McCain's non-tribute to Obama

James Fallows found McCain's hat-tip to Obama last night classy; Andrew Sullivan found it graceful. I thought it noteworthy chiefly for what was left unsaid:

Finally, a word to Senator Obama and his supporters. We'll go at it over the next two months. That's the nature of these contests, and there are big differences between us. But you have my respect and admiration. Despite our differences, much more unites us than divides us. We are fellow Americans, an association that means more to me than any other.

The natural followup would have been: "I know you love this country and want to do what you think best for it" (cf. Obama's "it's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because he doesn't get it.") But that would have contradicted the convention theme, captured in Sarah Palin's disgusting smear:

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word "victory," except when he's talking about his own campaign.

That, of course, was an echo of John McCain's oft-repeated, "he'd rather lose a war than lose a campaign." To acknowledge Obama's patriotism would have been to undermine McCain's core campaign message.

As articulated by a party in intellectual meltdown, "Country First" means "only we love our country."

That's all McCain has. Look at the bankruptcy of his diagnosis of the country's ills. When he acknowledged that his own party had lost its way while in power, it seemed for a moment that things might get interesting. When he said, "the constant partisan rancor that stops us from solving these problems isn't a cause. It's a symptom," I perked up, primed for some analysis of how the conditions under which our politicians operate have changed, and how we might "change our politics." Here's what followed:

It's what happens when people go to Washington to work for themselves and not for you.

Okay -- do politicians come to Washington with worse motives than they did in eras past? If not, what tempts them, corrupts them, when they get there now? How can we change the rules, the incentives, the pressures? By running a scurrilous, Rovian, impugn-your-opponent's-patriotism campaign such as McCain has run?

The irony is that in the past, McCain has indeed thought hard about systemic flaws in our political system and worked hard to do something about them. One result was McCain-Feingold, which did indeed "change our politics," perhaps for the better. But McCain is not now taking that argument forward. In fact his campaign exemplifies the partisan rancor he decries. And his policy is shaped almost entirely by lobbyists and Rovian political operatives.

McCain's signature: attack opponent's integrity

I remember George Bush Sr., while building a campaign on impugning Michael Dukakis' patriotism, protesting (paraphrasing here), "I'm not questioning his patriotism, just his judgment." Hypocrisy is the debt that vice pays to virtue. Bush at least recognized that openly questioning his opponent's patriotism was scurrilous.

McCain, on the other hand, has made a conscious choice to explictly base his campaign on the absurd allegation that Obama "would rather lose a war than lose a campaign." That's worse than a direct assault on patriotism - it's a denial of the Obama's integrity. Here's the latest:

I said, I will repeat my statement again, that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign. Because anyone who fails to acknowledge that the surge has worked, who has consistently opposed it, consistently never sat down and had a briefing with General Petraeus, our commander there, would rather lose a war than a political campaign.

Obama has acknowledged that the surge reduced violence in Iraq. He's questioned whether the cost was worth the benefit, and whether the gains of the past year could not have been achieved without a troop buildup. His determination to remove U.S. troops from Iraq is part of a coherent, long-articulated strategy to concentrate more effort in Afghanistan/Pakistan. He may well be wrong about the surge, but to insist that his position is a motivated primarily by political calculation is despicable.

It's also a distraction. McCain is right to hammer home his difference with Obama on the surge. But the effective attack would be on Obama's judgment, not his motives, for opposing the surge and continuing to insist that troops be removed quickly from Iraq. He's handing Obama the opportunity to again decry the politics of personal destruction, a tack he used very effectively against the Clintons.

For McCain, though, the success of the surge, on which he did stake his political career, has devolved to monomania. No disagreement in good faith is possible:

It's clear to me that anyone who fails to acknowledge the success of the surge would clearly have a political consideration.

The irony is that the more McCain digs in on this charge, the more ground he yields to Obama on policy. First he followed suit by calling for additional brigades to be sent to Aghanistan (never mind that, in contrast to Obama, he did not bother to specify where they would come from). Now, pushed by the Iraqi government, he's admitted that sixteen months is a pretty good timetable for withdrawal of most U.S. troops from Iraq.

It should be noted, too, that accusing his opponent of putting personal political gain ahead of the national interest is not a counsel of desperation for McCain, but a longstanding political habit. McCain repeatedly made the same accusation against Bill Clinton. Here he comments on Clinton's liberal licensing policies for sale of technology to China:

Far more distressing is the charge that they [lapses in judgement re technology transfer] are, at least in part, a consequence of the President placing his own re-election before the supreme national interest. Sadly, that charge grows more credible every day. And if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it will bring more of history's shame upon the President than his personal failings will, indeed, greater shame than any President has ever suffered.

McCain has a reputation for integrity, decency, honor. He's won kudos for renouncing attacks that play one way or another on Obama's background, religion, race. But the direct attack on integrity is worse than Rovian (though probably less effective than Rovian insinuation). It bespeaks a kind of lumbering, maladoit aggression in McCain's fundamental approach to political combat, visible also in his wilful distortion of Romney's position vis-a-vis the surge earlier this year. McCain may speak unctiously of respect for his opponent. But he has none.

Update, Sun. July 27: Chuck Hagel warned McCain to back off the patriotism charge on Meet the Press today, echoing Obama's theme that the attack is "unworthy" of McCain:

Hagel was asked about McCain’s recent campaign line that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a campaign. “They’re better off to focus on policy differences. I think John is treading on some very thin ground here when he impugns motives and when we start to get into, “You’re less patriotic than me. I’m more patriotic.” I admire and respect John McCain very much. I have a good relationship. To this day we do. We talk often. I talked to him right before I went to Iraq, as a matter of fact. John’s better than that.”