McCain's Domestic Policy Problem

Ramesh writes:

If he’s the nominee, I actually don’t think repairing relations with conservatives is going to be his biggest problem. His biggest problem is going to be the one that Romney has identified over the last few weeks – he doesn’t seem to care about economics enough to have developed and internalized a compelling message on it, and he isn’t a particularly credible messenger either. He may have a weakness on domestic policy as a whole. He has played a big role on some issues, but typically his interventions have not required a great deal of study. I’m not sure he can pull that off all year.

One irony of the talk-radio right’s antipathy to McCain is that despite all his years of deviationism, if you look at the issues he’s emphasized since comprehensive immigration reform blew up in his face last year, he’s actually hewed as closely as any of his rivals to the “back to basics” line that many movement conservatives have insisted (wrongly, in my view) represents the GOP’s best path forward in the wake of the ’06 debacle. Yes, his heretical views on climate change and sundry other issues have come up here and there, but for the most part, McCain’s been running as the candidate of victory in Iraq, porkbusting at home, and … well, not all that much else.

This isn’t a combination that will win the general election, I suspect, even if the Democrats put up Hillary against him. Minus the immigration bit, Pat Buchanan’s remark about how McCain’s message boils down “the jobs are never coming back, the illegals are never going home, but we’re gonna have a lot more wars” offered a preview of the Democratic attacks to come: “John McCain is a hero and a good man,” they’ll say, “but he doesn’t have a plan for the economy or health care, he supports tax cuts for the rich and spending cuts for your neighborhood, and he wants us to stay in Iraq for a hundred years and attack a few other countries besides.” Sounds like a pretty effective line to me.

Obviously there’s time for McCain to find something else to say about domestic policy. (And I have some suggestions, if anybody in his camp is listening.) But as Ramesh’s remarks indicate, his track record isn’t all that encouraging. In addition to issues that excite the base and nobody else, a successful Presidential campaign needs a mix of wedge issues and me-too issues, to divide the opposition on some fronts and co-opt its more popular ideas on others. (Bush’s wedge issues, for instance included the culture war – from the residue of Monica-gate to gay marriage – and the War on Terror, and his me-too issues included education reform and prescription drugs for seniors.) But save for his zeal for the Iraq debate, which barring unforeseen developments isn’t likely to cut the GOP’s way this year, McCain has shown a palpable discomfort with wedge issues over the years; on the “me-too” front, meanwhile, he’s frequently favored causes that play much better with, say, the Times editorial board than with the swing voter on the street.

His heterodox stance on climate change might be an exception to this rule; environmental regulation isn’t usually a major issue in national campaigns, but in the era of global-warming anxiety that may be about to change, and McCain is poised to reap some of the benefits. But in what’s shaping up to be a recession-year election, he needs much, much more. Policy matters less than people like me like to think, and the enormous reservoirs of good will that McCain enjoys, with the public and the media alike, will carry him a long way. (He’s going to do very well, I suspect, with some of the undecided voters Chris Hayes memorably wrote about after '04.) But policy does matter, and it's hard for me to see how what McCain has to offer at the moment – his pledges on porkbusting and extending the Bush tax cuts, and his record on campaign-finance reform and immigration – is going to get him to the White House.

Comments

Ross previews Dem attacks on presumed nominee McCain: No plan for the economy, no plan for healthcare, tax cuts for the rich, spending cuts for your neighborhood, no plan for Iraq except continuous 'occupation', attacks on more countries. I sounds deadly and it happens to be, like, true.

Still, he's the best the Repubs can do. Probably he doesn't believe the earth is 6000 years old and the Grand Canyon was caused by Noah's flood.
So he is suspect to good conservatives.

Posted by JohnMcC | January 31, 2008 3:28 PM

Ross previews Dem attacks on presumed nominee McCain: No plan for the economy, no plan for healthcare, tax cuts for the rich, spending cuts for your neighborhood, no plan for Iraq except continuous 'occupation', attacks on more countries. It sounds deadly and it happens to be, like, true.

Still, he's the best the Repubs can do. Probably he doesn't believe the earth is 6000 years old and the Grand Canyon was caused by Noah's flood.
So he is suspect to good conservatives.

Posted by JohnMcC | January 31, 2008 3:29 PM

Victor Davis Hanson writes today On NRO that with all the carping about McCain the Republicans are involved in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Not too long ago the Democrats had a good shot at taking 2008; then the Clintons savaged Obama and seriously divided the party, giving the Republicans an opening.

