Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"We believe government should do only things we cannot do individually"
So said GOP frontrunner John McCain tonight, in his Florida victory speech. Excerpt:
We believe government should do only those things we cannot do individually, to tax us no more than necessary, and spend no more than necessary, and then get out of the way of the most industrious, ingenious and optimistic people in the history of the world so that they can build an even greater country than the one they inherited.
It was a fine sentiment, similar to what he was saying after winning South Carolina ... and it has absolutely nothing to do with McCain's voluminous track record as a congressman, senator and public figure.
The road begins to fork at the definition of what "we cannot do invidually." For instance, individually we -- and by "we" I mean "John McCain," his Senate office, and even his own campaign website -- can enjoy making or facilitating bets on, say, college basketball games. But it's only through the government can we -- and by "we" I mean "John McCain" -- make betting on college athletics illegal.
The same goes for the most sacred style of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment (or should I say, "quote First Amendment"): political speech. Sure, individuals such as John McCain can pay for advertisements attacking his political opponents within 90 days of an election. But thanks to John McCain, if two individuals join forces to pay for an ad attacking an elected official 90 days before an election, they are either forced to register as a political committee (and therefore comply with Byzantine federal laws regarding donation limits and disclosure), or do battle in the courts long after the election in question fades away.
Most importantly, McCain's own concept of individuality does not include sufficient respect for the private pursuit of happiness. "Americans did not fight and win World War II as discrete individuals," he warned in the pages of The Washington Monthly after the Sept. 11 massacre. "Their brave and determined energies were mobilized and empowered by a national government headed by democratically elected leaders. That is how a free society remains free and achieves greatness." In his 2002 political memoir Worth the Fighting For, McCain wrote: "Our freedom and our industry must aspire to more than acquisition and luxury."
Or there's this stirring passage from a 2006 speech:
[T]hose who claim their liberty but not their duty to the civilization that ensures it, live a half-life, having indulged their self-interest at the cost of their self-respect. The richest man or woman, the most successful and celebrated Americans, possess nothing of importance if their lives have no greater object than themselves. They may be masters of their own fate, but what a poor destiny it is that claims no higher cause than wealth or fame.
Should we claim our rights and leave to others the duty to the nation that protects them, whatever we gain for ourselves will be of little lasting value. It will build no monuments to virtue, claim no honored place in the memory of posterity, offer no worthy summons to other nations. Success, wealth, celebrity gained and kept for private interest is a small thing. It makes us comfortable, eases the material hardships our children will bear, purchases a fleeting regard for our lives, yet not the self-respect that in the end matters most. But sacrifice for a cause greater than your self-interest, and you invest your lives with the eminence of that cause, your self-respect assured.
Can you trust a man who speaks those words to separate "those things we cannot do individually" from private behavior that he perceives as contributing to "the pervasive public cynicism that is debilitating our democracy"? Is the best cherry to put on top of eight years of George W. Bush a man who was advocating multi-front pre-emptive wars back in 1999, and who doesn't even understand why anyone would question another century of U.S. presence in Iraq? These are some of the questions to chew on next week, and the nine months afterward.
For more in this vein -- including an exploration of the legitimately limited-government element of his record -- I can wholeheartedly recommend the book McCain: The Myth of a Maverick.
Heinrick|1.30.08 @ 12:34AM|#
I know this is a little off topic. I have never really doubted
the future of the American economy, sure there are a few problems,
but over all I thought it was secure.
That all changed.
Last night Beorge Bush said the long term economy was strong and
not something we need to worry about.
Now I'm kinda worried.
|1.30.08 @ 12:45AM|#
Well, having Bush out of office is one thing that might help the long-term economy.
Kolohe|1.30.08 @ 12:48AM|#
I'm genuinely impressed with the timing of the publication of Myth - Oct 2007; it's an example of buying on the dip worthy of Warren Buffett.
