Peggy's Confusion: Some "Political Bullsh*t" About John McCain

Yesterday, I had a revealing exchange with Peggy Noonan on MSNBC's morning program "Morning Joe" that highlighted a growing confusion on Ms. Noonan's part (and presumably others who share her political leanings) about John McCain's candidacy. To be fair, Ms. Noonan distinguished herself some weeks ago from toeing the party line on John McCain in some offhanded remarks she made regarding Sarah Palin. "Most qualified?" Noonan scoffed to fellow Republican strategist Mike Murphy. "No. I think they went for this, excuse me, political bullshit about narratives." Days later, Ms. Noonan haplessly explained that her remarks had been taken "out of context," which may only have meant that, since they were captured accidentally on an open mike, they were taken out of the context of a private conversation.

But yesterday's discussion again found Ms. Noonan -- now publicly -- scratching her head in confusion. The segment began with a quote from my book The American Way of War in which Dwight Eisenhower warns the American people about the dangers of the military-industrial complex. This quotation provoked a thoughtful discussion led by Mike Barnicle of the counterintuitive fact that certain military commanders can prove more anti-war than their more trigger happy civilian counterparts. I spoke of my own experience in recent years showing my 2006 film Why We Fight several times at West Point Military Academy and how impressed I've been at the uncompromising analysis undertaken by its cadets and command staff at a time of war in comparison with the more superficial dialogue too-often taking place among civilians.

This led Ms. Noonan to ask me with a hopeful glimmer whether I agreed that one of the strengths of the McCain candidacy was that the senator's military service could enable him to show the kind of no-bullshit leadership in reining in out-of-control defense spending. "Of all the candidates this year," Ms. Noonan offered, "I thought he was the one that could cut military spending... get rid of the garbage. Did you pick that up from him?"

Having spent the last six years researching Eisenhower's remarkable career as well as the more mercurial path taken by Senator McCain, I could not concur. Taking nothing away from McCain's heroism as an airman and POW, I suggested that it's wrongheaded to assume that his having been a soldier in some way gives him the kind of commanding authority about the intricate dynamics of our military-political-economic system that general-turned president Eisenhower had. To assume this is to forget that soldiers follow and generals lead and that, for members of Congress, military-industrial corruption is a way of life.

So, unlike Ms. Noonan, I would never have expected John McCain or any other member of Congress to prove a true opponent of military spending. Yes, there are a handful of senators and congresspeople in non-defense-oriented states who have consistently resisted defense sector corruption. But John McCain isn't one of them. Sure, in his 22 years in the senate he has taken an occasional position against cases of really outrageous abuse like the 2004 Boeing tanker scandal and the saga of Duke Cunningham. But as with so much else about John McCain, it's hard to see this stance as part of any kind of consistent pattern.

In Why We Fight, for example, he was outspoken about the need for "a public investigation" of Halliburton's abuses and yet he has pursued no such thing in Congress, nor so much as mentioned Halliburton on the campaign trail. Now it may be me who sounds naïve. But if it is naïve to think that McCain might mention the company most accused of cronyist corruption in the past eight years on the campaign trail, then let's stop deluding ourselves that he is any kind of real opponent of corruption. He's a politician, careful not to upset his already tenuous relationship with the Bush White House. So when it serves him politically to condemn Halliburton's abuses -- as it was when he interviewed for my film -- he takes that view. When, a few years later, he's running for president and seeking to establish his bonafides with the Republican base, a different John McCain emerges. Recall that, more than any other legacy, John McCain is best known for having been a victim of torture as a POW. And yet, even his position on U.S. torture policy has tragically flip-flopped over time under the strains of political strategy.

To be fair to John McCain, one thing he and Barack Obama have in common is that both have pledged to increase, not decrease, defense-spending at a time of economic collapse and the recent staggering defense appropriation of $612 billion. While Obama's onetime principled vehemence against the Iraq war has drifted into a candidacy of selectively applied militarism (including support for a "surge" in Afghanistan), McCain has put the finest point on the matter, pledging in no uncertain terms to freeze federal spending in all areas except defense. So there you have it.

But what lesson does all this hold? Essentially, I think Ms. Noonan found herself looking for some of that "political bullshit about narratives" that she had scorned off the record with Mike Murphy. The blurry narrative of the tortured POW who becomes a late-life renegade watchdog against corruption -- this is a story with weak roots predicated on dimestore psycho- and political analysis. Ms. Noonan seemed to me to be searching, as McCain's electoral map shrinks, for some solid ground on which to rely in her candidate's last redeeming area -- and the conversation seemed to be taking even that away. To her credit, Ms. Noonan was really thinking out loud and doing so quite openly. Citing the failure to raise the military corruption issue as a missed opportunity, she offered this disillusioned admonishment of the McCain campaign for having failed to present its own strengths. "Well, um, well," she struggled, coming close to confirming my suggestion that McCain had not run as a defense renegade, "I would tell you this: it was never discussed on the campaign trail." No it wasn't. But contrary to Ms. Noonan's hopeful view, this was not an accidental nor aberrant omission but one consistent with the career of a clever politician.

Comments

[NationalTreasure]

Noonan's political hypocrisy prevents her from being intellectually honest.

[carrieanna]

Noonan's logic seems counterintuitive. With the McCain's family history of naval service, I would expect him to be more likely to overfund the military. I'm aware of that supercarrier funding that McCain seemed to take on as his personal project...but it feels more like a personal mission to distinguish himself since I haven't read about any further ways he reined in military spending.

And I totally agree with the comment about a general's point of view vs a soldier. McCain never made it to admiral, even with his family connections.

[mikemiami]

I love Why we fight. Keep up the good work. I'm going to get your book too.

[eden4barack08]

"Sure, in his 22 years in the senate he has taken an occasional position against cases of really outrageous abuse like the 2004 Boeing tanker scandal..."

It seems more likely that McCain creates the scandals he later "publicly" takes positions against.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/28/16379/9283

[middlevillage]

Peggy.....I used to admire your writing and brain....but you are in the tank for the GOP and it makes me sick. Comeon.....you know who is better for our country....you haveto know because you are bright and intelligent......so stop it already trying to defend the indefensible.

[PrettyToney]

More so than any other political journalist in this Theater of the Absurd production of a presidential campaign season, Peggy Noonan has confused my balls off. I don't understand what justification could POSSIBLY be given -- aside from, of course, egoistically indestructible party loyalty -- to criticize every major strategical decision McCain has made as the election reaches it climax (as Ms. Noonan has done, giving considered, objective critique to, most notably, McCain's negative campaigning as well as the monumentally disastrous choice of a running mate), yet never cease to support McCain's disgusting, selfish grasp of desperation to become commander-in-chief so that he can put that finishing touch on his "legacy" before he dies. After this election is finished we must all remember who were the very few journalists actually brave enough to voice REAL opinions this campaign cycle -- and who, like Ms.Noonan, showed their true colors, too afraid to ruffle the feathers of political devoutness to make known their "hidden" doubtfulness.

[AZTrueBlue]

"I don't understand what justification could POSSIBLY be given"...money possibly?

[Oregon Ivy]

My father served in the Air Force for 30+ years and fought in Vietnam.

That does not qualify him in any way to be commander in chief.

Next.

[Deus Angelus]

The GOP Troll Challenge (Peggy that means you)

Why do you support John McCain"?

Why do you think Sarah Palin is Qualified to be one 72 year old's heart beat away from POTUS?

How is Sarah Palin more qualified than Joe Biden?

Why do you not support Barack Obama?

The rest of us expect intelligent answers, so please if you can't give any; just don't accept the challenge.

[MatoSka]

There remains fundamental tasks for the American people to address in regards to our foreign policy and national security policy. Neither of them has anything to do wih the military records of Presidential candidates. They are specifically related to the delegation of powers in the Constitution to declare war and the policy of interventionism that has been historically accepted by the government of the United States.

We, the people of the United States, are responsible for self-government and the sole source of its authority.

[4fathers]

solid, EJ. keep up the brilliant and measured reporting.

[dcjdjay]

Any man who lives in 9 (or is it 11) houses, drives 13 cars and hops around in his very, very rich wife's private jet isn't about to reign in spending on anything.

Spend, baby, spend has always been his mantra.

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

Especially when it's not his money.

[tedbear]

Look, McCain cannot run his own life. He certainly cannot run his own campaign. No one with a glimmer of sense could come up with the conclusion that he could run a country or any part of the government, particularily the military.

Where do these people get the idea that McCain has experience?

Where do these political "contributors" and even the news anchors, get the idea that McCain has experience running anything. He didn't run the Senate, he didn't run the military, or the government. He has been a Senator and a POW and that is it. Being a Senator doesn't ,in his own estimation, make a person qualified to run the country, so why do all these "know-it-all" reporters and ex-campaign workers get on TV every day and expound on the experience McCain has had running something. All he runs is his mouth, and he doesn't even do that. He memorizes and repeats which doesn't require experience, parrots can do it.

[egal]

It's the problem Oblvion (computer/videogame) had with gaining experience for your character:

Even when you utterly failed at your given task, you would gain more experience towards getting better at it.

It should never have been applied in a game, and it far less deserves a role in real life, where the least speck of intellect should make it evident that experience only helps somebody be better at doing something when it is experience doing that thing WELL.

Unfortunately, nobody seems to think about the issues that deeply. The vast majority believe that, somehow, McCain's epic fail military record, consistent lack of support for and even opposition to the needs of soldiers and Veterans over 80% of the time, and track record of being wrong about everything related to Iraq and our security is a GOOD thing.

They don't seem to understand the obvious--that lots of experience failing is immensely WORSE than even the least experience succeeding, and still remarkably worse than no experience at all.

[booker52]

Ms Noonan seems to be doing a flip flop on Sen McCain, one day she seems to be for Sen Obama, then next for Sen McCain. Color be confused by her. I just find Sen McCain and his campaign just to be disgusted. Sen McCain would like everyone to believe that he would cut spending, yet he has voted 90% of the time with President Bush. Hello?? Look at our national debt!!! Look at our military spending and I am not talking about vet benefits. Ms Noonan needs to look at facts beyond the curtain and fake picture that is presented to the public of Sen McCain, because it is false.

[gladiatorpodolsky]

McCain was not an "airman". An airman is air force enlisted personnel. Nor was he a "soldier". That's army.

Nor was he a hero. He was a guy dropping bombs on women and children as a "technical exercise". Then he got caught at it and was lucky he was allowed to live. Then he gave American military secrets to his interrogators in return for soft duty. His entire story is fake.

[ProfessorDuh]

Extremely well put. This is the truth few here want to face squarely.

[reno1190]

AGREE

[ShinjiIkari]

It used to be Standard Operating Procedure for a politician to say one thing in, say, Chicago and say something completely different in Mobile, Alabama. In the old days of snail-pace media, the discrepancy might not ever be caught, or might surface weeks or months later, only to be dismissed as rumor or mudslinging. These days, the new media allow for instant fact-checking by anyone; a candidate can no longer hide a history of "speaking with forked tongue."