In The Year Two Thousand (And Thirteen)

I basically agree with the Wehner-Levin-Lowry consensus on McCain’s “2013” speech, which (to quote Yuval) “puts him in the odd position of talking in the past tense about the future, which both causes his promises to sound more arrogant (if not naïve) than they have to and robs him of the forward looking rhetoric a speech like this could lean on (that of, for instance, Barack Obama).” But for a campaign in search of a narrative, I think the idea behind the speech is potentially sound. Obviously, I’d prefer to see McCain use his campaign to blaze an ideologically-innovative trail toward a new conservative majority, but I don’t think that’s in the cards – and if it isn’t, the narrative suggested by his “look back from 2013” address makes a certain kind of of sense. It casts McCain as a deliberately transitional figure, a tough and experienced foreign-policy hand who you can trust to clean up the messes Bush has left us overseas, and a bipartisan dealmaker who will work the Democratic majority at home. Vote for me if you aren’t sure about giving the Democrats complete control of the government, this narrative says. Vote for me if you want a respite from the culture wars, it argues. Vote for me if you want a grown-up to put our post-9/11 foreign policy on a sounder footing before taking a chance on a liberal President, it suggests. Vote for me because I’m not asking you to join me in any new crusades – because I’m not invested in my own greatness – and because I’m more interested in restoring stability than starting a revolution, or building a thirty-year majority.

And McCain's new Iraq promises are important to this narrative, for the reasons Jim Antle lays out:

McCain doesn't alter his policy goals in Iraq, he doesn't give us any strong reason to believe he will be able to deliver on what he is promising, and his past Iraq predictions haven't always panned out. But McCain is emphasizing the return home of most of our troops as an explicit near-term goal. The perception that McCain would stay in Iraq for 100 years is a losing message when pitted against a candidate who is even semi-credibly promising withdrawal. But a Nixonian peace-with-honor gradual drawdown without disavowing the war aims is a stronger position politically. The Democrats can promise to withdraw faster than McCain, but George McGovern can tell you that this approach does not always work. The American people want to get out of Iraq and win the war. Whether or not this is possible, they might prefer a candidate who promises both to a candidate who promises one or the other.

Nixon’s ’72 landslide, you’ll recall, didn’t do much for the GOP as a whole, and a McCain campaign predicated on bipartisanship at home and peace with honor abroad would probably have few coattails as well. But it might represent a path to victory in a year when by rights the Republican nominee ought to have no chance - especially if it were paired with a one-term pledge (though I'm pretty sure McCain won't actually want to go that route), which would allow McCain to say, to a country wary of taking big risks and worn out from eight long years with the "rebel-in-chief": Vote for me and I'll be temporary.

Comments

I don't quite understand the one term pledge. It seems to mean "Vote for me and my presidency will last only two year, because after that other pols will stop fearing me." It seems to put him in office as a really weak President, esp. if the Dems gain in Congress. (Which in turn means more adventurism, per the std. reading of US Presidents as focusing on FP when, during the last two years of the second term, Congress will no longer listen.)

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 16, 2008 10:18 AM

The thing is, McCain doesn't believe what he's saying here. He wants to take four years and turn Iraq into an analog of South Korea (and--it seems--a platform to threaten Iran), and he won't withdraw if that outcome doesn't get achieved. It might be possible to conceal this fact if he were running as a backcountry idiot who won't talk to the liberal media. But he's running as the media friendly guy, sitting in the back of the bus, engaging in unmoderated debates with Obama . . . The central inconsistencies in the Nixonian approach are bound to be exposed.

Posted by southpaw | May 16, 2008 11:20 AM

I don't think most swing voters will hear the dog-whistle overtones in this speech that you hear, Ross. What I hear, and what I think many others will hear, is "vote for me because I'm promising to re-enlist for a crusade in Iraq, with no plan for success, that I guarantee will take AT LEAST four more years, but which will not end until we've achieved the success, even though I can't explain how we will do that."

You and Antle are in some kind of echo chamber. It's one thing to agree with McCain that we should stay the course; but it is simply bizarre to interpret McCain's solomn promise to continue exactly what we're doing for AT LEAST four more years as "emphasizing the return home of most of our troops as an explicit near-term goal."

Posted by David A | May 16, 2008 11:41 AM

To promise we'll be home by 2013 is to promise four more years of war. Totally idiotic.

Posted by Bill | May 16, 2008 11:51 AM

But a Nixonian peace-with-honor gradual drawdown without disavowing the war aims is a stronger position politically.

Yes. If McCain were offering a drawdown, that would be a powerful position.

But he isn't, and Ross clearly knows this, since he doesn't actually make the argument himself. McCain is offering the illusion of a drawdown. He is deliberately obfuscating his policy and his plans. He is not lying to the American people, but he is making every attempt to mislead them.

McCain believes that if things in Iraq suddenly become peaceful and a functioning democracy forms by unknown means, he will take out most of the troops. If things in Iraq continue as they have been in 2003 and 2004 and 2005 and 2006 and 2007 and 2008, McCain will leave our troops in place for perpetual war.

It is incumbent upon anyone who wants to comment on McCain's campaign intelligently to note that McCain has absolutely no plans for drawdown or withdrawal except in the case of a "victory" that he has no plan to achieve. McCain's obfuscation and misleading of the press and public are obvious, and it's expected that NRO might lead the way, but Ross should be better than this.

It's interesting, as such, that he refuses to actually state that McCain is offering anything new or any plan for withdrawal, because he knows that McCain is not only offering nothing of the sort, but he's attempting to fool the American people into thinking that he is. Ross is willing to stand by as these lies are peddled, but not to endorse them himself.

Posted by DivGuy | May 16, 2008 11:54 AM

Just wondering if you think that whole "peace with honor" thing will work out as well for the Iraqis as it did for the Vietnamese?

Posted by Steven Donegal | May 16, 2008 12:04 PM

This ad is desperate attempt to contain the ongoing damage from his 100 years remark.

Posted by Brittain33 | May 16, 2008 12:38 PM

It's not for nothing that this is becoming known as the pony speech.
In Ross' defense, I think the question he is asking here is, "Can McCain fool enough people with this speech to make it pay off for him?" I'm sure Ross and anyone else familiar with the situation would agree that McCain is being wildly dishonest.

Posted by peter | May 16, 2008 1:12 PM

In Ross' defense, I think the question he is asking here is, "Can McCain fool enough people with this speech to make it pay off for him?" I'm sure Ross and anyone else familiar with the situation would agree that McCain is being wildly dishonest.

I think it's clear that Ross knows this - see also his discussion of Iraq in the new Atlantic, I picked out the key passages in that thread - but I think it's equally clear that he is going out of his way not to say it.

All he has to do is say, one sentence, John McCain is attempting to mislead the American people, and then he can enter into his political analysis.

It is Ross' deferral of the ethical prescription to say what he knows to be true that I am challenging, not Ross' understanding. I think he understands perfectly well, but has decided not to articulate it.

Posted by DivGuy | May 16, 2008 1:26 PM

Great post, Ross.

Posted by Marc | May 17, 2008 1:50 PM