Matt Welch|1.30.08 @ 12:52AM|#
Kohole -- Oh, you don't know the half of it. My due date was July 15, and I think it was around July 12 when McCain fired most of his staff and did a gut-check on whether he would stay in the race.... And from what I hear on the street, other critical bios had been scheduled, but were scuttled because of the campaign's imminent demise....
Matt Welch|1.30.08 @ 12:52AM|#
Kolohe, Kohole, whatever. Also, I'm pretty sure Business Week made its debut during the Depression.....
|1.30.08 @ 12:57AM|#
wow. john mccain's not a libertarian. there's a newsflash
:l
neither are any of the democratic or republican candidates that
have ANY chance of winning.
|1.30.08 @ 1:03AM|#
wow. john mccain's not a libertarian. there's a newsflash :l
Yes, but Republicans pretend to be Libertarians.
When totalitarian socialists like McCain pretend to believe in
small government and individual liberty, it gives Libertarian
values a bad name by association.
So when someone with REAL Libertarian values comes along, people
who otherwise would support those values, associate those values
with totalitarian socialism and reject them, thinking that the
person is just another McCain.
Bingo|1.30.08 @ 1:21AM|#
Libertarians are probably the most lip-serviced group in American politics, at least we got that going for us :P
|1.30.08 @ 1:32AM|#
"Americans did not fight and win World War II as discrete
individuals," he warned in the pages of The Washington
Monthly
Hm, yes? Well they sure as hell died as "discrete individuals" I'd
bet.
|1.30.08 @ 1:52AM|#
"Yes, but Republicans pretend to be Libertarians. "
no, they don't. some make reference to having libertarian values ,
to some extent, which some do have. thompson is a good
example.
and certainly ron paul.
republicans would never pretend to be libertarians because they
know the american public won't VOTE for libertarians, at least in
national elections.
"When totalitarian socialists like McCain pretend to believe in
small government and individual liberty, it gives Libertarian
values a bad name by association."
and it's lip service politics, just like the dems do, and everybody
knows it.
"So when someone with REAL Libertarian values comes along, people
who otherwise would support those values, associate those values
with totalitarian socialism and reject them, thinking that the
person is just another McCain."
rubbish. but typical of the elitism here, that people are too
stupid (dumb voters dumb voters meme) to understand the
difference.
some republicans trend libertarian, and some trend authoritarian
(just like some dems do).
but nobody in their right mind confuses a strongly libertarian
repub like ron paul, with mccain.
get real.
the reason the public generally does not vote for libertarians, is
that they generally don't support the more libertarian candidates.
heck, i'd love it if i mccain was more libertarian. but he's not.
nobody is gonna confuse the author of mccain feingold, the drug
warrior john mccain with a libertarian.
|1.30.08 @ 1:53AM|#
"the reason the public generally does not vote for libertarians,
is that they generally don't support the more libertarian
candidates."
last line should read "the more libertarian POSITIONS"
tepid|1.30.08 @ 2:05AM|#
I can wholeheartedly recommend the book John McCain: The
Myth of a Maverick.
I think it's time for a new drinking game.
|1.30.08 @ 2:07AM|#
T]hose who claim their liberty but not their duty to the civilization that ensures it, live a half-life, having indulged their self-interest at the cost of their self-respect. The richest man or woman, the most successful and celebrated Americans, possess nothing of importance if their lives have no greater object than themselves. They may be masters of their own fate, but what a poor destiny it is that claims no higher cause than wealth or fame.
How is it even possible to indulge one's self-interest at the
expense of one's self-respect? Is it not in one's true
self-interest to retain one's self-respect?
People possess nothing of importance if their lives have no greater
object than themselves? Of importance to whom, one might ask - John
McCain?
A poor destiny it is that claims no higher cause than wealth or
fame? Would it be a richer destiny if it sought power over one's
fellow man, Mr. McCain?
