Slate's Bizbox
frame game: How you look at things.

The McCain Majority

By William Saletan
Posted Thursday, Feb. 24, 2000, at 3:30 AM ET

George W. Bush trounced John McCain by a margin of more than two to one among self-identified Republicans in Michigan yesterday—and lost the primary. How? Independents and Democrats flooded the contest. They outnumbered self-identified Republicans and voted overwhelmingly for McCain. Bush says these newcomers aren't real or potential Republicans; McCain says they are. So the Bush-McCain race has come down to this: What does it mean to be a Republican?

Some political reporters haven't thought about this question, others don't understand it, and most of the rest don't care. They've been trained to report who's up and who's down, not why it matters. So when Bush argued last night that "Republicans overwhelmingly supported my candidacy" in Michigan, reporters brushed it off as post-defeat spin. Yes, the media are covering McCain's poor showing among self-identified Republicans, but only insofar as it affects the horse race. They don't understand that the Bush-McCain war will determine not just which candidate represents the GOP, but what he's representing.

The pattern of the primaries so far—Bush winning the Republican faithful, McCain winning independents and Democrats—raises one of life's oldest and deepest questions: How far will you change who you are to get what you want? How many nose jobs, face lifts, and breast augmentations will you endure to attract a husband? How many colleagues will you step on or manipulate to win a promotion? How many cigarettes will you smoke and how many classes will you cut to fit in with the cool kids? At what point along the road to success does the person who is succeeding cease to be you?

McCain says he can restore the presidency to the GOP by attracting independents and Democrats. In his victory speech last night, he promised to "make our party bigger and change politics in this country for generations. Don't fear this campaign, my fellow Republicans. Join it. … This is where you belong: the Republicans who practice the politics of addition over the politics of division. We are creating a new majority, my friends—a McCain majority."

But the "politics of addition" isn't that simple. Each time a political, social, or economic organization adds new and different members, it loses a bit of its old identity. When a family grows by birth or marriage, it changes. When America Online acquires Time Warner, it changes. When the United States welcomes immigrants who speak other languages, it changes. At what point is AOL no longer AOL? At what point is the United States no longer the United States? At what point is the GOP no longer the GOP?

These questions can't simply be dismissed as narrow-minded. They require philosophical answers: What does it mean to be an Internet company, an American, or a Republican? McCain prefers debt reduction and long-term Medicare solvency to tax cuts. He assails tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. Lately he has spent most of his time in the Senate trying to ban unregulated political donations and to force tobacco companies to pay a huge fine that would oblige them to raise cigarette prices. How far do these crusades and policies bend the definition of the GOP? How many Republicans are prepared to change the party to accommodate McCain, and how many of his heresies are they willing to absorb?

If McCain wins the nomination and the presidency, he will change the GOP at least as dramatically as Bill Clinton changed the Democrats. Bush would define fiscal conservatism in terms of reducing the size of government. McCain would define it in terms of balancing the budget. Bush would emphasize tax cuts. McCain would emphasize tax "fairness." When vacancies open on the Supreme Court, Bush would need to maintain his base among Christian conservatives. McCain would need to maintain his base among libertarian independents. And while Bush would confine the use of American power abroad to "American interests," McCain would extend it to an ambitious agenda of "rogue-state rollback."

Liberals don't understand why McCain scares so many Republicans. Today's New York Times, for example, chides Bush for "belittling" McCain's "gift for inclusiveness." Back in 1992, when Clinton was attracting supporters of the death penalty, the Times saw it as a betrayal of principle rather than a "gift for inclusiveness." But that's the difference between your principle and the other guy's. Republicans have every right to shrink in mortal terror from the prospect of a McCain presidency. The question before them is not whether they will absorb the "McCain majority" but whether it will absorb them.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Highlights from The Fray:


The issue is much more mundane. The question facing (presumably--conservative, activist) Republicans is actually: How do they maximize the probability of getting most of the policies they most desire? Do they go for Bush, hoping for much, but risking getting Gore (i.e. nothing)? Or do they take the "lesser" package offered by McCain, recognizing that this choice radically lowers the odds of ending up with Gore? It is the old practical question of risk versus reward, rather than that highly symbolic nonsense of "who we are". When the question is posed in this the less ethereal way, the notion of voting for McCain reveal itself as possibly rational, rather than possibly disreputable.

--Game Warden

(To reply, click here.)


McCain didn't win from Democrats. They composed less than 17% of the turnout in Michigan. He won because the GOP has swung so far to the right as to turn off everyone except a handful of plutocratic corporate schisters and a legion of fundamentalist fruitcakes.

--Ken Whitner

(To reply, click here.)


The question with McCain is not so much one of addition, but of subtraction. McCain says he wants to put together a new coalition, but, so far as I can tell, there's no room for one. One quarter of the electorate, religious conservatives, is clearly not wanted by his campaign. That leaves Gore and McCain struggling to build 51% out of the remaining 75%. With the Democrats longstanding advantage among African-Americans, a little over 10% of the electorate, and with their longstanding advantage among union members, especially public employee union members, another 10-15% of the electorate, it gets hard to see how McCain gets a majority. Maybe McCain will come out in favor of affirmative action and in favor of union bosses; otherwise, I can't see how he contests these voters and gets to a majority; there just aren't enough nonliberal whites.

As for McCain being indebted to anything "libertarian," I'm not sure where anyone would get that idea. As one who once considered himself a libertarian, trust me, McCain is not one at all. Look at him on his issues: speech restriction as campaign "reform," taxes on cigarettes, no tax cuts except to his deserving friends, big and interventionist military, etc. There is a tendency in the press to label those who are against fetal rights and supportive of gay rights as "libertarian." Rest assured, there is nothing libertarian in opposing (or favoring, for that matter) fetal rights, and there is little libertarian in supporting gay rights as those rights are understood by the movement. Perhaps the word you were looking for is "libertine"?

--Thomas

(To reply, click here.)


There are 4 struggles going on right now:
1: Gore vs Bradley
2: Gore vs Bush
3: McCain vs Bush
4: GOP Givers vs GOP Takers
Only the last one matters.

The Givers are GOP donors--folks with money who want to give it to the GOP. The Takers are those who think of themselves as the GOP leadership--and who traditionally ask the Givers for money. The Givers tend to be unelected political amateurs—and patient. They care first about influence. The Takers tend to be elected officials and political pros--and impatient. They care first about power.

The Takers would be fine with McCain. They made it clear a year ago they'd anoint a rhododendron if they thought it could win the White House on the Republican ticket. Bush was their rhododendron. If McCain gets better poll numbers against Gore, they'd change rhododendrons faster than men change channels. But the Givers aren't playing along. For them, even though they give mainly to the GOP--and even think of themselves as Republicans--better Gore than McCain. And it's a rational choice. If McCain wins both the nomination and the election, the Givers just might lose their influence over both the President and the Republican Party. If Bush wins the nomination but loses the election, the Givers don't lose any ground. Granted, they won't have much pull with the President--but they don't have that now. And, if you're patient, four years goes by awful fast. So they're going to hang onto Bush. And that's why the primary season just got interesting. We get to find out which matters more--influence or power. We get to find out who has more clout--the guy who begs for money or the guy who hands it over.

--Bruce Duggan

(To reply, click here.)

(2/28)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
What's Fair Game?
Anne E. Kornblut | What questions would Hillary Clinton have to answer if she were in Sarah Palin's shoes?
Editorial: Disappointment '08
PLUS » Stumped: More Nonsense From McCain