John McCain and the “Maverick” Snow Job


Of all the things that terrify me about John McCain and his Presidential campaign, one of the worst is this:

Maverick
The way so many moderates and liberals talk about what a “maverick” he is.

“I may not agree with him on all the issues,” the trope goes. “But I admire his independence. He’s not just a puppet of the Republican party. He’s a real maverick, a straight talker with a good head on his shoulders, who’s willing to buck the system and who cares about the little guy.” (I’m ashamed to say that I bought this line myself, back in 2000 when McCain was running against G.W. Bush. I certainly wasn’t planning to vote for him, but I thought, “If he gets the GOP nomination, we could do worse.”)

But on closer examination — and not even that much closer, really — this turns out to be total bullshit.

John McCain’s “maverick” schtick — the “independent straight- shooter who’ll buck the system and fight for the little guy” schtick — is, IMO, one of the most successful snow jobs in the history of American politics.

And it terrifies me to see how effectively it’s spread. It terrifies me to think that people who would despise McCain’s policies and actions might still vote for the man because they see him as a straight- talking, independent maverick.

So today, I’m going to do my best to grind this snow job into dust.

Mccain_bush
Would an “independent maverick” say that, ”on the transcendent issues of the day, the most important issues of the day, I have been totally in agreement and support of” the sitting President and leader of his political party?

Would an “independent maverick” vote with that sitting President — the completely disastrous sitting President — 100% of the time in 2008, and 95% of the time in 2007?

(Quick aside: True, this wasn’t always the case: his alignment with Bush and the Republican party has been somewhat lower in the past. But what does that tell you? That he’s willing to go against the GOP party line… unless he’s running for President? What does that tell you about what kind of President he’ll be?)

Sarah palin
Would an “independent maverick” fail to nominate either of his two top choices for Vice- President — and instead nominate a far- right- tip- of- the- right- wing extremist wackaloon with virtually no experience, who thinks dinosaurs and people lived at the same time and believes the war in Iraq is part of God’s plan — because the two guys he really wanted were pro-choice, and the party wouldn’t stand for it?

Would a “straight- talking maverick” speak out against torture, and yet repeatedly support policies that enable it? Especially someone who was a torture survivor himself?

Would a “straight- talking maverick” who’s “bucking the system” speak out against anti-regulation lobbyists who were a primary cause of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crisis… and yet hire those same lobbyists to be part of his campaign? Including as his actual campaign manager?

Would a “straight- talking maverick” send out invalid absentee ballots to voters likely to support his opponent?

Africa percentage of adult population with HIV-AIDS
Would a “straight- talking maverick” dodge questions about AIDS prevention and condom distribution in Africa, by claiming that “I’ve never gotten into these issues before”? (Or worse: Would a “straight shooter who fights for the little guy” who’s been in Congress since 1982 genuinely have never thought about the issues of AIDS and international AIDS prevention?)

Would a “straight- talking maverick” try to weasel out of a debate with his intelligent, charismatic, wildly popular, extraordinary public speaker opponent, on the grounds that the economy is in crisis — a crisis that’s been in process for weeks and months, a crisis created by seven years of his party’s failed economic policies which he himself supported — and he has to pull an all-nighter?

Would a “straight- talking maverick” flip-flop, repeatedly, on dozens and dozens of issues, from the drilling moratorium to warrantless wiretapping to abortion and the repeal of Roe V. Wade… repeatedly changing his mind to get it more in line with that of the Republican Party?

And would a “straight- talking maverick” flat out lie? And lie, and lie, and lie and lie and lie?

Liar liar
Lie about his opponent wanting to teach sex ed to kindergartners? Lie about his opponent suggesting that we bomb Pakistan? Lie about his own support from veteran’s organizations? Lie about how many people turned out for his campaign rallies? Lie about his opponent’s tax plan — and do it again, and again, and again and again and again? Lie, even, about what a “tracking lies about politics” fact-checking site did and did not say about his opponent?

Lie so badly, and so often, that even Fox News and Karl Rove called him a liar? Lie so much that lying has become one of the chief hallmarks of his campaign?

I get that all politicians distort and conceal and spin the truth. (Or most of them, anyway.) But there’s a difference — a subtle one, but an important one — between distorting and concealing and spinning… and flat-out, outright, pants- on- fire, lie- like- a dog lying. And the latter is exactly what Mr. Straight Talk has been up to… again and again and again.

And perhaps more to the point: Not all politicians set themselves up as being different from all other politicians. Not all politicians push an image of themselves as straight-talking mavericks who are bucking the political system.