...whatever we gain for ourselves will be of little lasting value. It will build no monuments to virtue, claim no honored place in the memory of posterity, offer no worthy summons to other nations.
Of value to whom - everyone else?
Success, wealth, celebrity gained and kept for private interest is a small thing. It makes us comfortable, eases the material hardships our children will bear, purchases a fleeting regard for our lives, yet not the self-respect that in the end matters most. But sacrifice for a cause greater than your self-interest, and you invest your lives with the eminence of that cause, your self-respect assured.
Hm. I'd reckon as how that all depends on just what one bases one's
self-respect - now don't it?
|1.30.08 @ 2:12AM|#
@Kolohe,
You could say that this guy and his peers didn't.
No dis-respect intended to those guys, but I guess, in a way, that
sort of invalidates the "one to a box" theory.
BlueBook|1.30.08 @ 2:36AM|#
I just saw McCain's gooey, misshapen, grinning rictus of victory on the news and realized how much he resembles the gluttonous 'Slimer' of Ghostbusters fame. Uncanny. Could it be that McCain is a "focused, non-terminal repeating phantasm", or a "class-five full-roaming vapor"?
|1.30.08 @ 4:08AM|#
Could it be that McCain is a "focused, non-terminal
repeating phantasm", or a "class-five full-roaming
vapor"?
How about a dark void surrounded by a sphincter muscle? Interesting
McCain would say what he said, though; the last candidate to call
for small-governmentism was the one who beat McCain for the
nomination in '00. We know how well he worked out...
|1.30.08 @ 4:10AM|#
John mcCain is obviously the leading candidate for mainstream libertarians and we should be rooting for him.
|1.30.08 @ 4:16AM|#
"Americans did not fight and win World War II as discrete
individuals," he warned in the pages of The Washington
Monthly.
Actually, he is at least partially wrong: as Steven Ambrose
observed, it was the American G.I.'s ability to take initiative
when necessary, and think for himself - and thus adapt to changing
situations - that put him at an advantage over his German
counterpart who knew only how to "follow orders"...
Ventifact|1.30.08 @ 5:43AM|#
And we were a nation of (relative) individualism fighting nations of fascism. Of course, we won because of the USSR and its willingness to accept massive casualties suffered by individuals for eventual national victory. The distinction might be somewhat semantic (considering underlying societal factors), but even during draft wars like WWII there are plenty of volunteers, making our soldiery more voluntary than that of a nationalist regime.
Eric Dondero|1.30.08 @ 6:46AM|#
Let's just hope and pray that the Libertarian Party doesn't
screw up for the 4th time in a row, and nominate a Losertarian like
Phillies or Kubby.
They've got a myriad of decent potetial candidates to choose from:
Wayne Root, Bob Barr, Gary Johnson, Ed Thompson, Don Gorman,
et.al.
We don't need another Badnarik clone who'll end up with 350,000
votes.
If the LP chooses Root or one of the other "real worlders" we could
see millions of votes for the Party this cycle.
If they choose Kubby or Phillies, is continued obscurity and
dissapointment.
Robert|1.30.08 @ 8:40AM|#
totalitarian socialists like McCain pretend to believe in small government and individual liberty
Ever consider the possibility that that belief is sincere? That
on the scale in the mind of someone like McCain,
he really does believe he's for relatively small
gov't and relatively great liberty? That he's comparing himself to
the real totalitarians that he thinks most other
people are?
|1.30.08 @ 8:44AM|#
smartass sob -
I like how you can't have virtue unless you have national virtue.
By putting John McCain, who insists that we do things
altruistically, in office, suddenly everyone becomes more virtuous
because our country acts not just out of self interest, or
whatever. It's the same thing with what "we've" accomplished and
how "we" take care of "our" poor. It removes a lot of personal
virtue, and it's something that the evangelicals need to have
brought to their attention.
Joe|1.30.08 @ 8:46AM|#
"[T]hose who claim their liberty but not their duty to the
civilization that ensures it, live a half-life, having indulged
their self-interest at the cost of their self-respect. The richest
man or woman, the most successful and celebrated Americans, possess
nothing of importance if their lives have no greater object than
themselves. They may be masters of their own fate, but what a poor
destiny it is that claims no higher cause than wealth or
fame."
Reminds me of Ellsworth Toohey ...
|1.30.08 @ 8:51AM|#
McCain might be the scariest of all because too many people respect him. He's got all kinds of ways to fuck us, and a lot of people with let him get away with it, so it'll be long and hard prison type fucking.
|1.30.08 @ 8:52AM|#
Nick -
I know what you mean. His approval numbers would likely be pretty
high, giving him a lot of political capital to spend on pet
projects. What those pet projects are is what scares me.
|1.30.08 @ 8:54AM|#
Reinmoose, lot's of "for the children" bullshit will pass. At least he's against torture...unless it's on April 15th.
|1.30.08 @ 9:00AM|#
But sacrifice for a cause greater than your self-interest,
and you invest your lives with the eminence of that cause, your
self-respect assured.
So, in a way, McCain admires the 911 hijackers and all the world's
suicide bombers?
|1.30.08 @ 9:04AM|#
So, Matt.
Does it make you happy that his candidacy is on the rise so that
you'll sell more books about how much he sucks, or are you more of
a high minded sort who would rather he died in Florida?
Fluffy|1.30.08 @ 9:18AM|#
If the dissolution of the discrete individual in the glorious
service of the state was really the way to win WWII, why didn't the
Nazis win?
They sure dissolved more individuals than we did.
Why didn't the Soviets win the Cold War?
We were pikers at the dissolution of individuals compared to
them.
I think that a man like John McCain makes it clear that
authoritarianism's great seduction is aesthetic. The Senator likes
the feeling he gets when he walks among dead stone public monuments
and across the grass of military cemeteries and while he watches a
Memorial Day parade. In order to increase his opportunities to feel
that ultimately cheap sentiment, he gives in at every turn to the
temptations of incipient fascism. When you take a simplistic
Spielbergian pathos and add in a 9/11, you end up with aggressive
war, concentration camps, secret torture chambers, and "noble" lies
from "honorable" liars like McCain to protect all of these.
The person who chatters on and on about how life is meaningless
without "some meaning beyond oneself" is going to end up either
waging a bloody crusade or killing himself to try to beam up to a
spaceship hidden in a comet. Given the fucked up crazy look in
McCain's eyes most of the time, he may eventually get around to
trying both.
T|1.30.08 @ 9:32AM|#
Fluffy,
I think he'll end up waging a bloody crusade to get us all to take
the spaceship in the name of that nation greatness which embiggens
all our cromulent souls. I dunno.
Honestly, I don't need to read Matt's book because I know the most
important thing about McCain: he's nuts. I don't mean a little
wierd, I mean full-on detached from reality sociopathic tending
whackjob. I am firmly convinced he left an essential part of his
brain in a tiger cage in North Viet Nam.
|1.30.08 @ 9:58AM|#
Matt,
I'd start working on an underground bunker, because it looks like
President McCain is the most likely result in November. And he
never passes up an opportunity to crush his enemies. After dealing
with you, he'll nuke Vietnam.
Jerry Krause|1.30.08 @ 10:02AM|#
"Americans did not fight and win World War II as discrete
individuals...Their brave and determined energies were mobilized
and empowered by a national government headed by democratically
elected leaders. That is how a free society remains free and
achieves greatness."
This is exactly why I am voting for McCain.
|1.30.08 @ 10:08AM|#
Actually Jerry Krause, that statement reminds me of Hilary's reasoning that removed a lot of the credit from MLK for the civil rights movement.
|1.30.08 @ 10:16AM|#
Had it not been for Welch and what he's written about McCain, I
think I might have supported him by default. ...I think I'd have
seen him as the least worst heir to Barry Goldwater, Ronald
Reagan...
