Squaring the Culture

Back in December I explained a few of my doubts concerning whether John McCain is fit to run the country.

John McCain strikes me as a man who has something to prove; a domineering, demanding Admiral for a father can sometimes produce sons who achieve out of emotional need. I sympathize; but men who have something to prove are dangerous when given power. Their position gets tied to their ego. They tend to care more about defending their legacy than about performing their job.

Today’s Power Line contains enlightening data for my thesis:

My father returned from the war with a great appetite for drink, which he overindulged until the very last years of his life….And, as with most people, drinking changed his personality in unattractive ways. When he was drunk, I did not recognize him.

His father’s drinking was probably not his greatest deficiency as a father, but rather his detachment:

My father could often be a distant, inscrutable patriarch….I admired him, and wanted badly to be admired by him, yet indications of his regard for me were more often found in the things he didn’t say than in the things he did.

Lots of us survived distant fathers, and bear the scars to prove it. That’s no disqualification for office. The relevant question is, what did he do with it?

A disturbance in the Senate last May gives us a window into McCain’s temperment. The McCain-Kennedy Amnesty bill was mired in negotiation, with Senator Cornyn (R, Tx) leading a discussion of amendments to speed deportation of arrested illegals. McCain, who had been absent raising campaign funds for the past 5 months, blew up. “This is chicken-s***,” he said, and suggested Cornyn just leave so they could all move along. Cornyn replied, “We’ve been meeting for three months on this in good faith, and now you parachute in here this morning and tell me to leave? I think you’re out of line,” and McCain retorted, “F*** you! I know more about immigration than anybody in this room!” Power Line discussed the incident in detail at the time, with full context.

McCain lacked the power to make something happen that he wanted to happen. His frustration manifested as anger and cussing, an attempt to achieve his result by bellowing and bullying. At his age, that’s not a choice, that’s embedded character.

Good politics responds to frustration with maneuvering, jawboning, and compromise. My question is, do we want to elect good politics, or would we prefer somebody who makes their will known by bullying? Much criticism has been launched at George W Bush for leading “without cooperation;” in his case, this means leading without giving Democrats what they wanted. How will we like it if a John McCain presidency shows us the real thing?

This is my concern. I understand bad tempers. I’ve got one, and it’s debilitating. I don’t consider myself competent to lead the nation. McCain clearly considers himself competent, but I disagree. Choosing John McCain to represent the Republican party is a bad idea; he’ll make us look bad. Choosing John McCain to lead the nation is a worse idea; he’ll lead by bullying, not by wisdom, and he’ll make costly mistakes that way.