Senator Ted Stevens and John McCain's "Two-Face" Problem

One of the most compelling figures in the Batman comic books is Two-Face, a character who was introduced in the 1940s who has two sides to his face. One side appears a handsome, well groomed crime fighting attorney who stands for good and justice, and on the other side is a horribly disfigured and frightening monster. Two-Face decides whether he will do good or evil based on the flip of a coin.

Senator John McCain faces a two-face problem in this campaign for the presidency. The indictment of Senator Ted Stevens just added to this problem. Stevens, the senior senator from Alaska, was indicted for failing to disclose substantial gifts from powerful corporate interests in his state.

McCain has been struggling to tap into the "good" face of the conservative tradition. He desperately wants to remind disenchanted conservatives of the legacy of individuals such as Senator Barry Goldwater, President Ronald Reagan, and Speaker Newt Gingrich. These men advocated and promoted a robust set of ideas for the GOP and were committed to challenging liberal Democrats by offering Americans a contrasting world view. Whether one liked or hated them, these Republicans built a conservative movement around arguments about taking an aggressive stand against totalitarianism, the superiority of private markets over government, and the centrality of individual liberty.

Then there is the other side to the face of conservatism, the one whose lineage includes President Richard Nixon and, most recently, former Majority Leader Tom DeLay. This is a very different image of the Republican Party, one that has caused almost as much anger with conservatives as with liberals.

This side of the Republican face symbolizes a conservatism that has become corrupt with power. The Nixon-DeLay side didn't really oppose big government, but rather wanted to control government, expand it, and use it for their own political purposes and self interest. The uglier side of conservatism has produced a cottage industry of books by the right lamenting the decline of their movement.

John McCain has been struggling to keep voters focused on the first side of the conservative face. Indeed, he is counting on this, given that a central part of his own story is that he spent much of his Senate career fighting against people like Senator Stevens and arguing that reforming government was as central to conservatism as tax cuts or a hawkish foreign policy. Until we free government of corruption, McCain has argued, the special interests will never allow for true change in Washington.

Yet McCain has found it almost impossible to get rid of the other side of the conservative face. His campaign operates under the shadow of the 2006 elections, which were as much about Republican corruption as Iraq, the wrongdoing of Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, Randy Cunningham, Mark Foley, and others. During his campaign, McCain's own ties to powerful lobbyists and their role in his campaign have followed him on the campaign trail and raised questions about the authenticity of his arguments about reform.

And here comes the indictment of Senator Stevens, who brings with him the ghosts of 2006 and reminds voters -- moderates as well as staunch conservatives -- that the Republicans have been involved in the same kind of political corruption they once derided Democrats for having accepted. The Stevens indictment, according to founding conservative Richard Viguerie, is "just a symptom of the corruption that has infected Republicans and Democrats alike...."

Democrats need to be careful since their houses are not so clean either. Even Barack Obama, who champions change and reform, faces his own ongoing questions about his relationship to the Chicago fundraiser Tony Rezko.

But right now political corruption is a problem that is much more significant for Republicans than Democrats. Republicans held power in Congress for a long period of time and most of the major scandals in the past three years have centered on the GOP. Just this morning, the House Judiciary Committee voted, along party lines, to cite Karl Rove, the former top aide to President Bush, for contempt of Congress.

The cost of these individual scandals to the party, and the conservative movement, becomes clearer every day as McCain finds it difficult to convince voters that behind every promise for change and reform does not lurk an uglier side to the Republican face.

Julian E. Zelizer is Professor of History and Public Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University. He is the co-editor of Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s (Harvard University Press) and author of On Capitol Hill: The Struggle to Reform Congress and its Consequences, 1948-2000 (Cambridge University Press).

Comments

[SophieR]

I'm not sure the Ted Stevens case will make much of an impact on how McCain does in November. Corruption in the Republican Party is not news. (Neither is corruption in the Democratic Party.) It's as reliable as the stupid ads we're starting to see.

It seems to me that most voters see the choice between McCain and Obama as follows: McCain is a known quantity, and though that comes with corruption, it feels safe because we're so used to those kinds of politics; Obama, on the other hand, is a wild card. He might be one of the best presidents we've ever had ... or he might be a disaster. No one quite knows for sure. Some people will take a look at the economy and energy prices, and they'll choose McCain because they're so scared of all the changes they're already facing that they need to run to someone "safe." Others will choose Obama because - no matter what he stands for - he seems to represent something wholly different. Neither impulse seems particularly intellectual, and your Two-Face analysis of conservatism is far too deep for the kind of gut-level politics that will ultimately decide this election.