I hope the Libertarians run somebody good this time--and no I don't
mean Ron Paul. 'cause otherwise, this is going to be a hold your
nose and pull the lever kind of election like I've never seen
before.
Yeah, if it wasn't for what Welch has written, I might have come to
McCain by default.
I guess I can still pull for the Exhume Goldwater '08 campaign that
TWC linked to the other day, but that's about it.
|1.30.08 @ 10:33AM|#
Time for Ron Paul, starting with tonight's debate in California, to start punching at ideas like staying in Iraq for 100 years, and the rest of the garbage McCain and Romney have been trotting out.
|1.30.08 @ 10:43AM|#
Matt is really scraping the bottom of the barrel today. All
McCain is saying is that it is generally better to have a deeper
meaning and purpose in your life beyond yourself.
"Should we claim our rights and leave to others the duty to the
nation that protects them, whatever we gain for ourselves will be
of little lasting value. It will build no monuments to virtue,
claim no honored place in the memory of posterity, offer no worthy
summons to other nations."
That statement says nothing about what those values are. It just
says that you should have some concern for other people and the
world that you leave behind. The funny thing is that Matt Welch
pretty much lives those words. I would assume Welch could do
something more productive and better paying than write for Reason.
But, Welch to his credit looks to something higher than his own
personal pleasure and forgoes wealth so that he can write and think
and try to advance what he considers the cause of liberty. As a
journalist and writer, Welch is very much a public servant in the
very fain that McCain is talking about. Welch I guess is so
prejudiced against journalists that he assumes that public service
means picking up a rifle. It doesn't and I don't think McCain would
think that it does. Is it the case now that anyone who praises
sacrifice and public service cannot be trusted in government? Would
we feel better about a candidate who candidly said, "the highest
goal in life is self fulfillment. I have no concern for the world
or anything or anyone beyond myself. If it comes down to a choice
between principle and the welfare of others and my own greed and
self interest, well everyone else will have to just take care of
themselves because I am getting mine."
nebby|1.30.08 @ 11:01AM|#
The only thing in life is self-fulfillment. One of the ways people pursue self-fulfillment is by seeking out the pleasurable feeling of helping others.
Fluffy|1.30.08 @ 11:08AM|#
Matt is really scraping the bottom of the barrel today. All
McCain is saying is that it is generally better to have a deeper
meaning and purpose in your life beyond yourself.
BS.
If I responded to McCain by claiming that my "deeper meaning and
higher purpose" was to serve liberty by dissolving the bonds
between the individual and the state, and by reformulating the
concept of "nation" as an association of men devoted to the same
ideal of liberty instead of being a referrent for an ethnic group
or geographic area, McCain would say that wasn't what he
meant.
McCain absolutely, positively means "pick up a rifle whether you
think the state's goal of the moment is right or not, and suspend
moral judgment if we tell you to waterboard some guy, and if our
crusades ruin your life or your life's work or plans, satisfy
yourself by whistling a Sousa march".
|1.30.08 @ 11:16AM|#
"McCain absolutely, positively means "pick up a rifle whether
you think the state's goal of the moment is right or not, and
suspend moral judgment if we tell you to waterboard some guy, and
if our crusades ruin your life or your life's work or plans,
satisfy yourself by whistling a Sousa march"."
In case you missed it, McCain is very anti-torture. He has been one
of the most consistent critics of waterboarding and the like in
Congress.
"If I responded to McCain by claiming that my "deeper meaning and
higher purpose" was to serve liberty by dissolving the bonds
between the individual and the state, and by reformulating the
concept of "nation" as an association of men devoted to the same
ideal of liberty instead of being a referrent for an ethnic group
or geographic area, McCain would say that wasn't what he
meant."
WTF? A nation of men but no geographic area? I fyou are going to be
a transnationalist, at least drop the nationalist language. If
there is no nation and only the individual there is no nation and
further there is no government or nation to protect your rights,
just individuals.
Fluffy you need to get back on your meds today.
|1.30.08 @ 12:28PM|#
McCain has no sympathy for medical cannabis users. He thinks
they are faking so they can get high.
Fuck McCain.
T|1.30.08 @ 12:42PM|#
McCain hates the First Amendment with a special enduring passion, so he'll be acceptable about the same time hell freezes over.
|1.30.08 @ 1:41PM|#
"McCain has no sympathy for medical cannabis users. He thinks
they are faking so they can get high."
fwiw, i 100% support medical marijuana (and decrim of pot in
general).
but he's right. SOME *are* faking so they can get high. just like
some patients seeking pain medication are just seeking highs.
so what?
the point to a libertarian should be that 1) medical mj is a
states' rights issue 2) medical mj is a states' rights issue.
rinse, lather, repeat.
even if i thought that 99% of medical mj proponents were just using
it as a subterfuge to get high, it doesn't change the fact that the
feds should let the STATES decide.
also, the fact that SOME medical mj advocates and patients are
using it as an excuse to get high such nothing aobut the underlying
strenght of the argument for medical mj.
a very large percentage of the people protesting WTO in seattle (i
know this firsthand from speaking to them) did not care or know
anything about the WTO or trade policy, they just enjoyed the
spectacle and the chance to break stuff and have fun in a
riot.
that says exactly zero about whether the committed WTO protestors
were or weren't correct in their protest of the WTO.
i would certainly support mccain over obama or hillary, but i don;t
think for the 2nd that he is a libertarian godsend. he aint. he's a
statist, drug warrior'ing, free speech restrictin' guy.
Steve Verdon|1.30.08 @ 1:49PM|#
The richest man or woman, the most successful and celebrated Americans, possess nothing of importance if their lives have no greater object than themselves.
Do I detect a faint whiff of fascism in the above quote?
Steve Verdon|1.30.08 @ 1:55PM|#
the reason the public generally does not vote for libertarians, is that they generally don't support the more libertarian candidates.
Gee, that is a very nice example of circular reasoning. Sounds
good, but in reality, doesn't tell us a damn thing we didn't
already know. Libertarian candidates don't do well in elections.
Kind of hard when you are competing with pandering politicians who
want tell voters they can have their cake and eat it too. But of
course voters aren't dumb.
|1.30.08 @ 2:13PM|#
Forget "libertarian". Call it limited government, and I think a whole lot of the population would be on board. The problem is, that alternative is rarely presented to us.
Matt Welch|1.30.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Welch I guess is so prejudiced against journalists that he
assumes that public service means picking up a rifle.
That's pretty funny!
T|1.30.08 @ 2:32PM|#
Call it limited government, and I think a whole lot of the
population would be on board.
Fred Thompson was preaching that gospel and look where it got him.
Admittedly, he did have an opponent (Ron Paul) who was much more
clearly committed to the concept, as demonstrated by past actions.
So between the two of them, they got 19.4%. There's your percentage
on people who think limited gov't is a good idea. 1 in 5.
No wonder I'm in this handbasket and it's getting warmer...
Joe Allen|1.30.08 @ 5:35PM|#
Matt is completely right that McCain is a horrible candidate and
all around bad guy. That is why it is so baffling that he went out
of his way to torpedo Dr. Paul's campaign, one that could have
swung the election to a slightly less horrible candidate: Mitt
Romney.
The only reason I can fathom is the cynical possibility that Matt
really wants McCain to succeed so he can be the in-house dissident,
like Noam Chomsky is for the Dems.
Free minds and free markets deserve a better and more principled
advocate than Matt Welch.
The Unibomber|1.31.08 @ 3:11AM|#
they can have their cake and eat it too
They can have their cake and eat it too - it's eat their
cake and have it too that they can't do.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245