Man of Honor

Yuval Levin, on the McCain domestic-policy problem:

On domestic issues, McCain’s problem is not that his views are too far from the public’s. It’s that he simply doesn’t care about any of the issues on the table. In fact (as I argue in next week’s issue of National Review) McCain doesn’t actually seem to care about any political “issues” at all. He is moved by honor and country, and this has driven him to be passionately active on a few domestic fronts, but for different reasons than those that motivate just about every other politician. (A misunderstanding of this point has, I think, been behind much of the often excessive distress at McCain’s apparent ascendancy in some quarters of the right this week). And he has not found a way to understand, say, health care in terms of honor, honesty, or character. So even though his campaign has offered a very strong conservative proposal for health care reform, McCain seems incapable of talking about it as though it were even remotely significant.

Both of the Democrats, whatever you think of their particular proposals, can communicate a sense of the significance and urgency of this and the other issues that seem increasingly likely to dominate the general election. McCain’s challenge is not only to persuade conservatives he can carry their banner, but to persuade himself that the concerns and aspirations of the middle class family matter. Although he may well be the Republican with the best chance of winning in November, this won’t be an election that naturally plays to John McCain’s strengths.

This is, of course, another difficulty with a politics that takes "national greatness" as its touchstone and heroism as its defining virtue - it breeds a disinterest, or even an impatience, with the more quotidian (but nonetheless crucial) aspects of policy and governance. This is by no means an exclusively right-wing temptation, obviously, as the cult of JFK attests, and in this election cycle I think you can see intimations of it Barack Obama as well as in McCain. But Obama has a touch of the wonk (or the law professor) about him that leavens his weakness for grandiosity, whereas the Arizona Senator can seem almost physically uncomfortable with any policy argument that isn't framed in the sort of "honor, duty, country" terms that Yuval describes.

Comments

"it breeds a disinterest,"

It breeds a lack of interest.

"Disinterest" is a very useful word in political writing with a specific meaning. Please, let's not lose it.

Posted by Steve Sailer | February 1, 2008 2:33 PM

it breeds a disinterest, or even an impatience, with the more quotidian (but nonetheless crucial) aspects of policy and governance.

That's a good point. And as I believe you've pointed out, it also breeds an interest in doing counterproductive, grandiose things, like invading countries we don't really need to invade.

Relatedly: how on Earth did Teddy Roosevelt wind up on Mount Rushmore? I guess I should ask Wikipedia...

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 1, 2008 2:54 PM

Part of the problem is that Levin is wrong about McCain's health care proposal. In fact, Republican health care proposals get at one of the party's central problems on domestic issues-- they have few real ideas anymore.

Health Savings Accounts are not an idea, in the relevant sense of the word. Americans are worried that they don't have health insurance, or that they might lose their coverage. One possible response is to say "the government has no business doing anything about this". Another possible response is to say "the government should cover them or help them get coverage".

Health Savings Accounts do neither of those things. All they do is allow wealthier healthy people (who aren't really at the center of the health insurance crisis anyway) to drop out of the system and have more tax free savings, and (perhaps) allow some cost-cutting by cost-conscious consumers who are forced to pay for their own care (and I doubt they really even accomplish that). They aren't a good faith attempt to solve the problem, or to argue it isn't the government's job to solve it. They are just a way of saying "see I have a health care plan too" if the press or the public asks about one.

Conservatives used to have some real ideas about domestic policy, proposals that rightly or wrongly at least attempted to solve the problems of real people. They don't have any right now.

So before complaining that McCain isn't interested in policy, conservatives should start generating some real policy that he might be interested in.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 1, 2008 3:56 PM

Great post, from a psychological angle (Dilan is right on the health policy stuff though).

But Obama has a touch of the wonk (or the law professor) about him that leavens his weakness for grandiosity,

I think on a personal level Obama has a strong sense of irony and a touch of a melancholy / depressive quality that gives him a certain sense of perspective on himself and on politics. It's visible in his earlier writing especially.

Posted by mq | February 1, 2008 4:07 PM

It's really important to distinguish rhetoric and practice. Obama has supported a lot of wonky/nerdy laws--he has no distaste for the detailed work of government.

Posted by Justin | February 1, 2008 6:01 PM

Dilan is wrong on HSA's. As any wonky, economics guy will tell you the effect of such accounts is no only on those who have them, in that they provide an incentive to take into account the cost/benefit of health care which third party payments do not. They also cause health care producers to have an incentive to provide efficient care that they do not get from other payment schemes. A failure to see the medical market as dynamic is at the root of most countrie's health care schemes and all the socialist proposals in this country.

McCain's attitude to the economy is that it will be fine if you don't tax it too much. That beats the view of the Democrats by miles. He is not enthused by economics but I'm not sure I want a President who is.

And Elvis, what ever the other issues with Iraq are they violated a cease fire. It would have been folly to allow that and Saddam's other violations of the cease fire of 1992. Moreover, toppling him gave us the most leverage we've had in that region since Patton chased Rommel from North Africa. That we did not consolidate those gains and maximize that leverage is terrible but it does not make the Iraq war either unnecessary or ignoble.

Posted by jjv | February 1, 2008 6:31 PM

Being ensconsed in the bosom of the military his whole childhood and and early adult life, he has always had the US government provide free health care. After leaving the military, he was still entitled to free Veteran care, and now recieves highly preferential govnermental care as a Senator.
He doesn't find healthcare policy important because he has never experienced and cannot imagine a lack of free, quality health care.

And if someone complains about their lack of health care, I'm sure he'd advise them to follow his route and become a wounded veteran, which leads to that free healthcare for life (justifiably so, but an impractical solution for all of america).

Posted by agorabum | February 1, 2008 6:39 PM

We use words like 'honor,' 'code,' 'loyalty.' We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline!

Posted by Jeff | February 1, 2008 6:54 PM

I think Ramesh Ponnuru has written on The Corner about McCain not being a details guy or policy guru. And most of the media have picked up on Romney as the consultant and "data" candidate. Heck, most McCain endorsements include a reference to Romney being "bright" and "intelligent"... followed by "but", of course.
This hasn't been a problem for McCain. The exit polls show his support largely coming from people who value character over issues and even his war veteran status has served him as a form of identity politics (carried SC war veterans overwhelmingly). Of course, his positions do matter too. He won Florida in large part because of latino support, and has some how managed to identify himself as the pro-surge candidate (despite almost universal support for it in conservative circles).
And of course, he has survived the conservative media's barrage. His narrative has carried him through. Meanwhile, on the Democratic side Obama has become the rock star candidate mainly because of his narrative. Seems like it's shaping up to be a race dominated by narratives rather then by policies.

Posted by Andrew | February 1, 2008 8:48 PM

I like McCain. He's a Cincinnatus who puts down the plow and dedicates his life to protect his country. He's a decent man, a man of honor. He'd be a great Secretary of Defense, in any administration.
I like Hillary. She's shown a genuine interest in healthcare and issues that are important to families. She'd be a great Secretary of Health & Human Services, in any administration.
For leading America, we need a president who can unite and heal the country, move beyond the partisanship and generational divides, confront our racial problems, and who has the energy and vitality to fight the battles, day after day after day.
We need Obama.
McCain is a militarist, Hillary is a socialist, Obama is a Democrat. Time for a Democrat to run this country. There hasn't been a Democrat in the White House for decades. Clinton was a Clintonite, not a Democrat.

Posted by fougasseu | February 2, 2008 8:06 AM

Dilan is wrong on HSA's. As any wonky, economics guy will tell you the effect of such accounts is no only on those who have them, in that they provide an incentive to take into account the cost/benefit of health care which third party payments do not. They also cause health care producers to have an incentive to provide efficient care that they do not get from other payment schemes. A failure to see the medical market as dynamic is at the root of most countrie's health care schemes and all the socialist proposals in this country.

First of all, many economists think that HSA's are stupid. And the economists who don't think they are stupid nonetheless don't think they solve the health insurance crisis-- they just think that they might do some good in other ways.

The health insurance crisis is caused by the fact that millions can't afford health insurance and millions more are afraid they will lose it. HSA's don't do anything about that problem. They may be a good idea (I doubt it, but they may be), but implement them and we will still have millions of uninsured, and implement them and many people will still fear losing their insurance. (Indeed, more people will live in fear, because one of the features of HSA's is that they pass more costs on to the consumers in the hope they will purchase care wisely.)

Look, we can debate the merits of HSA's another time. (Suffice to say, I think they rest on an assumption about consumers having the ability to shop for health care that isn't borne out in reality. And I also think that HSA's create incentives for people to SKIMP on preventative care, which is harmful for people's health and increases costs in the long term.) But they don't solve the health insurance crisis. Indeed, they were not intended to, but were intended to address a different issue entirely.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 2, 2008 7:28 PM

"Look, we can debate the merits of HSA's another time. (Suffice to say, I think they rest on an assumption about consumers having the ability to shop for health care that isn't borne out in reality. And I also think that HSA's create incentives for people to SKIMP on preventative care, which is harmful for people's health and increases costs in the long term.)"

I think you're quite right about the issue of discouraging preventative care--that needs to be structured into any working health plan. However, when you say you doubt the ability of consumers to shop for health care, I think you are accidentally getting at a crucial point--conventionally insured patients are insulated from the real cost of their health care, so they tend to load up on it like a teenage boy at an all-you-can eat buffet. The real costs of appointments, drugs, and so forth are hidden to them when all they are paying is a co-pay. Healthcare pricing is quite opaque to the consumer, and there isn't a real functioning market. The goal here is to create a market, and to make pricing transparent, and HSAs are a small step in that direction. I realize that in the case of an emergency, all bets are off, but a lot of medical procedures are premeditated, so it should be possible to shop for them.

Posted by Amy P | February 2, 2008 9:38 PM

I realize that in the case of an emergency, all bets are off, but a lot of medical procedures are premeditated, so it should be possible to shop for them.

Well, a lot of care isn't strictly "emergency" but doesn't arise in situations where shopping is practical. For instance, if it turns out you need a surgery, how do you shop for that? How do you figure out what provider will do that procedure competently and economically? How do you know who will overcharge you on the follow-up care? And how do you gather than information in a time when you are in distress in anticipation of the procedure and its possible complications?

Look, I'm not saying there can never be a constructive policy introducing market forces in health care. But it's very difficult to subject a lot of health spending to such forces, because the reality is these decisions don't lend themselves to the kind of rational consumer behavior that one needs to create a functioning market.

And, I go back to my beginning points-- HSA's, even if they do work as intended, are not a solution to the health care crisis, because they don't get us towards universal coverage and they don't make people who have insurance feel more secure.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 3, 2008 9:33 PM