McCain's Policy Problem

Andrew writes that the McCain policy agenda seems "rather muddled and political, rather than the product of a coherent worldview." Noah Millman, meanwhile, makes the obvious but important point that barring a political miracle, the McCain agenda won't matter all that much in domestic politics, since a President McCain will be faced with large Democratic majorities in both houses, and his primary role will be to moderate their agenda rather than advance his own.

I suspect that it's Noah's insight, in part, that explains the muddledness Andrew perceives, though I would describe McCain's domestic-policy line as less muddled than simply implausible. The McCain campaign seems to have decided that the way to deal with the divide between GOP orthodoxy and the mood of the country is to simply be for everything that a supply-sider would be for (extending the Bush tax cuts, cutting the corporate rate, flattening the tax brackets) and for everything a deficit hawk would be for (porkbusting, freezing discretionary spending, entitlement reform) and for everything that a more centrist or reform-minded GOP politician might favor (tax cuts for families, action on global warming, federal dollars for health coverage for the uninsurable), with a few egregious, gas tax-style panders thrown in besides - and then never mind that it doesn't add up financially, because none of it is going to be enacted anyway.

The problem with this approach, as I've argued before, isn't just that McCain will eventually get called on the fact that the numbers don't really add up; it's that "we're for everything a Republican could possibly be for" isn't really much of a domestic-policy narrative for a Presidential campaign, particularly in a recession year when the GOP brand is at rock-bottom, and particularly for a candidate whose whole shtick is predicated on being a straight-talking, orthodoxy-busting maverick. But it's tough to see how a better narrative emerges at this point. The ever-provocative Richelieu suggests McCain needs a Sister Souljah moment with elements within the party, but the campaign seems pretty wedded to an "all things to all (center-right) people" approach instead. And the more policy speeches McCain gives and the more positions he commits himself to, the narrower the window for anything truly surprising or game-changing gets.

Photo by Flickr user MarcN used under a Creative Commons license.

Comments

With the right already distrusting him, McCain can't afford to 'Sister Souljah' anyone. He could use a 'game-changing' domestic policy initiative, but, uh, it can't cost much, and it can't really upset the right-wing base. Ross, any ideas?

Posted by jamie | May 1, 2008 4:29 PM

It might be impossible to be both a "supply-sider" and a "deficit hawk", but it is perfectly reasonable to be for both lower taxes and lower spending.

Posted by Matthias | May 1, 2008 4:40 PM

Very true, Matthias, but then McCain hasn't really proposed lower spending, has he? I think that's the point

Posted by Steven Donegal | May 1, 2008 4:46 PM

it's that "we're for everything a Republican could possibly be for" isn't really much of a domestic-policy narrative for a Presidential campaign

You wouldn't think so. But if you can paint (with helpful help from a compliant media) the Democratic nominee as an effette pantywaist faggot terrorist commie traitorous Manchurian Islamonazi green tea sipping elitist, then policy doesn't really matter so much, does it?

Posted by ed | May 1, 2008 6:06 PM

But if you can paint (with helpful help from a compliant media) the Democratic nominee as an effette pantywaist faggot terrorist commie traitorous Manchurian Islamonazi green tea sipping elitist, then policy doesn't really matter so much, does it?

Also helpful: getting network news debate moderators to assert your false talking points as undisputed fact, e.g., lowering the capital gains tax historically has raised revenues.

Posted by Ready for change | May 1, 2008 8:06 PM

Thanks for the post on policy and politics, Ross.

I think jamie's point about McCain's unpopularity among GOP partisans, plus the fact that their morale is low to being with, means that a Sister Souljah moment is out. Plus, McCain's in the process of complete worldview shift #2 right now, which doesn't allow that kind of thing.

ed has it right. McCain has to hope for continuing "freak show" coverage from the media, and hope that the election is decided on the basis of who dated funner strippers rather than policy.

McCain's policy problem, btw, is a subset of the GOP policy problem. The GOP is like the stereotype of the Democrats fifteen years ago-- you have to profess belief in a bunch of false, politically correct bromides in order to get elected. "Cutting taxes raises revenues! If we just cut pork spending, we'd balance the budget lickety split! The more countries we invade, the more the world will love us!" Etc., etc.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | May 1, 2008 9:21 PM

I think the budget-busting McCain is for real and the supply-side McCain is just saying whatever one segment of the Republican electorate wants to hear, mostly because he doesn't seem to understand or have had more than a cursory briefing on Supply-Side issues, but also because he's both screwed and had venemous words for the Supply-Siders in the past.

My belief is that a McCain president would focus on three things (and only three things):

1. "Winning" in Iraq
2. Cutting spending
3. Environmental issues

Regarding the latter, I don't necessarily see McCain as prioritizing Environmental issues over the other two, but I do believe he cares about the environment in a very real (but general) sense, and also can't see him picking fights with Congress over something he essentially agrees with honest environmentalists about. Particularly when he'll already be at odds with Congress because of his likely vetos of most Charlie Rangel or Ted Stevens style vanity projects.

No, the supply-side McCain is likely a facade to please a certain, necessary demographic that he will screw over later--much like the anti-free-trade Obama and the seeking-to-end-the-war-in-Iraq Clinton.

McCain, though, is better positioned than Clinton and Obama to get away with this kind of BS for reasons already stated by Ross: "the McCain agenda won't matter all that much in domestic politics, since a President McCain will be faced with large Democratic majorities in both houses...and then never mind that it doesn't add up financially, because none of it is going to be enacted anyway"

Posted by Shinyk | May 1, 2008 10:58 PM

1. McCain cannot run as the well this is my agenda, but I won't try to enact it (wink, wink). That is exactly Bush's strategy in 2000 and it is not going to fly this time. I know the press won't call him on it, they just be apologists for him. But Democrats will be pointing this out and voters remember that "compassionate conservative" garbage. BTW - Is Obama the liberal version of the "compassionate conservative"? I wonder.

2. All things to all people is exactly what you get when you have a campaign run by lobbyists for a candidate who is captive of lobbyists. That is what lobbyists do.

3. The only issue that McCain is interested in is Iraq. Can anyone tell me with a straight face that the man we see out campaigning cares about the climate? He just cared about scoring political points with a bill that he knew was going no where. Now that there is actualy action on a couple bills, his involvement has disappeared.

4. McCain does not care about cutting spending. Pork was easy for him because he didn't need to rely on contributions from businesses within Arizona to fund is campaigns because he was getting fed from telecom and other lobbyists with business before his committee. While he gets indignant with the $12b of pork every year and he claims that he wants to cut waste from the pentagon budget, I find that specious. If he wants to keep this war going in Iraq, he is going to have to buy off the Pentagon brass with useless weapon systems. Or else.... uh, oh a leak to the Washington Post, "top generals say McCain clueless, he's losing the confidence of the military". Without military cred, he is nothing.

Posted by Bubba | May 2, 2008 7:40 AM

Noah Millman, meanwhile, makes the obvious but important point that barring a political miracle, the McCain agenda won't matter all that much in domestic politics, since a President McCain will be faced with large Democratic majorities in both houses, and his primary role will be to moderate their agenda rather than advance his own.

Is that really the case? Keep in mind the Democratic leadership in Congress is pretty non-existent. They've done virtually nothing since the 2006 midterm elections that allowed them to claim a majority in both houses. Why should we expect that McCain, if he wins, would all of a sudden have his hands full trying to restrain them, even if they do pick up additional seats this fall?

Posted by Jeff | May 2, 2008 10:09 AM

McCain's seems to have a problem with uttering broad brush ideas that have little thought behind them. From the fiscal side, he says he'll wipe out all earmarks, but once it was pointed out that aid to Israel and some veteran's benefits are earmarks, he was forced to backpedal.

Without specifics, stating he can find $100 billion to cut tomorrow (a nearly direct quote) looks like bulls***. His problem is that when he's called on it (and he will be), he has to come up with specifics, and every specific is going to piss off some vested interest.

He's created a real minefield for himself. Either continue saying general things and be branded as having no touch with reality, or go specific and open yourself to specific attacks. Judging from the interviews and debates I've seen him on, he doesn't have the skill to navigate his way through that very gracefully.

Posted by LFC | May 2, 2008 10:56 AM

Mr. Donegal,
Last time I checked, pork-busting (a favorite pastime of McCain) is a form of cutting spending. I do agree that some of his other proposals (on a mortgage bailout, for example) would raise spending. I also agree with Shinyk that McCain is serious about pork-busting and probably not that serious about tax cuts.

Posted by Matthias | May 2, 2008 11:01 AM

The problem, Matthias, is that his pork busting is mainly attacks on earmarks, and he's already reversed himself on several. Also, he says there are something like $60 billion in earmarks. Aside from the fact that I can't seem to find out why his number if 3X more than the majority of estimates I've seen, it's also not even remotely close to closing the nearly $400 billion expected deficit. Actually, the , which is closer to $650 billion when you count the "borrowed" trust fund surpluses from Social Security.

So even by his own VERY generous definition (which does not seem to have much meat to it), he's solved less than 10% of the gap ... while his tax cut proposals would increase the gaps by hundreds of billions.

Posted by LFC | May 2, 2008 11:33 AM

What recession year, Ross? The economy stinks, relatively, but is not in a recession. I know this doesn't change the gist of a well-written article. Just sayin'.

Posted by Ferrell | May 2, 2008 12:30 PM

LFC,
I'm no huge fan of McCain, but it is unfair to say that his pork busting is "mainly on earmarks". McCain staunchly opposed Bush's prescription drug plan, which will probably end up being the most financially costly act of his administration, which is saying a lot. He has also, as I recall, opposed a number of energy bills proposed by Bush which would, if enacted, easily cost more than all of the earmarks combined ($200 Billion, if my memory serves me correctly.) I personally think McCain is a deficit hawk at heart who talks about tax cuts to cover his conservative flank. My reason for believing this is that he opposes spending bills when it is politically inconvenient (i.e., the Medicare bill; he's from AZ for Pete's sake), but supports tax cuts only when it is campaign season.

Posted by Matthias | May 3, 2008 2:49 AM

Outside of the pundocracy and their blogs' commentators or their fans, most people having working knowledge of the candidates' policy laundry lists. In a republic we elect people to figure out what needs doing, and how to do it. So we vote for the man or woman that we trust has good judgment.

There might be an exception for intuitive type choices—like wasting money on foolish things through earmarks. Non-pundits (and their fans) care about that. Health care may be moving into that area too, just like crime did in the 1980s. But most of the big policy swath you call missing probably isn’t missed by most voters.

Posted by Béziers | May 7, 2008 5:26 PM

er, sorry, that should read "...most people don't have a working knowledge of the candidates' policy laundry lists"

Posted by Béziers | May 7, 2008 5:29 PM