 |
How Conservative Is McCain?
Plenty conservative. He isn't the Clinton clone Bush makes him
out to be--or the muckraker he likes to play on the stump
By Eric Pooley
February 7, 2000
Web posted at: 12:54 p.m. EST (1754 GMT)
The votes were still being tallied last Tuesday night when George
W. Bush launched his counterattack against John McCain. "He came
at me from the left here in New Hampshire," Bush told CNN's Larry
King, "and so it's going to be a clear race between a more
moderate-to-liberal candidate vs. a conservative candidate in the
state of South Carolina." Bush wants to convince Carolina
Republicans that he is the only conservative in the race--that
McCain is a closet Clinton who won in New Hampshire because the
state has become a hilly suburb of Boston, Taxachusetts. That's a
tough sell, since McCain has always been a staunch
conservative--pro-life, pro-gun, antitax, antiregulation. But Bush
argues that McCain's advocacy of campaign-finance reform and his
opposition to whopping tax cuts mean he has abandoned his ideals.
The argument is designed to shore up Bush's right-wing support in
South Carolina, but it wasn't working so well last week, as
McCain inched past Bush in the TIME/CNN poll. Yet Bush and his
surrogates aren't the only ones wondering whether McCain has
morphed into some strange new breed of politician. The New
Republic recently put McCain on its cover next to the headline,
THIS MAN IS NOT A REPUBLICAN.
The basic argument goes like this: McCain's campaign-finance
rebellion--and the force of the Republican reaction against
him--was a seismic shock that knocked him free from G.O.P.
orthodoxy. And so he attacks Republican pork-barrel projects,
questions the need for increased military spending, worries about
the gap between rich and poor, and supports new health-care
entitlements (insurance for children, a prescription-drug
benefit) and even, in the vaguest of terms, universal health
care. McCain has also been butting heads with Bush on the
question of tax cuts--arguing that the truly conservative position
is to keep the tax cut modest and use the surplus to save Social
Security and pay down the debt. Bush calls that a Clintonian
approach--on Friday in South Carolina he began airing TV spots
saying as much--but according to the new Time/cnn poll, nearly
three-quarters of likely G.O.P. primary voters in the state agree
with McCain. Does that make him a conservative apostate or a new
kind of conservative?
Neither. McCain is an old kind of Republican--to be precise, he is
several old kinds of Republican rolled into one. He grabs various
strands of Republicanism and doesn't worry when they contradict.
He's a self-styled populist and a free-trading internationalist,
a noisy reformer who keeps his hands off business and has
corporate lobbyists raising money for him. He picks an assortment
of G.O.P. role models and invites them to rumble inside his head.
Barry Goldwater is one. The Arizona Senator and McCain mentor
(McCain succeeded him in office) founded the modern conservative
movement, ran for President and lost, said just about anything
that came into his mind (a clear influence right there) and, in
his later years, tempered his social conservatism in ways McCain
might be starting to now. Goldwater was a voice for fiscal
prudence. When Ronald Reagan ran up a $1.3 trillion deficit
during the 1980s, Goldwater lambasted him, demanding the sort of
debt reduction that McCain argues for today.
Reagan is another hero. McCain voted for the Reagan budgets to
which Goldwater objected, and today he calls himself "a proud
conservative in the tradition of Ronald Reagan and my favorite,
Theodore Roosevelt." But Reagan and Roosevelt represent very
different traditions. Reagan passed tax cuts for the rich (McCain
voted for them); Roosevelt called for a social safety net and
graduated income tax to shrink the gap between rich and poor. And
that sounds like McCain lately. "I'm not giving tax cuts for the
rich," he says. Roosevelt's progressive-era reforms helped create
government regulations; Reagan wanted to ease them. McCain again
takes from both, and has not figured out how to reconcile the two
competing impulses. He wants to fix education and improve health
care without new federal programs, so he ends up with half-baked
policies and fuzzy talk about block grants--the kind of thing
Reagan and Roosevelt might both somehow approve of.
