John McCain "Laid the Groundwork" for George Bush's Post 9-11 Foreign Policy

In a shocking article from the Economist in March 2002, John McCain is described as having George Bush's foreign policy before George Bush had it. The article, by the Economist's Lexington columnist, is titled "George Bush: McCainiac - How the president has almost become the man he trounced in the primaries," confirms the progressive argument that John McCain's foreign policy is no different then George Bush's.

The article, written more six years ago, and meant as praise at the time, says "It is almost as if the Arizona senator had won the election," saying that "Despite his defeat, he [MCCAIN] laid much of the groundwork for Mr Bush's post-September presidency." The article concludes that the great irony is that "Mr Bush has proved a better spokesman for McCainiac ideas than Mr McCain could ever have been."

The quotes are even better in context, below are snippets from the article and a great picture as well (you can read the whole thing here).

IF THE battle in 2000 to choose the Republican Party's presidential candidate now seems a world away, it is not just because September 11th changed the world. It is also because George Bush trounced John McCain so thoroughly that he seemed to bury everything the Arizona senator stood for.

Back then, the two men appeared to have nothing in common...

But the biggest differences were in foreign policy. The Arizona senator campaigned for a policy of "rogue-state rollback"-- by which he meant preventing disruptive small-country dictators getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction, if necessary by arming the local opposition. Mr McCain was the only candidate on either side to promote this theme, and hardly anyone took him seriously. Mr Bush, in contrast, talked about managing great-power relationships and repairing the damage done to America's ties with China, Russia and Europe after, as he saw it, eight years of Clintonian inconsistency. Mr McCain spoke stirringly or scarily, according to how you see these things, about "national greatness". Mr Bush called soothingly for greater humility in projecting American power abroad...

Yet, if you look at the ideas that currently animate Mr Bush's presidency, they are about as McCainiac as you can get without having spent five years as a Vietnamese prisoner-of-war... In his state-of-the-union speech in January, Mr Bush... delivered his famous warning on the "axis of evil", rhetorically reformulating Mr McCain's "rogue-state rollback".

Suddenly, "national greatness conservatism"--Mr McCain's amour fou--has become the passion of the White House too. Confronting threats from small dictatorships, not managing relations with big powers, has become the focus of the presidency. Mr Bush has defined his presidency in terms of success in the war against rogue states and terrorists. To make the comparison complete, Mr Bush has been telling anyone who will listen that he has been reading Edmund Morris's new book on Teddy Roosevelt, one of Mr McCain's often-quoted heroes.

It is almost as if the Arizona senator had won the election. How on earth did this happen? But he still does not see the broader horizon the way that Mr McCain sees it... Abroad, it meant changing corrupt regimes which threaten the West, and encouraging the spread of democracy.

...Whether by prescience or luck, he [MCCAIN] was the first to reach out for the policies that fit the new world wrought by September 11th. Despite his defeat, he laid much of the groundwork for Mr Bush's post-September presidency. But the credit to Mr Bush is probably greater. He has proved quicker to adapt his views than anyone expected, switching seamlessly from great-power maintenance to rooting out terrorists and showing his independence from the Republican establishment by pinching ideas from his rival.

This transformation contains an irony and a question. The irony is that, because the president dominates his party in a way the maverick Mr McCain could never have done, Mr Bush has proved a better spokesman for McCainiac ideas than Mr McCain could ever have been...

Comments

[drurylane]

An intriguing blog, Max. It gets me to thinking ...

... If John McCain was elected president, the situation in Iraq would certainly NOT be helped -- but be worsened. As the entire world knows, Iraq is in an extremely fragile state currently; & Sen. McCain does not (in my view) have the understanding of even the most basic wrongs & difficulties of this particular flawed, unlawful invasion ... or why the U.S. government is looked upon globally -- even more so than in the past -- as a country that will finance and sponsor certain dictators (ie., Sadam Hussein) & then topple them when they don't follow our plans or give into our new demands without a thought as to its long-term consequences or implications. "... most terrible of all, [we possess] the freedom to commit these crimes ... in the name of 'justice,' in the name of 'righteousness,' in the name of 'freedom,'" as author Arundhati Roy points out in her new book, "War Talk" (2003) published by South End Press: Cambridge, MA. I liked Sen. Edwards' stance on the war; but since he has pulled out of the nominee race ... either Sen. Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton (at the presidential 'helm') would still be a vast improvement over John McCain.

[BillKen]

Now we know why we don't need either one of these morons near the helm of our ship of state.
Jorge needs to go back to Texas so one of those great oak trees can fall on him and Juan needs
go back to Arizona and get wasted on a 16oz. Bud and drive his car into the Grand Canyon, could we be so lucky. Semper Fi

[Teritt]

Ok Clinton supporters, please read this article and reassess your decision to vote for McCain instead of Obama.

[barackobama4prez]

Someone killed this guy's bearings long ago!