Matt Yglesias has a great post which really captures a key component of McCain's foreign policy approach - it is rooted in hyperbolic rhetoric mixed with hysterical over reaction. As Matt describes it,
Not only is Russia on the march beyond Tbilisi to Ukraine, Finland, and substantial swathes of Poland but that's not even the transcendent issue of our time. And North Korea's nuclear program is "the greatest challenge to U.S. security and world stability today" but that's not the transcendent issue of our time. And Islamism is the transcendent issue of our time, but not a serious international crisis or an especially great challenge to U.S. security and world stability. Now of course there's no way to make sense of that, because it's not supposed to make any kind of sense. McCain just thinks that overreacting is the right reaction to everything. It's a hysteria-based foreign policy.
Each of those statements from McCain sound like they came from an excited media pundit. Well that's because they did.
McCain's approach and tone on foreign policy has always been more emblematic of a TV pundit rather than a sober president. While McCain has attacked Obama as the "celebrity" candidate, the fact is that a bad place to be over the last 25 years has been between John McCain and a TV camera. The New York Times on Sunday noted that one of the first things McCain did after 9-11 was go on just about every TV program - where he incidentally called for attacking about four countries. In its biographical series profiling the candidates the Times also noted that McCain was attracted to the celebrity of the Senate with one close associate noting that McCain "saw the glamour of it. I think he really got smitten with the celebrity of power." McCain clearly enjoys being on television and he has been a constant commentator on the Sunday news shows and the evening talk news programs.
But TV appearances encourage sound bites, over-the-top rhetoric, and good one-liners, not reasoned and nuanced diplomatic language. This is especially true from guests who are not in the current administration, since you are less likely to get invited back on Face the Nation if you down play a crisis or take a boring nuanced position. Thus on almost every crisis or incident over the last decade, McCain has sounded the alarm, ratcheted up the rhetoric and often called for military action - with almost no regards to the practical implications of such an approach.
The big concern with a McCain presidency - a concern which I am surprised has not been vocalized more fully - is that the U.S. will lurch from crisis to crisis, confrontation to confrontation, whether it be with Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. The danger is that McCain's pundit-like rhetoric will entrap the U.S. in descending spiral of foreign policy brinksmanship. Just think about the very likely scenario of McCain giving Iran/Russia a rhetorical ultimatum and Iran/Russia ignoring it. Now we are stuck - either we lose face by not following through on our threats or we follow through and go to war. We can't afford such a reckless approach after the last eight years. For the next eight we need a president not a pundit.
People assume that experience in the Senate means that person knows how to make something go.
Senators discuss and vote. They may or may not have deep and wide understanding of the issues.
Some people think that the bad guys will be afraid of McCain and that only a bully will be respected abroad..
And of course, the best thing about pundits is that they don't decide any policy.
I hope others pick up on what you've pointed outl.
In 2002, as per his memoirs, McC writes that in fact it was nothing BUT ambition; not some lofty ideal, not running on principles he believed in, nor some "grand act of patriotism," that compelled him to take a final shot at the "PRIZE" of the presidency. Seeing as how he views this election, his campaign, as some sort of a reality/game show, not too surprising, but nonetheless pathetic.
"I didn't decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because IT HAD BECOME MY AMBITION TO BE PRESIDENT. I was sixty-two years old when I made the decision and I thought IT WAS MY ONE SHOT AT THE PRIZE."
- John Mc*Cain, "Worth the Fighting For: A Memoir" (2002)
This is definitely a dangerous path to follow. If we want wars there are plenty of opportunities to have it, wether by our own initiatives of by reacting to others. That's why we have devote to finding compromise to live with each other in this world, especially when we already engaged in two wars with no endings in sight. Agreeing on compromise is hard but it is preferable to wars. History also showed that Americans couldn't tolerate a long war but all wars are long, rarely they are just touch and go.
- a vet for Obama
McCain makes me sick with all of his talk. Everyone says McCain was right about Georgia and Barack was slow and wrong. What was so wrong with O's statement? I felt much better with what O said.
Maybe the country does actually deserve McCain in the White House. Until we get education right, very few other things will be right.