Is that clear? Of course it isn't, because McCain isn't clear on
these matters, even in his own mind. The problem with trying to
define McCain's Republicanism is that McCain is winging it much
of the time, making it up as he goes along. Some of his thinking
seems to have evolved out of discussions no more formal than the
rolling press conferences on his Straight Talk Express. He likes
to admit what he doesn't know--a risky kind of candor for a
candidate who wants to be taken seriously--and he's sometimes
ready to scrap a policy on the spot. When Jonathan Chait of the
New Republic questioned his commitment to the
dispossessed--pointing out that McCain's tax-cut plan does nothing
for low-income people--McCain said, "Maybe I'm not paying
attention to the poorest of America. Maybe my priorities are not
correct. I selected this course not thinking that it's perfect
but thinking that it's the best that I could come up with."
On foreign affairs and the military, McCain is an acknowledged
expert, and his chairmanship of the Senate Commerce Committee has
taught him about the mysteries of the information economy. But on
most other issues, he's paper thin; he can give you a position
but not its underpinnings. He puts his faith in experts and asks
voters to as well. "We need to get the smartest minds together to
help work this out," he says about too many issues: William
Bennett on drug policy, Lindsey Graham on health care, John
Breaux on Medicare. Out of all the domestic issues that cut with
voters, his campaign has offered detailed proposals only on
Social Security reform, taxes and health care, and that plan was
held together with Post-it notes and glue sticks. He has got away
with all this because his campaign isn't about his policies; it's
about his character and personality. That's why people who
disagree with him say they will vote for him anyway, and why his
supporters tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. They trust
him, so they trust that he will come up with a plan.
Reporters fall into the same trap. In his genial conversations
with the press, McCain often seems a good deal more moderate than
he actually is. He muses about helping the have-nots, but his
policies tend to help the have-a-lots. He speaks of universal
health care but offers no plan to get anywhere close. And
reporters give him leeway because his reputation as a crusader
for reform--someone who wants to "kick the big-money boys out of
Washington"--is so disarming.
But there's less reform than meets the eye. As McCain's
campaign-finance-reform bill stalled in Congress last year, he
stripped the bill of key provisions--the bans on foreign money and
phony "issues" ads--in an attempt to win votes. Some of his
colleagues wondered if he was more interested in holding a
victory press conference than passing meaningful reform.
Bush went after McCain's reform credentials last week, pointing
out that as Commerce chairman, McCain has been willing to milk
the system he rails against. "The portrait McCain likes is the
one of the plain-talking crusader who's bucking the system,"
writes Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity in his
book The Buying of the President 2000. "The one many others see
is that of a politician who rarely breaks ranks with the special
interests that finance his campaign." Many of McCain's top fund
raisers and advisers--Kenneth Duberstein, Vin Weber--are lobbyists
who do business with his committee. And as the Wall Street
Journal recently pointed out, McCain is more apt to rail against
corporate malfeasance than to sponsor legislation to rein it in.
It's the reverse of Teddy Roosevelt's dictum--McCain speaks loudly
and carries no stick. He hammered airlines for providing lousy
service, then tabled his passengers'-rights bill when they
promised to do better. He bashed cable-TV operators for raising
rates, but didn't write a bill forcing them to open their
networks to competition. (Telecommunications giants such as AT&T
and Time Warner, which owns TIME, have been among his big
contributors.) "If we can get people to act in a meaningful,
progressive fashion," he says on the stump, "we don't need
legislation."
McCain's record makes the Bush strategy of calling him a Clinton
clone seem foolish. In the Senate, McCain has been a rock-solid
vote on just about every core G.O.P. issue, winning high ratings
from the Christian Coalition and other conservative groups. He
supported every item in Newt Gingrich's Contract with America and
voted to convict Bill Clinton on every article of impeachment.
And his environmental record would make Teddy Roosevelt cringe.
McCain has voted many times to cut funding for toxic-waste
cleanups, he has supported subsidies for mining on public lands,
and he favors reopening national forest lands to logging. (In
1998 the League of Conservation Voters gave him a zero rating.)