[Outsideadog]

If you are going to talk about History, Professor, you'd better get it rght about John McCain.

Try googling 'Scheunemann Kristol PNAC CLI McCain'. PNAC was the Project For a New American Century and CLI was the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Yes, John McCain bought into the whole argument for toppling Saddam Hussein and creating a 'war on terror'. You have to dig deep, but the history is there.

Here's one concise summary: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1347.html

Even the 'surge' was the baby of the American Enterprise Institute and the PNAC boys...a Plan B as they called it, or as Bullwinkle would say '...this time for sure!'. John McCain and Joe Lieberman were their political patsies and mouthpieces.

You can try 'Frederick Kagan surge' google for that one.

[FirstShirt]

"...these Republicans built a conservative movement around arguments about taking an aggressive stand against totalitarianism, the superiority of private markets over government, and the centrality of individual liberty. " Not a bad stand to take.

Then there was John Kennedy who invaded Cuba and escalated our involvement in Viet Nam. And, Lyndon Johnson who lied to get the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and brought our troop strength in Viet Nam to 500,000 men. Then there was Jimmy Carter who tried to convince us that we has all sinned. ane Bill Clinton who convinced us all that HE had, indeed, sinned.

And, don't forget those icons of liberalism...Franklin Roosevelt and Harry "The Buck Stops here" Truman. Franklin incarcerated thousands of japanese americans for years without due process of law because of their race. Harry dropped not one but two atomic bombs on noncombatants [who were, oddly, not white].

Oh yeah, you progressives really set the standard.

[1differentdrummer]

What's your point? If Carter's energy policy had been followed the world would be a different place for us today. There would have been no need to invade Iraq to further enrich the richest. Is an aggressive stand ever justified, absent an attack on your soil? If you don't know that Saddam was no threat you haven't paid attention. The private markets over government? What a laugh. Halliburton and others are at the government teat and it has cost us headed for a $trillion. Contractors were single sourced and no-bid without needing to perform. Effective government is what we have not had sine the R party took congress twelve or so years ago. Witness the Stevens debacle. If he's charged with only seven offenses, how many did he commit? I'm a recovering Republican and suggest you try that.

[UnbiasView]

The story I want to see that comes from this story is something that someone on MSNBC said yesterday:

There will be a number of Senators rushing to amend their reports of received gifts . . . I want to see what those are and hope there is a follow up.

[Pragmatus]

All you need to know about Newt Gingrich is contained in his official portrait as Speaker"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/SpeakerGingrich.jpg. In case no one recognizes the wrought iron railing, he is standing in the Lincoln Memorial. Talk about presumption.

[bwaynester]

i believe you lost me on the"good republicans" comment. it's a joke, right? oh, good. you scared me there for a second.

[Annette]

Me too, Newt of the repeated ethics problems and the seriel wife situation. It seems the man was not only crooked but liked to audition his new wife whild still married to the previous one. Sort of like McCain. Reagan who liked to read soaring speeches but had some pretty severe ethics problems before he couldn't remember anything. I didn't agree with much Barry Goldwater had to say, but in this political climate he would have been a moderate democrat.
I wonder I did like a lot of what Theodore Roosevelt did, but he is another one who would be a Democrat today.

[UnbiasView]

Yeah, because everyone that doesn't agree with you must be evil right?

[FirstShirt]

You must be an Edwards supporter. Being "good" for Edwards and Spitzer takes on new meaning.

[getoffmedz]

And to think Senator Stevens is high up in the order of Presidential Secession?

Republican meltdown continues.

Return no incumbent.

[Annette]

You are so wrong. You return incumbents who have tried to fight the fight, to do the right thing. You vote out those who are craven, criminal or corrupt. Use some sense.

[UnbiasView]

I heard an interview with the D running for his seat, seems like a good guy and is all about drilling in ANWR for some more oil.

[surfcitysteven]

The Ted Stevens indictment comes too early and that is political. the justiced department is trying to destroy him now so another GOP boy can take his place in Alaska with time to campaign. It will be a close race. Alaskans need to be reminded that sending a Repuke to Washington is siding with the team that will be out of power for a long time to come. We can hope that Steven fights it out to the end, but I have a feeling that he will soon be expressing a concern to spend more time with his family.

[UnbiasView]

"Ted Stevens indictment comes too early"

Wow, you mean they should have waited longer than they already did?

Who would have thought the guy behind the bridge to nowhere would have been crooked.

