CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
Oct. 1, 2008 – 12:04 a.m.
McCain’s Gambling Streak
By Madison Powers, CQ Guest Columnist
Many adjectives have been used to describe John McCain ’s recent behavior. He prefers to describe himself as bold; critics favor “erratic.” As Robert Gibbs, campaign manager for Barack Obama , put it this week, “if McCain is driving the car, you might want to get off the sidewalk.”
McCain also likes the maverick label, and he treats the strategic necessity of running away from the party label as a badge of honor. In any other context, serial dissent of such frequency would suggest evidence of a secret belief that his own party’s policies are very often deeply flawed.
The maverick label has been used to almost limitless purpose, however, mostly as a means of giving cover to a parade of decisions that defy not only conventional wisdom but common sense. At every turn he seems to be rolling the dice and hoping the media will portray it as the action of a principled maverick rather than the Vegas-style political gamble that it is.
The first big gamble was his pick of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Of course it matters greatly whether she is qualified to serve as vice president, and it matters even more so if, in the long term, she assumes the role as president should McCain be unable to serve.
The near-term issue is whether McCain is up to the job. His behavior raises the question of whether he possesses the minimum capacity for careful deliberation and judgment.
The running mate decision is a highly consequential one, and McCain employed the kind of decision process that perhaps no one else who might have earned the nomination of either major party would have used. The process of selection was so abbreviated, the lack of due diligence so painfully obvious, and the lack of consultation so striking that it is no longer clear that he is qualified for any serious position of public responsibility, let alone the Presidency, in a time of multiple national challenges.
The flawed decision process, putting aside the wisdom of the decision itself, puts in doubt whether he is capable of living up to his campaign slogan of “putting country first.”
McCain likes to think of this sort of solo decision making as thinking outside the box. More accurately, he seems to be coloring outside the lines. The choice of a vice president is one decision for which both extensive consultation and careful vetting is particularly crucial. Not only is the decision highly consequential, it is arguably qualitatively different from almost every other decision a presidential candidate has to make.
The selection of a vice president, after all, it is the most visibly, and oddly anti-democratic aspect of modern party politics. We give so much time and attention to primaries and voter input, and then with nothing more than a convention’s rubberstamp, we hand over carte blanche the authority for the selection of the person who may well assume the role of president. Were we to step back to reflect on this practice, we might well come to see just how bizarre this aspect of our politics is. But it might be more tolerable if, as is usually the case, the public gets to have its say in some other, less direct way.
Ordinarily, names of possible VP choices get leaked, the media speculate on the pros and cons of each possibility, and the public gets a chance to provide at least some feedback in advance of the decision. While such a vetting process is hardly ideal, it does make room for public input and wide-ranging consultation of a sort.
Anyone who puts a premium on the element of surprise, where a running mate is “introduced” to the public in a carnival atmosphere, is acting in a way that is fundamentally antithetical to the most minimal commitment to democratic values. It is a way of communicating just how little someone cares about what anyone else thinks and how little the opinions and judgments of others matter.
Say what you will about timid, overly cautious politicians who poll-test every decision and send up trial balloons before acting, but behavior of that sort is actually an important part of modern non-parliamentary democracy. Feedback and the wisdom of crowds is not something to scoff at, and in a political system where routine accountability of the executive branch to party elders is largely absent, some other mechanisms are needed.
It is not bold to surprise the party or the public in such a fashion; it is arrogant, reckless, and stunningly undemocratic. A stubborn willingness to make decisions in isolation from others is troubling, not only as an individual character trait, but as a way of doing the peoples’ work in a way that is democratically accountable.
McCain’s Gambling Streak
McCain’s approach to the Wall Street crisis offers further evidence of how his propensity for high-stakes gambling is coupled with an insular decision-making style. Over the last weekend, a Washington Post story reported some illuminating details of how McCain went about engaging his own party on the pending bailout proposal. During a Republican policy luncheon, he indicated that he was not going “to sign on to a deal just to sign the deal” and that “just like Iraq, I’m not afraid to go it alone if I need to.”
No one should doubt that McCain is not afraid to go it alone; the rest of us should be afraid that going it alone is how McCain prefers to proceed.
Insularity of decision-making is but one prominent character trait vividly and disturbingly portrayed in a lengthy New York Times account of McCain’s own real-life gambling habits and his extensive involvement with the high-stakes players among the lobbyists for segments of the gambling industry. Here we see the history of a public figure who makes important decisions largely on his own and who deals with his own political losses with vindictiveness and ruthless opportunism.
No wonder McCain does not want to sit down and talk with America’s enemies. He doesn’t seem to want to talk with anyone, or even to look his rival in the eye during the debates.
Most of us are likely to think that McCain or anyone else can do as he will with his own money. His monthly trips to the craps table on their own are no great concern for the rest of us, but the kinds of decisions made by the solitary gambler are not ones that the public can afford. If we wanted those kinds of qualities in our political leaders, there are plenty of Wall Street speculators who are available. They have lots of experience gambling with other peoples’ futures.
Madison Powers is Senior Research Scholar, Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University. His column appears regularly on Wednesday in CQ Politics.
Comments
This is the absolutely best opinion piece ever written during this entire comedy of errors that is not one bit funny. You have summed it all up so well and have expressed my thoughts. I have read just about everything written; I watch cable news all day, recently retired. I simply cannot believe what a flawed man this McCain is and he has been in the public eye for 26 years? You have hit the nail on the head in debunking the "maverick", the "hero", the victim, and the angry, stubborn man I saw last Friday night. I am sending this to everyone I know. Thank you.
Great article. But 50% of americans still believe he will be great president and Palin will be even a greater president.
"No one should doubt that McCain is not afraid to go it alone; the rest of us should be afraid that going it alone is how McCain prefers to proceed." This precisely, is the point. Forgetting Ms. Palin for a second. Think about the enormous power of the presidency. Now imagine this unfettered power in the hands of McCain. His theatrics from the Georgia crisis, to Hurricane Gustav, to his entire campaign has given me pause. The man, supposedly suspended this campaign, sought to unilaterally postpone the presidential debate, jumped on the plane to Capitol Hill to "help in the negotiation." This man had neither been there for a while nor vote for any meaningful legislation; to say nothing of the fact, he had no business in that committee, whatsoever. His rhetoric coupled with his presence managed to poison the delicate negotiation atmosphere forcing the whole thing to collapse. He then returned to participate in the debate, all within 3 days. To top it off, he began claiming credit for a legislation that was nowhere near a deal. Of course, we know how that turned out. While McCain may have been around congress for a while, the American people have begun to see him for what he truly is: a walking ball of confusion. Thank God for GW in 2000. Otherwise, McCain would have unilaterally dropped a nuke on Iran, Venezuela or "Spain." It isn't his judgment that bothers me. What worries me sick is his temperament to hold the high office for which he is applying.
The problem, sir, with your piece is that one could replace the name McCain with Obama in almost every instance and the piece would be more credible. Senator Obama is known for his refusal to take advice from anybody, including fellow Democrats with far more experience than he has on matters substantive and matters political. Senator Obama is flightier than John McCain: it has been impossible for millions of Democrats to decipher Obama's positions, both because they are expressed incoherently and because they are evershifting. As for being undemocratic, Senator Obama's willingness to refuse to allow an open and honest floor vote at the Democratic National Convention, his refusal to count the votes of millions of Florida and Michigan primary voters until and unless he was confident that he would receive votes that he did not actually get, his campaign's treatment of rank and file voters in caucuses across the country, and many other steps suggest that Senator Obama is not only undemocratic but anti-democratic. When it comes to political publicity stunts, again, Senator Obama, is the star, John McCain cannot compare. Remember Obama's rock concert like event in Berlin, his decision to text message his v.p. pick, his absurd show at Invesco field where her gave his acceptance speech? As for who is willing to look who in the eye in a debate, that pales in comparison to the question of who is willing to engage in regular debates. Senator Obama, who is not very good at them, refused to participate in debates during the primaries, debates voters wanted to hear. He refused to participate in town hall meetings with John McCain because he knows he does even more poorly in that setting than in a one on one debate setting. Sorry, Mr. Powers, I think you have confused the candidates with one another.
Mr. Powers is obviously a left of center academic, as most are, after having read most of his contributions to CQ. And, there's nothing wrong with that since his pieces are opinion pieces, but he does come from a leftist point of view. He has been in the tank for the "Messiah" from the beginning. All that being said, He is spot on about McCain, unfortuately. He (McCain) with his performance during the last month (VP and Bailout) has turned what would have been a close election into a probable rout taking out other GOP Congress members (especially Senators) with him. However, it would be nice if Mr. Powers would use the same intensity when writing about Obama's flaws. Afterall, he (Obama) is not really the "Messiah" as the kool-aid drinkers would have us believe.
For a minute there, I thought you were talking about the Democrats who shoved an untested candidate down our throats without consulting the voters. As a NJ resident who voted for Hillary Clinton and saw my vote get cast for Obama during the roll call vote in Denver, I have pretty big ax to grind with my own party. Look, Madison, I trust Palin more than I do Obama right now. That's right, rail all you want about her. Look down your nose and sneer. She's got more relevant experience than Obama right now and she hasn't ganged up on me to steal my vote. As for Obama, he is the most singularly unimpressive "leader" I have ever seen. The bailout bill dollar figure didn't trouble his sleep a wink, apparently. If John McCain says he is willing to go up against his own party in this matter, well, good for him. It's about time someone showed some integrity around here and it sure as hell isn't the Democrats these days. Please come down from your cloud over the O-man. There are plenty of us out here who can't stand him and don't want him anywhere near the White House. And save your breath about how stupid I am. I'm a very well educated creative class woman working in a field you couldn't begin to understand. The difference is, I am one generation removed from my working class roots and the Obama crowd looks like it isn't. I'm Obama's demographic except I don't need my intellectual ego stroked. I know when I can't trust someone and Obama and his handlers are not to be trusted.
McCain spends a lot of time gambling with his wife's fortune. He uses bad judgment (e.g. in favor of attacking a soverign country, choosing Sarah Palin for VP ; If you watched the debate, you saw an angry man who could not get off his 3 or 4 points. The answer to everything was "Obama doesn't understand..." All the while, Obama was showing that he had a teriffic understanding of the issues submitted. Yes, McCain was a war hero. However, before and after that time he showed lack of judgment in his personal and political life (e.g. His first wife & children were dumped when he met the multimillionaire, His second wife turned to drugs because he was a lousy husband, his involvement in the Keating 5, his decision to back the war, his refusal to admit Bush was wrong, his attempt to avoid the debate (he was correct is his fear - he lost badly), his rush to DC to "save" the economic plan, which was a bust.) More than any of this, his choice of VP was a blatant attempt to coddle the wierd conservatives he had previously (rightly) disclaimed. Putting Palin on the ticket was proof positive that, whatever morals he had previously, he is completely amoral now. He will do anything to get to the White House, even take the chance that a complete idiot tould serve as president.
This is an excellent piece and the NY Times article cited backs it up 100% with a very disturbing shredding of the "maverick" image. I only wish both pieces were more widely read.
It's almost unbelievable how hypocritical the liberal hit machine (aka, the media) has been since Palin's nomination. Here is yet another tedious example. Your whole thesis blows up in your face, Powers. First of all, Palin's doing just fine, especially in the face of such incredible opposition from you all, who would probably offer Obama a pillow during a debate if you had the opportunity. And secondly,as the case has been made in the few conservative media outlets, Palin still has way more experience than Mr. Vote Present 130 Times. And now the hit machine has been able to sneak in an assassin for tomorrow's debate--Gwen Ifill. You all are worse than Goebbels.
Poker has been the gambling game of choice for many presidents. For McCain, it's craps. Played well, Poker isn't gambling. It's politics, combining elements of calculated risk, reading your opponent, and, of course, lying with a straight face. But craps is gambling, pure and simple. It's betting the farm on a roll of the dice. "Luck be a lady tonight". McCain's entire campaign has been one roll of the dice after another. His presidency will be more of the same, and the country will come up snake eyes. The English name for the game is "Hazard" -- far more applicable for a player who is anything but a straight shooter.
You can exchange "gambler" for "maverick" at any time referring to McCain. To me Maverick is a crappy 70s car built by Ford.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: