Parsing McCain’s Annapolis Speech

John McCain went back to the US Naval Academy today to give a speech on Service to America. In many respects, this is a very interesting - and worrisome - speech:

… many Americans are indifferent to or cynical about the virtues that our country claims. In part, it is attributable to the dislocations economic change causes; to the experience of Americans who have, through no fault of their own, been left behind as others profit as they never have before. In part, it is in reaction to government’s mistakes and incompetence, and to the selfishness of some public figures who seek to shine the luster of their public reputations at the expense of the public good. But for others, cynicism about our country, government, social and religious institutions seems not a reaction to occasions when they have been let down by these institutions, but because the ease which wealth and opportunity have given their lives led them to the mistaken conclusion that America, and the liberties its system of government is intended to protect, just aren’t important to the quality of their lives.

... when healthy skepticism sours into corrosive cynicism our expectations of our government become reduced to the delivery of services. And to some people the expectations of liberty are reduced to the right to choose among competing brands of designer coffee.

What is lost is, in a word, citizenship. For too many Americans, the idea of good citizenship does not extend beyond walking into a voting booth every two or four years and pulling a lever. And too few Americans demand of themselves even that first obligation of self-government.

What immediately jumped to mind when I heard this speech on the radio and then read the transcript, was the unfortunate analogy to Jimmy Carter’s infamous malaise speech. Berating your customers is bad in any business. I know from painful personal experience that yelling at students about their collective failings results in negative student evaluations. Likewise, Jimmy Carter learned that berating voters is bad politics. So even if you think that the American people—or some substantial percentage of them—have lost interest in the basic obligations of citizenship, the answer is not berating them for having done so but rather convincing them that citizenship has its obligations. The message has to be positive rather than negative, which is something that Ronald Reagan exceled at and McCain, at least in this case, failed to do.

The speech is also a salutary reminder that McCain is a national greatness conservative rather than either a social or limited government conservative. The trouble with national greatness conservatives is that they need a crusade. Indeed, McCain’s speech admits it:

I discovered that nothing in life is more liberating than to fight for a cause that encompasses you but is not defined by your existence alone.

They need some calling that requires the American people to step up to the plate and hit a home run. In short, they need a war. Their paradigm is the so-called greatest generation and the crusade against fascism.

In the absence of war, they will settle for imperialism. It is not surprising that Teddy Roosevelt is frequently held up as the paradigmatic national greatness conservative, as Roosevelt probably was the most imperialist of any American president.

The trouble is that the American people are essentially peaceful bunch whose ancestors mostly came here to escape being part of an empire. We are reluctant warriors and reluctant imperialists. Ronald Reagan knew this:

No mother would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology.

Accordingly, a national greatness conservative is always going to be frustrated by the mass of the American people.

The other trouble with national greatness conservatives is that they need big government. Indeed, they want government to do big things. William Kristol and David Brooks, for example, once wrote that:

[National greatness conservatism] would use federal power to preserve and enhance our national patrimony--the parks, buildings, and monuments that are the physical manifestations of our common heritage. And it insists that while government should be limited, it should also be energetic. ... And it isn’t unfriendly to government, properly understood. After all, as Lincoln reminds us, it is “through this free government which we have enjoyed” that Americans have secured “an open field and a fair chance” for our “understanding, enterprise, and intelligence.” Free government--limited but energetic--is not the enemy. It can be used, in the spirit of Henry Clay and Teddy Roosevelt, to enhance competition and opportunity.

In this light, the claim advanced by some on the left that McCain would represent a third term for George Bush has a certain validity. Like Bush, although perhaps for different reasons, McCain is a big government conservative. If we learned anything from the Bush presidency, however, is that big government conservatism is an oxymoron. Bush has not advanced the conservative agenda. To the contrary, he has left the conservative agenda in shambles. Government is bigger but no more effective. The rights of the unborn remaining unprotected, while the rights of the living have been infringed. Business is shackled with more regulation and government deficits grow apace.

McCain’s Annapolis speech paid lip service to the principles of limited government:

Citizenship thrives in the communal spaces where government is absent. ... Although it exists apart from government, citizenship is the habits and institutions that preserve democracy.

Yet, there is also this:

There is no honor or happiness in just being strong enough to be left alone.

Contrast Louis Brandeis:

“The makers of the Constitution conferred the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by all civilized men—the right to be let alone.”

And then there’s this from McCain:

If you are disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them. I hope more Americans would consider enlisting in our Armed Forces. I hope more would consider running for public office or working in federal, state and local governments.

Contrast Ronald Reagan:

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

And another Reagan quote:

The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would steal them away.

And a third:

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

Posted on Wednesday, April 02 2008 | Permalink

Professor,

You missed Reagan’s most important statement about government:

“Government is not the solution, it is the problem”

For those (in my case, former) libertarian/republicans, McCain represents a serious compromising of principles to pull the lever for.  However, Clintama is making that a lest Faustian choice.

Posted by  on  04/02  at  07:59 PM

Rob: I take it that you will be joining me in holding my nose and pulling the McCain lever?

Posted by Professor Bainbridge  on  04/02  at  08:04 PM

Yea, I’d rather hold my nose in November than be rubbing my ass a year later with a Democrat.

Posted by  on  04/02  at  08:21 PM

I agree with these concerns, although I’ll vote for McCain. Actually two of my biggest concerns—free speech muzzling via campaign finance laws, and economy-destroying laws to combat global warming—McCain has promised to make worse. But I know both Hillary and that racist Obama will be even worse than McCain.

McCain has been a consistent supporter of free trade and is pro-life. Two big issues for me. And McCain will appoint better Supreme Court justices. And, of course, McCain won’t immediately surrender upon inauguration as that terrorist-lover Obama has promised, too.

Posted by  on  04/02  at  08:25 PM

There’s this, too:

“Americans who have, through no fault of their own, been left behind as others profit as they never have before.”

In my experience, those who have been left behind achieve that status by not getting off their dead asses and catching up.  McCain definitely sees the government as a “problem solver”.

Posted by  on  04/02  at  09:51 PM

I had the same reaction to McCain on Letterman last night.  Not that he wasn’t good...he was.

The bothersome statement came when he was talking about the housing crisis.  He said some people are “having to get second jobs, having to dip into their savings,...”.

Having to dip into their savings?!  What are their savings for?  A trip to Disney World?  They deserve taxpayer money but shouldn’t have to use their own savings to get through this “rainy day”?

Posted by  on  04/02  at  09:54 PM

That reminds me of something McCain said on Letterman last night.  Twice he mentioned that voters don’t really pay that much attention until later in the year.  It struck me as somewhat condescending, a trait well-known amongst long time denizens of DC.  Now I see a bit more.  Thanks.

Yep.. I’ll probably hold my nose too.  He was a Navy guy after all.

Posted by Fod  on  04/02  at  10:58 PM

John McCain is b>not</b> a conservative.
He is a big government liberal with (like Joe Lieberman) a few “conservative”
positions.

Posted by J'hn1  on  04/03  at  12:54 AM

Several things you say strike me as off.  The first is that Americans are “essentially a peaceful people.” A quick glance through history provides 1812, the Spanish American war, the Mexican American War, Countless wars against Native Americans and recent forays into the Middle East as conflicts we were more than happy to jump into.  We don’t like fighting long wars, but historically we as a people clamored to fight. Another view is that we were fulfilling our “Manifest Destiny.”

You also misrepresent McCain’s quote in comparison to Brandeis.  McCain is speaking to the strength of a country to shut out the rest of the world, whereas Brandeis speaks to the rights inherent to individuals in a free society.  Comparing the two quotes is a travesty.

You also on one hand call McCain a big government conservative and a national greatness conservative.  You can’t have it both ways, especially when you cite a definition of national greatness conservatives being for “limited but energetic government.” Big government tends to be the opposite of limited.

Lastly you comment on McCain needing some “crusade” to embark on, and quickly assume he will fulfill this need through war or imperialism. He gave the speech at the school where he was commissioned and started a lifetime of service to this nation.  It was the foundation of his speech.  Yet you completely ignore that the cause McCain is referencing is his service to his country.  He may well have a cause to champion when he enters office, but the most that could be taken from the speech was an echo of Kennedy, “ask not what your country can do for you...”

You have changed the context of what McCain said, and made his words fit what you want him to have said.  The only thing that strikes me as odd is your comparison to Carter and criticizing your customer, since that would indicate an approval of McCain that the rest of your review does not support.

Posted by  on  04/03  at  01:09 AM

We are already in a crusade.

Civilizing Islam.

What we need is a Congress that will check some of McCain’s idiocies.

And Barack “Can we surrender yet?” Obama would be a total disaster. At least we can shout in McCain’s ear (Harriet Meyers?). It the Dems get in we will be talking to the hand.

Posted by M. Simon  on  04/03  at  02:15 AM

"Rob: I take it that you will be joining me in holding my nose and pulling the McCain lever?”

Yeah, most likely.  He’s not one to see the limits of federal authority, but I guess the saving argument is he is solid on fighting terrorism. 

He’s always been good on spending.  That’s a plus.

Posted by  on  04/03  at  02:16 AM

The check on the Global Warming idiocy?

China and India. Exactly what checked it in ‘98.

Posted by M. Simon  on  04/03  at  02:22 AM

Afraid that I used up my last set of noseplugs with Bush. Can’t do McCain, just a bridge too far.

Posted by  on  04/03  at  06:21 AM

"No mother would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology.”

Routinely incorrect in Middle East. That’s one of the main problem with US: you think everyone is like you, which is IMHO some sort of inconscious superiourity complex (those who differ are inevitably better in some (if few) senses, which is hard to digest).  Be respectful to your foe, do try to understand him. This will make your war much easier.

Posted by  on  04/03  at  07:13 AM

When I look at each of the three candidates, I see individuals each going down that path that is not good for the Nation.  I cannot close my eyes, hold my nose, cross my fingers and vote all at the same time.  Not for any of them.

Each of them believes in the racial quotas and set-aside systems inside the federal regulatory system, something that actually entrenches the racial divisiveness in this Nation.  Indeed each has made it a point of fostering laws and regulations to enshrine such things.

Each of them believes in larger government and taxing far more to pay for it, in that they are in accord. 

Each of the three will not address our national sovereignty nor our national security concerns starting at *home* in the areas of transportation, law enforcement and border control.  This is, apparently, no longer needed by our two parties in the modern times.

I have problems in these three each wanting to ‘repair our reputation’ either via grand verbiage or mere trade and to not, not once, not any of them, go to our long standing friends and allies through thick and thin, those who fought out of tyrannical systems becaused the loved the american ideal, to those that seek us for what we are based on and offer these fine things to them FIRST.  I do believe in ‘free trade’ with *them* so that we may expand and secure liberty and freedom amongst those who DO agree with us and seek us for those reasons.  That apparently makes me ‘isolationist’ and ‘protectionist’ instead of seeking to expand liberty and freedom amongst those who want it and cry out for it and befriend us because of it.  If we cannot honor our friends and allies, then we do become, truly, a worthless and neglectful friend to have.

By not talking of free enterprise, individualism and getting government out of our wallets, our lives and our bedrooms so that government can do its job of providing for the defense of the Nation: I can see where these three are headed and want none of it.

The only reason I *could* vote for McCain is *if* I expect another serious attack on the Nation so that McCain is too damned *busy* to do any of the things he espouses.  That is a horrific reason to vote for anyone, to wish your Nation attacked *again*.  I do have serious doubts on those who say that we have actually addressed this and the last 6-7 years are meaningful in that regard seeing no attacks at home while the evidence of increased external terrorist infiltration have been found and evident.  Terrorists struck soon into the Clinton term and again soon into the Bush term and those attackers have proven capable of long term planning. 

I am not voting *just* for CinC, but for a President who is head of State, head of Government and final Pardoner.  It is one out of three vice zero out of three, and the other two have proven to be even vaster in their scope than CinC and yet each vital to that role.  None integrate that concept, none put it together even after our fine General creates a new manual that tells how and why these must be integrated against our modern foes.  None of them *get it* in that regard.  The Cold War is over.  The 1960’s are over.  The post-Cold War era of ‘no need to defend ourselves robustly’ is over.  The ‘Peace Dividend’ is gone and spent to no worthwhile end.  These three look to those eras with nostalgia and miss the changed circumstances, changed foes, changed needs and the errors we have committed in *each* of those times.

Posted by ajacksonian  on  04/03  at  08:04 AM

Can’t vote for McCain—he will destroy the conservative concept of limited gov’t.  Will vote for sHrillary or BO—the nation needs to see and feel the effects of democrats unleashed.

It took a Carter to give us a conservative president, Ronaldus Maximus Reagan. 

The nation needs to be reminded every 30-years how bad it can get.  A Dem president will carve Dem “feelings” into the electorates’ brains . . . for another 30-year.

Posted by  on  04/03  at  10:26 AM
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: From the "Why is That?" File

Previous entry: I've Decided to Endorse Barack Obama for President

Introduction


Recent Punditry Entries


Hot Topics on Food & Wine

Hot Topics on Law & Business


Punditry RSS Feed

Flickr

Archives

My Books



Blogroll