their sure winner. The more talk of war, the less the Dems can control the campaign debate. So they'd like to see the war remain where the foreign policy establishment has put it in recent months, on the back burner.

They've got another reason, too. Despite their somewhat different approaches to foreign policy, both are committed to maintaining American military preeminence (some dare call it empire) around the world. Specifically, they are committed to keeping a massive U.S. troop presence in or near Iraq to prevent (or so they hope) Iran from gaining more power in the Middle East.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: clinton, obama, election08, mccain, romney

Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado and author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Close but no Cigar!
Posted by: carbon-based on Feb 10, 2008 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It will actually be hard for Obama, and especially Hillary, to debate McCain on any issue. Remember McCain has proven, more than any other candidate that he is able to rise above party pressures and go his own way. Like that way or not, it shows an inner strength that Obama nor Hillary cannot display. McCain voted against Bush’s tax cuts, partnered with Kennedy on a failed immigration policy..etc..etc.. he’s more “liberal” than Obama or Hillary, or conservatives care for him to be.

Obama can’t claim the same - although he does say he was against the war – BEFORE he became a US Senator - and wound up towing the party voting line like Hillary.

Regarding the war, despite what the far left democrats would like to think, we do not control world events (this article assumes we do – the world goes as we go – not true). The international community is a complex one with many players.. North Korea would still like to overrun the South, China will eventually take over Tiwain, Muslims would love to wipe out the Jews, Africa is on fire with muslims killing hundreds of thousands if not millions Pakistain and India skirt nuclear exchanges - on and on .


So essentially no President can run on a “peace platform”, what ever that means. We get attacked and turn the other cheek and apologize for being attacked? (where have we heard that before)- Obama and Hillary seem to know the deal in Iraq and they know what is at stake.

But in the end, it boils down to the person who can bring a country together, create unity, repair our credibility overseas, so we can” continue on” continuing.

Obama in my view is the best person. He seems to be reasonable re Iraq, unlike Hillary who recently said, mistakenly, that she would pull troops out within 60 days of her taking office..talking about clichés the left loves to hear. With statements like that we know she’s just spewing politics.

McCain could do the same as Obama in my estimate but Obama has an energy and a momentum that this country needs. As a republican moderate, Obama has my vote - sorry McCain - so close!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Close but no Cigar! Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Close but no Cigar! Posted by: carbon-based
Thanks
Posted by: g50 on Feb 11, 2008 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Really insightful commentary. The material abundance appeal is a really strong Democratic argument, and you're right, that is exactly what Obama is promising. The mythic aspect may also be somewhat happenstance, involving a lot of diverse projections onto the catchall rhetoric, but surely there is a bit of self-awareness to it as well.

I do worry that the Cheneyesque vision of the new normalcy will win out. McCain couldn't be a stronger candidate for this idea. And it has been a proven winner in several previous elections. And if McCain can make it seem like there is a Reagan-to-McCain trajectory as well, with McCain the "young" apprentice in the Senate while Reagan was president, this is a very powerful draw to the security standpoint. And it is also masterful because this Reagan notion cuts into the material wellbeing notion, because Reagan, reviled by some for his economics, is esteemed by many voting millions who have delivered victories to the Republicans consistently for three decades now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]