He is a longtime friend of the National Rifle Association's,
voting against the Brady Bill in 1993 and the assault-weapons ban
in 1994. He's against the licensing and registration of handguns.
He has repeatedly voted against minimum-wage increases and equal
pay for women, and labor considers him a reliable anti-union
vote.
Bush allies in South Carolina have been running TV spots
questioning McCain's commitment to the pro-life cause. Yet he
took the pro-life position 82 times out of 86 votes cast in the
Senate. The only area in which he has arguably strayed is one
that has bedeviled many a pro-life advocate: fetal-tissue
research. In 1992 the Senate considered a bill to overturn a
moratorium on medical research using fetal tissue from elective
abortions, and McCain--along with many other pro-life
Senators--voted to lift the ban. He had been moved to do so by
watching his friend Morris Udall, Arizona's Democratic
Congressman, lose his battle against Parkinson's disease;
fetal-tissue research held out hope for a cure.
Years before, Udall had been McCain's first tutor, showing the
freshman Congressman the power of bipartisanship and the
importance of taking on unpopular causes. Udall fired McCain's
interest in American Indian issues, for example, something
Republicans rarely bother with. Because McCain's politics are
always personal, he backed fetal-tissue research as a tribute to
Mo. Yet last week McCain claimed that he never voted to allow
research on tissue from aborted fetuses. His record does not
support the claim--he voted to allow such research in 1992, 1993
and 1997. Asked about the discrepancy, McCain spokesman Howard
Opinsky told TIME that "science has progressed beyond this
question. We should explore options that are not abortion
dependent." Does that mean McCain would vote differently today?
"That would depend on the legislation," says Opinsky. That's not
straight talk, and Bush surrogates are already going after McCain
on it.
But Bush believes his bread and butter is the tax issue. The
Texas Governor is running on a $483 billion tax-cut plan that
would reduce marginal rates across the board. McCain's would be
less than half that size; he would use the bulk of the surplus to
save Social Security and Medicare. "I think it's conservative to
pay down the debt and save Social Security and not put it all
into tax cuts," he says. "I think it's conservative to want to
get rid of the special interests. And I don't think that anybody
can paint me as being anything but a proud conservative."
The tax issue is important because Bush and McCain aren't merely
fighting for the Republican Party's nomination. They are fighting
for the Republican Party's soul--clarifying what the G.O.P. stands
for in 2000. Bush is playing by supply-side Republican rules that
have been in retreat throughout the 1990s; McCain believes he is
on to something new. During his 114 New Hampshire town meetings,
he says, he noticed something: "No one stood up and said, 'We
need a $700 billion tax cut.'" Even the Republican Congress seems
to be getting the message. After seeing Clinton veto the G.O.P.'s
whopping tax-cut bill last year (McCain argued against it but
ended up voting for it), Congress is now talking about a far more
modest cut--one that resembles McCain's more than Bush's. But Bush
is undeterred. He thinks Republicans will vote for his tax cut
even if they tell pollsters they don't care about it.
And McCain thinks Republicans will vote for him even if his
policies are gooey and incomplete. His aides have been carefully
tightening up the reporters' rules of engagement on the Straight
Talk Express. When they press the Senator for policy details,
McCain says the conversation has got too "Talmudic" (sometimes he
says "talmudian") and changes the subject. So far, it hasn't
mattered. McCain has managed to make himself the embodiment of
reform, of truth and courage and all the rest of it, and as long
as voters believe that Big Picture, none of his contradictions
and inconsistencies will make much difference.
McCain's Big Picture was on display last week during his New
Hampshire victory speech. "They said there wasn't room for reform
in the Republican Party," he crowed. "Well, we've made room." The
next day in South Carolina, he said his campaign would attract
not just "hard-core Republicans" but also "Reagan Democrats and
independents--I think that's a sign of electability. I would like
to preserve our Republican base and make [it] attractive to
Democrats the same way Ronald Reagan did." That could be the most
crucial lesson McCain learned from any of his heroes: become the
living, breathing symbol of what voters want, and the fine points
of the plan might not mean so much. --With reporting by John F.
Dickerson and Viveca Novak/Washington
|