I could have gone on for many more pages. And I’m not even doing a thorough evisceration of his policies. (Partly because the flip-flopping has made it hard to know what the hell they are.) All I’m talking about here is the “maverick” line.

Which has proven to be one of the biggest and best snow jobs in the history of American politics.

And that’s saying something.

Shane
You want a straight- talking independent maverick who bucks the system and cares about the little guy? Go rent “Shane.” You want a weaselly, right- wing liar? You want someone who was always a pretty hard-core conservative and whose narrative arc of his Presidential campaign has been one of consistent capitulation to his party — the party responsible for this country’s worst economic and foreign policy disasters in decades? You want someone so desperate to become President that he’ll abandon whatever principles he once might have had in order to make it happen? Then by all means, vote for John McCain.

Shout-outs to Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Pandagon, and The Huffington Post, which is where I found a lot of this info.

Comments

  1. Ephemeriis says

    Agreed.
    Every time I hear someone call McCain a “maverick” it makes my brain hurt. Not because I disagree with is policies (I do, but that’s besides the point) but because I’m one of those annoying pedants that corrects everyone on what is or isn’t “ironic” or “begging the question.” I can’t stand to see words and phrases used the wrong way. And defining McCain as a maverick is about as wrong as you can get.

  2. chancelikely says

    To be fair, in 2000, the “Maverick” persona made at least as much sense as the “Outsider” one that George W. My-Dad-Was-President-Eight-Years-Ago Bush used.
    But really, he’s a “Maverick” in the same way Obama is a “Muslim”.

  3. Jim H says

    Don’t feel too bad about buying his line in 2000. I actually voted for the guy in 2000 Texas primary. I was going to be equally happy with either Gore or Bradley, and living in Texas, I couldn’t pass up a chance to vote against GWBull****.
    His so-called “maverickiness” is every bit as bogus as you lay out. This week’s “the dog ate my homework” excuse for skipping a debate is, frankly, amazing…

  4. says

    I’m ashamed to say that I bought this line myself, back in 2000 when McCain was running against G.W. Bush.
    Don’t feel bad. So did I.
    I certainly wasn’t planning to vote for him, but I thought, “If he gets the GOP nomination, we could do worse.”
    That’s true, though, as far as I can tell. There were worse Republicans running for the nomination in 2008. And time has shown that Bush was even worse than most of us thought he would be. Might McCain be an even worse president? Let’s hope we don’t get the change to find out.

  5. says

    I’m getting the impression that what he means when he calls himself a maverick is that he ignores advice and happily jumps in the nearest pile of poo.
    Frankly, that’s the only way I can understand some of the stupid things he has said and done during this campaign. I have a hard time believing that he’s actually been advised to say and do these things. He’s convinced he’s a maverick and so just pulls some moronic decision out of his ass; damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, urrah! By some ironic twist of fate, he’s actually making GW look intelligent.
    On the other hand, it’s also quite possible that he’s dumber than a bag of Palins. :)

  6. Jon Berger says

    I don’t think anyone is really signing on to the “maverick” thing any more. As you point out, it used to fit, but I don’t think anyone on the left, or the leftish center, is saying “we could do worse” any more. That pretty much stopped about a year and a half ago when he started sucking up to the religious right. As far as I can tell right now, the word “maverick” mostly comes up in conversations about how he isn’t one. The big thing he has going for him these days is that he’s white, he’s got a MILFy running mate who knows what it’s like to be a mom, and he’s said what you want to hear at some point, either right before or right after he’s said the exact opposite.

  7. says

    I don’t think anyone is really signing on to the “maverick” thing any more.

    I really, really wish that were true. But the reason I decided to write this piece is that Ingrid and I got into an election discussion with a woman at the airport when we were coming back from Santa Fe (the Sarah Palin nomination had just happened, and it was all over the news). And she totally used the “maverick” line.
    She was wavering between McCain and Obama, but she was concerned that Obama might be too dedicated a Democrat, and she though McCain was a maverick who thought for himself and wasn’t beholden to anyone. Pleah.
    True, one woman at the airport doth not a statistical sampling make. But I also think that the chances are pretty slim of a random stranger being the one person left in America who still thinks McCain is a maverick. I think the trope is dying, but I think it still has life — and I want to do what I can to pound out whatever life it has left.

    …and he’s said what you want to hear at some point, either right before or right after he’s said the exact opposite.

    Seriously. It’s one of the reasons I bailed on doing a “why I oppose his policies” section (apart from the fact that the piece was already too long and I’d already spent all day on it). I don’t even know what his frakking policies are anymore.

Leave a Reply