McCain's John Lewis Problem
When someone you admire, a civil rights leader whom you yourself call "an American hero," compares you to George Wallace and calls on you to change you
1) You can take umbrage, and try to make an issue of how terribly unfair it is to compare you to a vicious segregationist like George Wallace, and while you're on the topic try to make your political opponent into the villain for not "repudiating" the Wallace comparison.
or
2) You can stop acting like George Wallace.
McCain's response to Lewis is revealing, not simply for the dishonesty and political opportunism that McCain now reveals on a daily basis, but for what it reveals about McCain's value system. He takes offense, or purports to, at being compared to a racist. He utterly ignores the point of Lewis's comparison, which is that his rhetoric, like Wallace's, is stirring up passions that may end in civil violence or even bloodshed. The slur against his character stings McCain. The call to civic duty, and the warning of public danger, does not even register. McCain is deaf to it.
This is the essence of John McCain: a confusion of private virtue, or "character," with public virtue. It is more important to him to establish that he is not, personally, a racist, than it is to protect the common good. McCain's candidacy, and his political career, is premised on the idea that a politician's sense of individual honor will benefit the nation at large. The conduct of his campaign puts the lie to that idea.
McCain's campaign tactics haven't been terribly consonant with personal honor, either, but personal failings can always be rationalized or repented. Once a politician does public harm, the consequences are out of his control. No repentance will help the victims if McCain's reckless and inflammatory tactics bring his fellow Americans to harm. John McCain will have to look at himself in the mirror after this campaign, but I couldn't care less what he finds there. He will only have to live with himself; the rest of us will have to live with what he's wrought.
1) You can take umbrage, and try to make an issue of how terribly unfair it is to compare you to a vicious segregationist like George Wallace, and while you're on the topic try to make your political opponent into the villain for not "repudiating" the Wallace comparison.
or
2) You can stop acting like George Wallace.
McCain's response to Lewis is revealing, not simply for the dishonesty and political opportunism that McCain now reveals on a daily basis, but for what it reveals about McCain's value system. He takes offense, or purports to, at being compared to a racist. He utterly ignores the point of Lewis's comparison, which is that his rhetoric, like Wallace's, is stirring up passions that may end in civil violence or even bloodshed. The slur against his character stings McCain. The call to civic duty, and the warning of public danger, does not even register. McCain is deaf to it.
This is the essence of John McCain: a confusion of private virtue, or "character," with public virtue. It is more important to him to establish that he is not, personally, a racist, than it is to protect the common good. McCain's candidacy, and his political career, is premised on the idea that a politician's sense of individual honor will benefit the nation at large. The conduct of his campaign puts the lie to that idea.
McCain's campaign tactics haven't been terribly consonant with personal honor, either, but personal failings can always be rationalized or repented. Once a politician does public harm, the consequences are out of his control. No repentance will help the victims if McCain's reckless and inflammatory tactics bring his fellow Americans to harm. John McCain will have to look at himself in the mirror after this campaign, but I couldn't care less what he finds there. He will only have to live with himself; the rest of us will have to live with what he's wrought.
Advertisement





Brilliant assessment of mccain's moral predicament. Too bad he himself doesn't get it.
October 20, 2008 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I’m quite sure that McCain understands the point of Lewis’ criticism. Rather than address it, he twists it to try to make it a charge that he is racist, a charge that he can refute.
It’s also rather pathetic that rather than talk to Lewis man to man, he uses every chance he gets to whine that Obama has not “repudiated” Lewis’ statement.
So much for his claim that if elected President, John Lewis is one of the people whose advice he would rely on.
October 20, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, sure. I think he gets it, too, and is trying not to admit it.
But however McCain understands moral questions, he habitually frames them as questions of personal honor. That his framing itself is dishonest, and dishonorable, is just about rich irony.
October 20, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't anyone recall that at Rick Warren's Saddleback Forum in August, John McCain declared that John Lewis was one of the 'three wise men' he would consult if he were in the White House?
That was a ridiculous claim -- Lewis said that he seldom spoke with McCain in 20 plus years in Congress -- and perhaps a very ineffective pander. But the Lewis comments must have stung the decent side of McCain, if there is any decency left in the man.
October 20, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain really seems intent to prove that he is like George Wallace. His harping on this Lewis comment, complete wih the usual McCain outrage and easily hurt feelings, is a case in point.
Slate has a great article on this, which I discuss in my post here:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/observer2/2008/10/why-does-palin-hate-america.php
October 20, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it's just me, but I think that McCain thinks that Lewis (unintentionally, of course) did him a favor. I find this one of the more effective dog-whistles out there. There have been a lot of accusations of dog-whistling in the past, but the point of a dog-whistle is for it to be heard only by one group of people. Most of the accusations in the past have been of the type that, if they were dog-whistles, they were only being heard by the group that you wouldn't want to hear the so-called dog-whistle.
This one is different. It's got enough plausible deniability that McCain can easily say it's not a dog-whistle—similarly, I can't say that it actually is. However, whether it's intentional or not, it serves the purpose: people who don't like John Lewis, and the civil rights movement in general, will be drawn more to McCain. Don't get me wrong—obviously they would never have voted for Obama in the first place. However, this would make them more likely to actively support McCain.
I'm fairly sure (but not certain) that this hurts McCain more than it helps him, but I think that McCain thinks (or at least hopes) that the reverse is true.
October 20, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is repeating the John Lewis story over and over again, because he is hoping to remind voters that Obama is black, and that he has black friends. He is hoping voters will think an Obama presidency is going to be all about black people and not about anyone else.
There is a certain part of the population that isn't racist per say, but that are of the opinion that racism doesn't really exist. I know several of these types, and they see the claim of racism as an excuse to cover up for personal failings.
I think McCain is trying to get those voters to say, "If Obama wins, I will be subjected to constant claims of racism by Obama and his friends, therefore McCain is a better choice. I don't think it will work, at least enough to make a difference, but I do think that is what he is trying to do.
October 20, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink