CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
Feb. 7, 2008 – 12:27 a.m.
The Real Conservative Conundrum: A President McCain Working With a Democratic Congress
By John Bicknell, CQ Columnist
Picture a President John McCain , next January, making his first appeal to Congress. What might that message entail? Certainly, it will include something about Iraq, and the war on terror, and other elements of national security and defense that will put him at odds with the majority Democrats.
But then, the new president will turn his attention to his domestic agenda. And he likely will be facing a Congress with larger majorities of Democrats than it now has. The electoral math all but guarantees Democratic gains in the Senate. The House looks pretty good for them, too. If President McCain wants legislative victories, he will have to turn to those majorities to get them enacted.
And he will be happy to do so. That’s how McCain has always operated, and there is no reason to believe that if he becomes president, he will operate in any other manner.
Conservatives who have opposed McCain during the campaign have cited his positions on a range of issues — immigration, campaign finance, climate change, tax cuts, legal rights for detainees — where he has sided with Democrats.
But the positions McCain has taken are only part of the problem for conservatives.
As president, with a Democratic Congress, it is the other part — the stylistic part — that will prove to be a much greater problem for conservatives.
When McCain has been on the conservative side, as he has been on the vast majority of issues, he gives it full-throated support. He is not afraid of giving offense to appropriators when he sticks up for cutting spending, and he has not been shy about deriding Democrats who oppose the war in Iraq, to cite two potent examples.
But when he is with the Democrats, he is really with them. McCain is not someone who simply reaches across the aisle to form coalitions with the other side. He walks across the aisle, puts on the other team’s uniform and sings the other team’s fight song.
If he wants to accomplish things — and every president wants to accomplish things — he will have to do so on the Democrats’ terms.
That means his agenda will include those things on which he agrees with the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate:
• A cap and trade regime for climate change.
• Expansion of McCain-Feingold regulations for campaign finance.
• Expanded legal rights for enemy combatants, and probably the closing of Guantanamo.
• Comprehensive immigration overhaul, with a guest worker program and a path to citizenship for the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country.
This will not be a “reaching across the aisle.” This will be a full partnership of the president and the Congress, who just happen to be of different parties. The shrunken GOP minority in the Senate might serve as a brake, especially on immigration. But it will be only a brake, not a standing astride history yelling “stop!”
Certainly, on other issues, McCain will fight with the Democrats. On the Iraq war, on taxes, on spending, the relationship will be more typical of that between a Republican president and a Democratic Congress.
In his victory speech on Super Tuesday, McCain laid out his GOP credentials.
“I am a Republican because, like you, I want to relieve the American people of the heavy hand of a government,” he said. “I am a Republican because, like you, I believe government must defend our nation’s security wisely and effectively,” he said. “I am a Republican because I believe, like you, that government should tax us no more than necessary, spend no more than necessary,” he promised.
And, he said, “I am a Republican because I believe the judges we appoint to the federal bench must understand that enforcing our laws, not making them, is their only responsibility.”
If those are the issues on which he decides to stake his presidency, McCain could become a hero to the right. He is also likely to endure legislative failure after legislative failure or, at best, legislative gridlock.
A different path seems likely because it makes more sense both historically — presidents want positive achievements they can point to — and in terms of how McCain has behaved as a senator.
On global warming, campaign finance, legal rights for detainees and immigration, it will serve both the interests of McCain and Congress to act. Congress, as much as the new president, will want to show that it can get things done after two years of stalemate with President Bush.
Between now and November, John McCain can make all the speeches and do all the reaching out he deems necessary to assuage the concerns of the conservative base of the Republican Party. He can even turn his considerable skills at political combat against the Democrats. It might help get him elected, or it might not. If it does, come next January he still will have to begin governing in the face of wider Democratic majorities in Congress, and he still will have to choose between success and failure.
In that instance, he will choose success. And it will be an easy choice for him to make because on a whole range of issues, both substantively and stylistically, he and the Democrats will measure success in the same way.
When that happens, the conservatives in the Republican Party will really have something to be mad about.
John Bicknell can be reached at jbicknell@cq.com.
Comments
Bicknell is absolutely correct. McCain is a HUGE problem for the GOP because the easy path for McCain is to simply triangulate in Clintonesque fashion and the Democrats will be ready to quickly push through the things they all agree on and destroy GOP morale, fundraising and efforts to recruit or retain seats. McCain has never authored a significant piece of legislation in at least the last decade which had GOP support. And he certainly never passed anything. All of his famous crusades (and that is exactly what they are) are on issues conservatives either don't like or outright despise but have majority support amongst liberals. McCains celebrity also hinges on his efforts to stymie the GOP and run afoul of conservatism. And while McCain talks about conservative agenda items, it is curious as to why he has accomplished so little on any of them. Take spending for instance. He has been against 'pork' for decades but only last year did he sponsor a bill with Coburn to end earmarks. And he has gotten absolutely, totally nowhere with the bill because he has no support on the other side of the aisle. McCain is banking on getting non-conservative votes through the actions in his campaign and presuming that conservatives will have no other choice but to pull the lever. So don't expect McCain to appear before another conservative group in 2008 or use the word 'conservative' on the stump again after he gets the necesary 1191 delegates.
I know the dangers of allowing either of the two democratic contenders to win the White House. But a vote against McCain would send a message to other liberal Republicans, seemingly growing in number: Either you stand with us conservatives, or we stand against you. With McCain's defeat, I can grit my teeth and hope for a conservative in the next election cycle. But a presidential win for McCain will only encourage liberals--on both sides of the aisle--and conservatives will be in the wilderness for a very long time.
If we don't stand against McCain we may as well put our heads in the sand. When democrats are betrayed by their party we wonder why they stay, this will be the decision that will make us look as weak on our principles as they do. We will be pushed around even more if we don't stand firm now.
I don't know why you people seem to forget about the Supreme Court. 4 Justices could retire during the next Presidency and you people want to suicide vote for a Democrat. Please think past your own pride and realize that 4 liberal justices will mean RvW will last FOREVER.
'Supreme Court nominees' is a false argument. McCain has proven that he will negotiate with liberals out of expediency. I expect his nominees would either be liberal from the outset, or that he would lend his ear to his friends on the left, rather than his base, on the right. He won't be getting this conservative vote.
You are right Shannon. I will hope the Republicans win and hope people like John Kasich and Jack Kemp can influence John McCain.
I am like the elephant that symbolizes our party, I don't forget Sneator McCain. I won't forget McCain Feingold, I won't forget the gang of 14, I won't forget your worries about terrorists rights over those of our fighting men and women, and I won't forget your opposition to tax cuts, you sir are a pompous arrogant fool to lecture me about party loyalty because you want my vote, because you have not shown that loyalty for the past eight years! On election day I am writing in Mitt Romney and you Senator can fade into history defeated and hopefully never to return to the big political stage again!
Ghee Whiz ! I wish I could give each of you conservatives a block of gouda. Why ? So that each of you could have some cheese, to go with all of that whine !! President John McCain, will do just fine; if he is elected. Why don't you complain about George W. Bush, in the same manner to which you complain about John McCain ? After all, it was Bush, not McCain, who signed; McCain - Feingold, "No Child Left Behind" and gut busting record deficits. Sincerely, Porter L. Baymon
Another article full of venom against Senator McCain. I do not find it convincing. I want a President who is willing to work with both sides of the isle whenever possible. Politics is the art of what is possible. Through discussion, compromise negotiations and debate this country has been well served. Conservatives have good ideas, but some of these ideas if actually implemented would not turn out to be so wonderful in the end. This article also shows no sense of history or use of history to understand the political process we have developed. If anything is shocking it is how blissfully ignorant people are concerning the history of this country. Thus the discussion has devolved to levels of emotion like those I see at athletic events. Lots of cheers and boos but no substance.
ditto comments by bpjam, Ross Odom, Rich, and shawn... you guys are dead on. if things are going to go to hell, it might as well be by a liberal that actually wears the badge... as for judicial appointments there's no reason to believe McCain would break his alliances with the left... it did a fine job for them ove the last eight years.
Porter, we read the same posts, but have different views on them. I don't think they are whines. There is anger, but the remarks are observations on Sen McCain's actions, not whimpers, or snivels, or whines. How can a conservative not be offended by McCain's record. It's true, as you say, that W's record has huge, ugly blemishes, but his good actions have, in my mind, outweighed his mistakes. Regardless. that is water under the bridge, it is too late to do anything about W now. But it's not too late to do something about McCain. I am a Vietnam vet, and I respect, even revere him for what he did then. That does not mean he'd make a good president. He delights in sticking it to conservatives on a broad front of issues. I won't vote for Clinton or Obama, but I will never vote for McCain. I'll write in Fred Thompson, or even better, Ronald Regan. If this country is going to be raped and pillaged, I'd rather have it done by a Democrat, so that the Dems can suffer the mid-term backlash. I've never felt less like whining in my life. I am searching desperately for something that I, personally, can do to make the results of this disastrous election more bearable.
A President McCain could be a positive, transformative force for the Republican Party, one that broadens the party's appeal beyond conservative activists, with an agenda that's in line with the demands of today's political, social, religious and economic reality. It's time to move ahead an not languish in some romanticized, misunderstood version of Reagan-era reality. After all, Ronald Reagan knew how to compromise with Democrats while expanding his party's appeal.
Speaking of Senators from Arizona, I just found my old Goldwater button from 1964, and I wore it to vote in the primary. Some of you may remember his campaign slogan: "In your heart, you know he's right." That's not right, as in right-wing, though he certainly was that; It was right, as in right on the issues, which finally became apparent during the Reagan years. Goldwater won 26 million votes in the '64 election, and lost in a huge landslide to LBJ. Unfortunately, there just weren't (and still aren't) enough true conservatives in this country to elect a Goldwater to the Presidency. Fortunately, there are not enough far-left liberals to elect a McGovern or a Mondale or a Dukakis. Whenever either party has fielded an ideologically pure candidate on either the left or right, that candidate has lost in a huge landslide. The candidates who won those landslides did so by appealing not only to their bases but also to the vast moderate middle. Nixon beat McGovern in 1972 by winning the votes of the so-called "silent majority" of people who were fed up with the anti-war left's anti-American attitudes. Reagan won in 1980 and '84 by appealing to the so-called Reagan Democrats. The Democratic Party finally learned from these defeats by nominating a centrist, Bill Clinton, instead of another liberal loser, and finally won back the White House. Richard Nixon, no fool, observed that a candidate cannot win without the support of his base (which is the situation McCain is currently facing); however, Nixon noted, a candidate cannot win the Presidency with ONLY the support of his base, which was the lesson of the Goldwater defeat. I hear Rush Limbaugh and other true conservatives complain about McCain's ability and willingness to reach out to the other side, as if compromising in order to get things done is a bad thing. The trouble is, if the Republican candidate does not reach out to the moderate majority in the middle, the way Reagan did with the Reagan Democrats, there just are not enough voters on the right to push that candidate to victory in November. So, is it better to be idealogically correct and lose the election, or is it better to accept (and support) a candidate who is only 83% correct, when the alternative is Hillary Clinton, who has a conservative rating of only 9%, or Barack Obama with his 0% conservative rating? This seems like such a no-brainer to me. I just cannot understand why the hard-right McCain haters cannot (or will not) see this. The rest of the world (even France!) is beginning to move away from Socialism in favor of lower taxes, less regulation, free trade, and all the other things that made the US the dominant economy on the planet for the last century or so. It would be a real shame if a Democratic President pushed the US in the opposite direction in our new globalized economy. And, in response to the argument that it is better to have a Dem in the White House, rather than a Republican President, to take the blame when the US slides into recession and defeat against the Islamocrazies, I would respectfully submit that it would be better to have a leader who would not allow such things to happen in the first place. I don't want to have the satisfaction of seeing President Billary drive the US into total bankruptcy with a socialized health care system just so the Republicans can win the White House back in 2012. I would much rather not have to live through the hard times that would inevitably result from a swing to the left in the first place. So, even thiough McCain is only an 83% conservative, he is the only game in town to prevent the blame-America-first crowd from having their way with us.
Regarding william prueter's comments, I agree with much of what he says after the first two sentences. However, the article's author isn't saying that the McCain way is bad, he's reporting on how right-wing conservatives would view a McCain Presidency. It seems to me, the author makes the same points you are making in the article, so don't be mad at the article's author, be mad at the conservative right-wingers.
I've allways said McCain is a republican in name only. True conservatives don't compromise on what they belive.
I'd really like to write in Romney, but we can't afford to cast a 'punishment vote' and risk putting Hillary or Obama into office. Then again, being a Republican in Massachusetts,, I can vote for any Republican and know it won't matter.
The previous comments by others at least reveal the obvious division in the United States. For me, it connotes the hyprocisy of the term "moderate" for either party. One is either a conservative or a liberal regardless of party affiliation. McCain is a RINO liberal. In fact, we now have only one vote each to spread around for three of a kind. I will not vote for a liberal Open Borders, or a liberal U.N/ Internationalist, nor a liberal "Weeping Williow" former first lady. So, I suppose I will do the real conservative thing and just vote for those candidates whom I am sure share my values and vision of America. At least, I will not have to "hold my nose" and vote for some "stinking" candidate who cannot wait to "stick a liberal knife in my political back" simply to teach us conservatives a lesson or to prove his loyalty to his "liberal" buddies. Neither will I have to apologize to my family, friends, and fellow Americans--as well as to my Creator for compromising my convictions in this matter. buddies
So, uh, what's the problem with President McCain working with Democrats in Congress? This is still the United States of American and methinks majority rules and you conservatives just aren't a majority, numerical or intellectual. It's kind of nice to think of a nation that is all-inclusive when it comes to political philosophies and if you folks wanna take a long walk on a short pier and further demonstrate your collective mental prowess, you'll be raising the collective IQ of the US by doing so.
I agree completely with Shawn Blakeley. My vote was for a true conservative who showed he had what it takes to run this country right. He showed me that my rights and my liberty were something to be cherished, not taken. Unfortunately Mitt Romney is no longer in the race. As for Senator McCain, I refuse to vote for liberals. If you ask me they're the cancer that is growing more and more in this country every day.
Morally, we CANNOT allow Obama or Hillary to become President. They would certainly destroy America; we'd have to rebuild the country from the same level after the Great Depression. Don't kid yourselves, they'll shipwreck America. We CANNOT allow that to happen, regardless of anything else. McCain is someone we will have to control at the local level; seek out and find the most concervative candidates running for congress or senate, and do your utmost to support them. We need to plant more conservative seeds in Washington, D.C. and that's how we defeat these socialist Blame-America First leaders we have. We absolutely must make sure McCain is elected, however misguided he may be- he's not deliberately out to destroy the country.
John McCain's nomination is the reason I have left the GOP. When the pundits started coming out and saying that the conservatives should shut up and get in line, that was it for me. I registered non partisan. I want to be one of those coveted "independents" that John McCain is after. I would just assume open a vein then cast a vote for him. I am finally finished with being told to vote for the lesser of two evils. You know what? My vote means something and this has finally put me over the edge. I will not be told to get in line any longer. GOP - either put up a candidate I can vote for, or I will go elsewhere.
Watching the PBS? John Adams series. Excellent, inspiring and ... perfect timing. If our original freedom fighters could overcome all those obstacles and win our freedom we can do the same and win-it-back. Here's a quote I love by Henry Ford. "Whether you think can or think you can't, you're right." Winning the presidency is just the start. We can also win back the house. We can and must retire Nancy Pelosi. She's been in the house since 1987. In 2002 she became leader of the house. In Jan 2007 she became Speaker of the House. Just for fun ... go check out the price of oil between those dates. Pay close attention to what happened between Jan 2007 when she took over and today's price. I'd tell you but I don't want to spoil your ah ha. Tonight I am heading into my local McCain headquarters to work the phones. Saturday I'll be out with my husband walking precincts. McCain needs all of us to bring in 10 undecided's to win his election. We need to encourage and uplift each other and set our bar HIGH HIGH HIGH. We can win the house ands declare our freedom from Pelosi ... Today's WSJ said in reference to Pelosi & Reid's refusal to debate oil drilling "The Democratic leadership is trying to smother any awareness of their responsibility for high prices. They are also trying to quash a revolt among Democrats who realize that the country is still dependent on fossil fuels, no matter how loudly quasi-mystical environmentalists like Al Gore claim otherwise."
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: