HOME / ballot box: Politics and policy.

John McCain, Flag-Waverer

Jacob WeisbergPosted Thursday, Jan. 13, 2000, at 1:26 PM ET

My boss, Michael Kinsley, defines a "gaffe" as a politician accidentally saying something truthful. John McCain committed a classic one of these on Sunday, when he said on Face the Nation that the Confederate flag is "a symbol of racism and slavery" and that it "is offensive in many, many ways, as we all know." After stating these obvious truths, McCain spent the next couple of days "clarifying" his position: that the Confederate flag is not a symbol of racism or slavery but rather of "heritage" and that there's nothing offensive about it at all.

RSS

What explains this rather extraordinary flip-flop? As a Republican campaigning in South Carolina, where the flag flies controversially over the Capitol, McCain has to know this issue cold. At first blush, it appeared that he was doing that thing that makes him so rare and appealing as a politician--telling a powerful constituency within his party to get stuffed. As we all know, McCain does this rather gleefully on such issues as tobacco, ethanol subsidies, and campaign-finance reform. Sacrificing the crucial South Carolina primary to make another such courageous point would have been an act of self-abnegation on par with his refusal to be released from prison camp in Vietnam.

But in fact, I think the flag answer was the reflection of a different and less laudable tendency on McCain's part: his instinct to play up to the press. On Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer had just finished telling McCain that he didn't think his letters to the FCC on behalf of contributors were scandalous, when McCain delivered an answer designed to warm every liberal journalist's heart--especially coming on the heels of Bush's pusillanimous kowtowing on the issue in the South Carolina GOP debate. McCain just couldn't resist charming an audience of reporters.

McCain does this on a daily basis on his campaign bus. But the last time it got him in serous trouble was back in August, when he told the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle that despite his 17-year pro-life voting record, he didn't really support banning abortion. "Certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X-number of women in America to undergo illegal and dangerous operations," McCain said. As on the flag, he was roundly attacked by conservatives and beat a hasty retreat to a more orthodox Republican position.

I suppose there are two possibilities here. The first is that McCain is a secret liberal trapped inside the voting record of a conservative. The other, probably more realistic, is that the guy just hates to disappoint his pals in the press.

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

Jacob Weisberg is chairman and editor-in-chief of the Slate Group and author of The Bush Tragedy. Follow him at http://twitter.com/jacobwe.

COMMENTS

Highlights from the Fray:

Is McCain's statement really contradictory? The rebel flag is a rather ambiguous symbol; some (mostly minorities and those from the North) take it to be racist and hateful, while others (mostly Southerners) interpret it as an expression of heritage. No one can say for sure that it is either, they can only state their opinion on the issue. I think it is safe to assume that Senator McCain believes that it is a racist symbol, but having reevaluated his statement, he realized that he had ostracized those whom he disagreed with by asserting that they were wrong, as opposed to holding a different view from him.

--Mathew Leatherman

(To reply, click here.)

McCain's flip on the flag is dumb for another reason. His words on Face the Nation will no doubt be channeled immediately into some radio and TV spots by one of the opposition or one of issue-advocacy groups already gunning for him. Back-pedaling now in the climate of the South Carolina debate about the flag, which is already polarized, will cost him points on both sides of that issue. Talk about tactical blundering.

My guess is that he doesn't have a feel for South Carolina the way he does for New Hampshire. McCain seems to know what notes to hit in New Hampshire on both his persona and his take on issues, but in South Carolina, at least based on the debate there, he seemed stunned. Maybe it was the room full of beer-soused partisans, but his answers in that debate were tone deaf, not only to the essence of the questions before him, but to his own shtick. When Bush said, for example, that his campaign finance plans would hurt the conservative cause, which was raw meat to the crowd in the room, McCain blandly replied about young people and idealism. But the room wasn't full of idealists, it was full of win-at-all costs party pragmatists. McCain should have refuted Bush's claim: "My campaign reform plan won't hurt the party; it will help it."

So too on the flag. He can't find a smart way to advance what he may believe, given the climate and the demagogueing, and so he crumbles.

--Nick Carbone

(To reply, click here.)

I can't get distressed about South Carolina flying the Confederate flag. After all, just a few months ago the Postal Service released a Malcolm X stamp. Now what did that guy do except rant about white devils? Well, he stood before a microphone with a stern expression and one finger raised in a presumably significant gesture. (Awesome!) He went to the Middle East and supposedly modified his views on whites--somewhat. (Profound!) He broke with Elijah Muhammad. (Daring!) He got a lot of blacks to re-think their identity. (What was the result of the re-thinking?)

If the Clinton administration will let the cool dudes have Malcolm (at taxpayer expense), then I say, let the good ol' boys have their ol' Dixie. When do we get to hear about Bradley or Gore repudiating a powerful segment of the Democratic Party? When will either of them renounce Al Sharpton?

--Edward Brynes

(To reply, click here.)

(1/13)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES