Theme Of The Day: Incoherence

by hilzoy

Since I have this quaint idea that I should decide who to vote for based on my best judgment about who would -- oh, I know this will sound hopelessly naive, but: who will do the best job, I love it when thoughtful people who know what they're talking about actually survey the various candidates' proposals and evaluate them. Just in case any of you share this peculiar taste, a few links about John McCain. First, a quick one: Michael Berubé went through all the candidates' disability policies recently, and when he got to McCain, he came up empty. (The whole thing is very much worth reading; the bit about McCain is at the very bottom.) You've got to ask yourself one question, disabled people: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punks? Because with McCain, you'll be taking a leap into the unknown.

Next, Reed Hundt, ex-chair of the FCC, looks at McCain's tech policy:

"Notwithstanding his tenure as chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, where I first met him (and where I recall clearly that he used to have opinions), he has only two planks for a communications sector platform and none at all for information technology more generally. First, he is against "taxes that threaten [the Internet, because it is an] engine of economic growth and prosperity." So what taxes are those? He doesn't say. Does he oppose taxes on cable or telephone companies, which are the engines that drive Internet access? He doesn't say. Does he oppose sales taxes on products sold through e-commerce, which is the issue that has often been debated in Congress? He doesn't say.

Second, we find that "John McCain Will Ban New Cell Phone Taxes. John McCain understands that the same people that would tax e-mail will tax every text message - and even 911 calls. John McCain will prohibit new cellular telephone taxes." So does this mean he supports old cell phone taxes and won't repeal them? Who are the people who threaten to tax text messages or 911 calls? He doesn't say. I can't imagine who proposes, for instance, to tax a free call to a first responder. What is McCain thinking?

And that's it for his campaign's communications and information technology policies. If anyone can find any other evidence of positions on these topics, please do share it with me. (...)

McCain opposed the goal of connecting all Americans to telephone service, doesn't support having a national broadband policy that provides any way for rural or lower income people to get Internet access, didn't vote for the competition-providing Telecommunications Act of 1996, opposed putting the Internet into every classroom, and never seemed to care about monopoly or duopoly in any communications market. He said he wanted to auction spectrum but didn't vote for the legislation that authorized the FCC to do that. He often said he didn't like broadcasters, but he failed to stop them from postponing the end of analog television (and delaying the follow-on spectrum auction) when he was chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.

In sum, he has long appeared to be against using law, regulation, spending or tax policy to encourage competition, innovation, educational technology, or widespread access to common mediums of communication.

Nor is he any closer to an understandable, much less a wise, position when it comes to green technology ..."

Hundt then explains McCain's views on that subject, and why they make no sense at all. It's worth reading, especially since Hundt both knows what he's talking about and explains things very clearly.

Finally, Fareed Zakaria discusses one of McCain's foreign policy proposals:

"On March 26, McCain gave a speech on foreign policy in Los Angeles that was billed as his most comprehensive statement on the subject. It contained within it the most radical idea put forward by a major candidate for the presidency in 25 years. Yet almost no one noticed.

In his speech McCain proposed that the United States expel Russia from the G8, the group of advanced industrial countries. Moscow was included in this body in the 1990s to recognize and reward it for peacefully ending the cold war on Western terms, dismantling the Soviet empire and withdrawing from large chunks of the old Russian Empire as well. McCain also proposed that the United States should expand the G8 by taking in India and Brazil—but pointedly excluded China from the councils of power. (...) In recent years, McCain has turned into a foreign-policy schizophrenic, alternating between neoconservative posturing and realist common sense. His speech reads like it was written by two very different people, each one given an allotment of a few paragraphs on every topic.

The neoconservative vision within the speech is essentially an affirmation of ideology. Not only does it declare war on Russia and China, it places the United States in active opposition to all nondemocracies. It proposes a League of Democracies, which would presumably play the role that the United Nations now does, except that all nondemocracies would be cast outside the pale. The approach lacks any strategic framework. What would be the gain from so alienating two great powers? How would the League of Democracies fight terrorism while excluding countries like Jordan, Morocco, Egypt and Singapore? What would be the gain to the average American to lessen our influence with Saudi Arabia, the central banker of oil, in a world in which we are still crucially dependent on that energy source?

The single most important security problem that the United States faces is securing loose nuclear materials. A terrorist group can pose an existential threat to the global order only by getting hold of such material. We also have an interest in stopping proliferation, particularly by rogue regimes like Iran and North Korea. To achieve both of these core objectives—which would make American safe and the world more secure—we need Russian cooperation. How fulsome is that likely to be if we gratuitously initiate hostilities with Moscow? Dissing dictators might make for a stirring speech, but ordinary Americans will have to live with the complications after the applause dies down.

To reorder the G8 without China would be particularly bizarre. The G8 was created to help coordinate problems of the emerging global economy. Every day these problems multiply—involving trade, pollution, currencies—and are in greater need of coordination. To have a body that attempts to do this but excludes the world's second largest economy is to condemn it to failure and irrelevance. International groups are not cheerleading bodies but exist to help solve pressing global crises. Excluding countries won't make the problems go away."

I know that none of this is nearly as important as who wears flag lapel pins and who doesn't, but what can I say? I just can't help myself.

Comments

[Gary Farber]

"You've got to ask yourself one question, disabled people: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punks? Because with McCain, you'll be taking a leap into the unknown."

Of course, the question many disabled folk often point out is to able people is: "Do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, punks?"

Because everyone is just one fall or ailment from being permanently disabled in any number of ways.

Or you might even not notice until years have passed that more subtle problems have been developing.

[DaveC]

I do believe that ultimately democracy and capitalism/free markets are the best systems for the most people, and I want a President who thinks the same way. I would say that having that belief was essential to ending Communist domination of eastern Europe. I also think that this is a chance, perhaps the only chance, for freedom to begin to flourish in the middle east. So that's why it is important enough to me to be a pain in the butt and point this out. It is true that there are terrible consequences, but there are terrible consequences in letting Hamas Hizballah, Baathists, Guardian Council, and Al Qaeda run that part of the world. That would make me naive or an imperialist in many peoples' opinion, but it is naive to believe that the UN or ICC or whatever will fix things by putting President Bush on trial. Look at the composition of the organizers of the Durban Review Conference. This shows no commitment to human rights or freedom. Chaired by Libya? Assisted by Iran, Cuba, Russia and Pakistan.

It may look grim, but there will be freedom, I truly believe that.

[DaveC]

Darn, copied the wrong Obwi link.

It was from a month ago, when it was unclear what would happen in Basra

[felix culpa]

Pretty amazing.Visions of dystopia, with a thin veneer of synthetic sweetener for Pavlov’s dog-whistle voters.
His natural constituency (as seems) likely have few thoughts and a poo-load of received opinions, but they won’t be voting on policy anyway.
Incorruptible? Straight-talking? And we think Bush is bad?
If McCain fulfills his promise it looks like a choice between destitution and Armageddon.

As an aside, I was disappointed with Obama’s dismissive remark about Wright in the Fox interview (seen in a clip on TPM’s front page). As well, his numbers don’t look that great right now. Not a whole big load of encouragement at the moment.

[OCSteve]

… when he got to McCain, he came up empty.

That is a bit strange. Being partially disabled himself I would hope he would be better on the issue. Given that he receives a 100% tax free disability pension from the military he never has to work another day in his life (assuming he was unmarried or his wife was not wealthy). Most people can live quite comfortably on $58k and as he is classified as disabled he also gets his health care covered by the VA.

[Slartibartfast]

I'm having some trouble following this piece, hilzoy. What's the overlap between the Executive branch and disability policy?

Or is this a party-policy thing that ought to be rubbing off on the legislature? Because I doubt McCain is seeing himself as emblematic of the GOP.

[Bruce Baugh]

I'm going to have to take another commenting break, I see. Between the kindly-faced disengenuous excuse-making for doing nothing and the happily overt cruelty, too many of the commentariat are getting to me. This time I noticed it before a meltdown-y rant, at least.

[lightning]

Some of us are called disabled. And the rest-- Well, the rest of you are just temporarily able-bodied.

--Small Fred - Talking Wheelchair Blues

[mattski]

I do believe that ultimately democracy and capitalism/free markets are the best systems for the most people, and I want a President who thinks the same way... So that's why it is important enough to me to be a pain in the butt and point this out.

Well, DaveC, you are a pain in the butt only not for the reasons stated. More like, you're a pain in the butt because you're incoherent.

You believe in democracy except when you don't like the result. Take Hamas as your example.

If you weren't so crippled by prejudice you'd notice that the Democratic party has a superior understanding and appreciation of democracy and capitalism. For a broad example, "they" say that FDR saved capitalism from the capitalists, and they're basically correct.

[hilzoy]

DaveC: I believe that democracy and markets are the best systems for most people too. That still leaves us with a few important questions, like: precisely what form should those markets take? (E.g., all markets operate according to some rules or other -- i.e., those that secure private property; which rules should we have?) Also: what actions is it OK to take in pursuit of these laudable goals? And finally: what does this have to do with the post?

Slarti: I must be missing something. The President can do a lot on disability, from pushing legislation to directing HHS to make sure its various procedures and programs take the interests of the disabled into account. Obama and Clinton say various things about disability policy, which Berube examines. Why shouldn't McCain?

[Slartibartfast]

directing HHS to make sure its various procedures and programs take the interests of the disabled into account

I admit I'm nowhere near conversant enough with how government functions in this area to even be having this conversation, but HHS does already take the interests of the disabled into account, doesn't it? If McCain were to require HHS to do something different, wouldn't that need to have legislative backing?

[jdkbrown]

And the EPA already takes environmental impact into account. Naturally, GWB's administration has had no effect on how the EPA does its job.

Less snarkily, the head of an administration can have two quite obvious influences on HHS. (1) bringing a particular conception of the interests of the disabled. (2) insisting that the interests so conceived be given substantial weight.

[Slartibartfast]

Ah, I neglected to consider the cabinet-level-appointments factor.

Point taken. Thanks.

[Mike Schilling]

the same people that would tax e-mail

That is, to a very close approximation, no one. Has McCain fallen for this?