Hanson, also, mentioned that Reagan was involved in some tax increases and supported an “amnesty” bill for illegal immigrants.

McCain, after a fair primary fight, has emerged as the likely victor. Like Reagan he is far from being an intellectual heavyweight, though he is bright enough and a man of courage who would be a decent, moderate president. While economics is not his strength, he would be smart enough to appoint first-rate economic advisors. Republicans who wish to defeat Clinton or Obama should suck it up and form a phalanx behind McCain.

Personally, I supported Romney until it became clear that he had a serious likability problem along with a significant number of evangelicals who despised his Mormonism. It is unlikely he could win a general election.

Should the Republicans continue to carp and pout about McCain, they will surely lose the November election.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | January 31, 2008 4:05 PM

Guys who worked on ads for Levi's years ago were told "You don't say it, be it", meaning never use "sexy" in a headline.
McCain's constant use of the word "leader" is starting to sound weird. And oddly, he doesn't speak or have the posture of a leader: even when in the lead, he talks like an underdog.
He has a bit of a Jake LaMotta quality, annoyed even after beating the other guy's brains out.
And that winking!?! If the Democrats ever cut a spot together with just quick cuts of Bush and McCain winking, and ending with them in that big hug thing they did - all is lost.

Posted by fougasseu | January 31, 2008 4:13 PM

Not too long ago the Democrats had a good shot at taking 2008; then the Clintons savaged Obama and seriously divided the party, giving the Republicans an opening.

Talk about wishful thinking - the Democratic party is more energized and less divided than the GOP. But what ever helps you get up in the morning.

Posted by Tiparillo | January 31, 2008 4:24 PM

Tiparillo, I'd concede that this could be wishful thinking that aids conservatives in facing the morning. Though the liberal nightmare that the surge is working and Bush might be winning in Iraq, giving McCain an advantage with the American people who normally favor winning wars could be rather true. We shall see.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | January 31, 2008 5:15 PM

McCain is a spent force. When he speaks, you can feel how tired he is. He seems not just physically but actually spiritually exhausted. How many voters, voters who are aching for change, are going to look at McCain, standing next to a relatively younger, healthier, less depressive candidate, and pick him? McCain represents death. He looks like death, and his economic and foreign policy platform would, if implemented, be a form of national suicide.

I used to think the GOP would be better off nominating Romney, but damn, voters just don't seem to like that guy. Still, I wish they would go with him. Romney is no more beatable than McCain; he at least can make a plausible claim to be a "Washington outsider." I hope to God the Democrats take back the White House, and I think they will, but just in case people get a last-second case of the heebee jeebees and can't bring themselves to elect a female or African-American president, it would be better for all of us if the Republicans have chosen the best (least bad) candidate. This person is Romney; while he would probably be a very bad president, I think he'd be less likely than McCain to actually like destroy the country.

Posted by Jason C. | January 31, 2008 7:56 PM

Other than his domestic policy and his foreign policy, McCain's a perfect candidate. That sounds bad, but it worked in 2004.

Posted by Bo | January 31, 2008 8:24 PM

Of all the critics I've seen on McCain you're among most reasonable and calm. I think what you're saying has a good deal of merit.

McCain does need to do better on economic questions. Romney doesn't necessarily have to have those "sown up." Judging by Steve Forbes and Ross Perot running as a businessman is not necessarily a successful strategy. Tuition hikes, fee hikes, and increased property tax may have had more to due with Romney's balancing Massachusetts budget than he wants to admit. Still so far McCain just deflects on the issue in a way I agree is irritating.

I still prefer him, but I'm hoping for improvement.

Posted by Thomas R | January 31, 2008 9:33 PM

Other than his domestic policy and his foreign policy, McCain's a perfect candidate. That sounds bad, but it worked in 2004.

Right, and McCain probably would have won the 2004 election. But it seems clear that what worked in 2004 is probably not going to work in 2008.

It's worth remembering that Bush still came very close to losing in 2004. He somehow managed to spin it otherwise, but the fact is that the margin was historically thin.

So basically, you had a year where the election was dominated by foreign policy - only three years out from 9/11 - and the economy was in decent shape. And the incumbent Republican still almost loss. We are now in dire economic times, seven years out from 9/11, and there is no incumbent.

Posted by Jason C. | February 1, 2008 10:42 AM