[bayside]

Will some reporter be brave enough to ask MCCain, how would he have voted for FISA and dont let him squim his way out of it. Looking for 1 brave reporter...America wants to know...

[bigtimepatriot]

Speaker Newt Gingrich is one of the "good conservatives". Didn't he quit under a cloud of getting a boat load of money on a questionable book deal?

It seems to me that Newt Gingrich is a corruptible "Ted Stevens" conservative much more than a Barry Goldwater conservative. But hey, why let moral and financial corruption keep you from being a "good conservative".

[Annette]

No that was earlier in his career, he got away with that. He got caught by wife #3 trying out wife #4 while still married to wife #3. PRobably would have got away with that too but the GOP was all up in a heavel about Clinton's great sin so they let him slink out of town. Then his sucessor Livingston got caught doing the same thing so he had to slink too.

[hopeless277]

So you are comparing Obama's ties to Rezco to the Abramoff affair? And citing Reagan as the 'good' face? Remember Iran-Contra that brought in tons of cocaine to the inner city to finance an illegal war? Remember that? Conservatism is facism by another name. Regardless, John McCain will win the presidency. Diebold has it's instructions.

[Pragmatus]

First and foremost, I would relocate Newt Gingrich from among the "good" Republicans to the "bad" Republicans. In addition to being the driving force behind the bitter partisanship we see today between the Democrats and Republicans (remember--he was the one that started using the term "Democrat" instead of "Democratic", as a pejorative) he left office one of the most despised figures in American political history. His great "Republican Revolution" lasted all of four years, before his own party cut his legs off. Wonder why his campaigns for President, an office he would have loved dearly to hold, never got off square one? People see him as a slimebag, with considerable justification. McCain, the guy who went from the "Straight Talk Express", to the "Bullsh*t Bandwagon" has shown himself to be merely another toady in the grand GOP tradition.

[surfcitysteven]

"Bullshit Bandwagon" Good one. Hadn't heard that one yet. McCain and Gingrinch have another similarity in the way the abandon their families.

[Agent420]

Sounds good. They are selling snake oil, right.

[elbzee]

"Off the Straight Talk Express On toppa da "Bullsh*t Bandwagon." Now there is one superb bumper sticker, Pragmatus!

[FirstShirt]

"Allen gave Stevens a new 1999 Land Rover worth $44,000 in exchange for $5,000 and Stevens' 1964 Ford Mustang, which was worth less than $20,000 at the time, the indictment charged." From CNN.Com.

Wow. There's good use of your tax dollars. Meanwhile we have gangs gunning down people in the street.

[pastor123]

McCain cant help it, he isnt the one in controll of his campaign the RNC has high jacked him. When he just got called out on going negative. He should of said, I didnt go negative till Carl Rove told me to. There should be no questions about it, McCain is going to be a puppet on a string. Of course McCain doesnt speak for his own policys. He probably doesnt even know what the Bushes and the RNC wants yet. This party needs a shake up. Let em lose a few election cycles maybe then they would get it. I guess it doesnt matter, McCain is going to lose badly, I wouldnt doubt the GOP ditch him at the last second and run a younger more charasmatic charachter. There lack of morals or loyalty would allow them to make a move like that. I dont doubt that they will, Becuase he is becoming more unelectable by the day, with gaff after gaff. Did you see him knock all that stuff off the shelf at the supermarket. the video is at http://www.mccanes.com all the while barack obama is looking like an NBA super star, (arrogence and all) even taking time to stop and
have a cigar break video at http://www.theobamaplan.com I mean really what is the GOP going to do. McCain cannot win at this point and we havnt even started the debates

[Pragmatus]

If, as you say, McCain can't help himself because the RNC has hijacked him, what does it say about 1. his principles, and 2. his backbone? If the RNC is leading him around by the nose it's because he doesn't have the guts to say no to them. Do we really want another Repugnican president whose every action and policy is dictated by the oil, Wall Street and religious-kook lobbies?

[Annette]

He doesn't have either. Probably never has. I know his PR is the maverick, the honest man with backbone doing the right thing. If you actually spend some time looking at votes You would realize that he gets up and rants but then when the vote comes down he snaps into line.

[Montanagramma]

Sadly, Mickie C. can't win unless d*iebold says he WILL. That will be the last big concern, as far as I'm concerned. The winner should already be clear - IF it is a fair election, minus addition corruption.

I think the election fraud threat, of all kinds, should be monitored like it has never been before or we voters will be ripped off again.