This was written as a response to something Phillip said back on this post. I got a little carried away, going from one digression to another, so I’m making this into a separate post. Here’s what Phillip wrote:
I couldn’t agree more about McCain, so again, how is it that he
seems to have dropped off the face of the earth with regards to the GOP
primary race? Now I don’t think he walks on water quite as much as you
do, I have been disappointed by some of the slight "triangulation" he’s
done on occasion, vis-a-vis the religious right, etc., but on a gut
level I share the feeling Brooks was conveying.
I believe there are two main reasons why McCain has faded from the
race: 1) the radicalization of the GOP implemented by the Cheney-Bush
years (yes, the reverse name order is intentional) that we see
manifested, for example, by the GOP Prez hopefuls outdoing each other
for the title of Torturer-in-Chief (acknowledgement to Frank
Rich)…and 2) Age. Sad to say, but I’m afraid that plays into it in a
big way.
Relating to your "Bush-hatred" column of last Sunday, had McCain won
in 2000 I seriously doubt we would have the degree of partisan divide
we do today. Wouldn’t you agree with that, Brad? McCain would (then and
now) view himself as the President of all the people, quite differently
from what we ended up with. This is not a matter of partisan politics,
it’s a matter of character: McCain is indeed a "great" man if that
means being a man of substance and integrity, and the man who slimed
him successfully in SC on his way to the White House turned out to be a
very small and befuddled man way out of his depth who knew nothing of
the larger world, only the cosseted world of comfort and privilege into
which he was born.
Phillip, you are absolutely right about how different things would be if McCain had been elected. The entire world would have been vastly better off. As I said in my previous column linked above, this is the man who should have been president for the past seven years.
And Phillip, I honestly don’t understand why people like bud and Doug have such a powerful compulsion to drag down a man like that. I don’t think he walks on water; I think he is a very human man, with his own frailties like the rest of us. The difference is that he has resolved to discipline himself to overcome those frailties, and to do his best to do the right thing, even when it’s not in his self-interest.
And THAT is why he dropped off the radar — although there is reason to believe he’s climbing back up. It has nothing to do with Cheney and Bush; it has a lot to do with Juan and Rosalita. He ran afoul of the people who just HATE the idea that they are "surrounded" by Mexicans. You’d think we were all in the Alamo, the way these people react.
That brings me to another point. It’s interesting to see how people react to a journalist when he actually says something good about somebody. Because I think Bush hatred (like Clinton hatred, only more advanced) is a corrosively harmful force in our society, I’m seen as a Bush defender, when I actually don’t much like the guy, and harbor bitterness over the wasted years when McCain could have been in his place, the nation would be more united, and Iraq would not have been so shamefully mishandled. But when I raise even mild objections to people having viscerally spiteful reactions to him, suddenly I become part of the problem in their eyes. Even, to some extent, in yours, since you didn’t seem entirely sure that I would agree with you that we’d have been better off with McCain. Because of this I find myself hesitant to demur at your characterization of Bush and Cheney as extremists in their party — but they’re not; you have to look at the Pat Buchanans for that. Ironically, sometime the most polarizing figures are not the most ideologically extreme. Take, for instance, Mrs. Clinton. She’s essentially a mainstreamer, a triangulator in a good sense, which is one reason a lot of folks in her party reject her. But she is the most polarizing candidate among the Democrats, the only one (more so even than Edwards, with his demagogic tendencies) likely to take president hatred to another, worse level. That’s not really fair to her, but there it is. And it’s why, even though I might end up agreeing with her on more issues, particularly foreign policy, I think the country would be better off if Obama got the nomination.
Anyway, back to my point: There are few people I will write about with respect, admiration and even awe (thanks to my recognition of their rarity). On the national scene there is John McCain, and Joe Lieberman. In South Carolina, there is Joe Riley, and increasingly, Lindsey Graham.
Once, there was John Glenn, and I am reminded of him by Gordon’s comments, wondering about the character of anyone who would seek the job. Tom Wolfe wrote of Glenn’s self-esteem mixed with his monklike self-denial. Glenn, to him, was the Presbyterian Pilot, ambitious without the baser manifestations of that quality. I think that maybe Glenn and McCain have more in common beyond the fact that they are both former aviators. Or maybe they have it in common BECAUSE they are former aviators — men of exceptional ability who climbed "right to the top of the pyramid," although in different ways. In any case, I see them both as having the Right Stuff, and McCain possibly more than Glenn.