McCain and Bipartisanship

This article in the New York Times is a ridiculous political hit job that somehow made it to the front page. It is fascinating to me how quickly - even eagerly - the press abandons its ideals in order to have an influence on public opinion towards some political goal. This article is a cute little timely reminder (not news - just digging in the past) of things it believes its readers will find unsavory about John McCain's past. Can you guess what awful crime they have found? Bipartisanship! No, worse - non-partisanship! Now, part of me wonders why a paper so enamored of Barack Obama, whose mantra (along with John Edwards) has been the desire to unite and lead one America, would attempt to portray John McCain's courting of and cooperation with the Democratic party as some sort of betrayal of his ideals. Part of me doesn't wonder at all, because McCain's greatest weakness is his lack of appeal to his base (even though they nominated him), upon which the NY Times is quite obviously capitalizing. This, after the article on McCain's supposed (ridiculous) extramarital affair, has made me ansey.

Now, I hate the wheel-spinning, conspiratorial, opportunistic exaggeration of conservative blowhards like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and the like (and they are not all that way - there is always room for intelligent conservatism). The jury is still out on Ann Coulter, who seems more to find it fun to poke at liberals than actually to be attempting real political commentary. Or if she is trying to comment, it's very minor political commentary indeed, in which she overshoots her point by about ten miles (which, presumably, is the joke) so that only those familiar with these caricatures (and who view them with a certain vindictive satisfaction) will get it. But whichever commentator it was who first accused the New York Times of liberal bias (certainly at least a generation before any of the current morons took the stage), I was always skeptical. Sure, they favor the liberal side of things in the op-ed section, but the actual reporting has usually been top-notch. So what gives?

The weirdest part of all this was hearing the New York Times accuse - yes, accuse - John McCain of criticizing the President. I cannot think of anything more in line with the actual Republican Party (as opposed to the strange minority of neocons who supposedly rule the GOP... but don't) than disillusionment with George W. Bush. Why did Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee not gain the nomination? Because they were George Bush all over again, some worse. McCain seemed the calm voice of reason, of actual fiscal conservatism, of bipartisanship, and of a refusal to compromise on the Iraq war. Now, I hate the Iraq war. I think it's the dumbest thing America has done at least since the turn of the millenium, if not since the last time we invaded a helpless country for poor reasons. But I understand the desire to finish what was started - that is to say, to make the country safe and to help rebuild its infrastructure before leaving. Is this a good idea? Can an army do that effectively? Can America do that unilaterally? Do most Iraqis want us to do that? These are good questions that require research and debate, but the initial position that there is a difference between an occupying force and a liberating force make sense, and has to do with the goals being represented. Whenever I talk to the Republicans I know, this is the position I almost always get. John McCain is the only candidate who holds this position and seems to have the experience to back it up. Honestly, John McCain's doubts about his party and frustration with their treatment of him correlates almost exactly with the feelings of nearly all the Republican voters I have talked to when they discuss their party's actions and cooption by weird statist paranoiacs. Granted, that's not exactly a national opinion poll, but I am much more sympathetic to a Republican whose party loyalty is predicated on his ideals instead of one whose ideals are subjected to irrational party loyalty. Republicans feel misled, ill-treated, and abandoned by their party. The lineup of candidates they had to wade through to get to John McCain was absurd. Even Republicans - especially Evangelical ones - get uncomfortable when the rhetoric being used for self-advancement begins to sound like hatred and fear of their neighbors.

To be clear: I think exporting Democracy through empire is bad. I do not think that capitalism can be equated with liberation, nor that democracy can be formed without national identity. I think the legacy of colonialism and the diversity of Islam have created such an impossibly tangled set of circumstances in the middle east that we were crazy to go in and will be paying for it no matter how fast we leave or how long we stay. That said, the New York Times is being unfair to John McCain, and if they want to feel themselves superior to Sean Hannity (and I should very much hope that they would), they should put more confidence in the brainpower of their readership and lay off the thinly veiled pot-shots at candidates. For that matter, they should refuse to cover the political foodfights from the democratic nominees as well, as they add nothing to the debate.

Prediction: After a few more of these articles and subsequent angry responses (perhaps even after this one), the New York Times will stop apologizing and comments will begin to arise that you're not allowed to criticize John McCain. No comments will be made on the validity of the criticisms, their timing, or their setting, except from a very few who will be ignored.