Reason Magazine - Topics > John McCain

"Unfortunately, his jurisprudence is likely to be anything but conservative"

info@reason.com (Damon W. Root) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:34:00 EDT

In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, Bob Barr took John McCain to task for his lousy judicial philosophy, arguing that conservatives shouldn't get too excited at the prospects of a McCain-appointed Supreme Court. For one, McCain doesn't think that the First Amendment protects all forms of political speech, which is only a problem, I suppose, if you hold the quaint opinion that the Constitution means what it says. Then there's McCain's sweeping view of presidential power:

In fact, if Mr. McCain nominated someone in his own image, the appointee would disagree with not only the doctrine of enumerated powers, which limits the federal government to only those tasks explicitly authorized by the Constitution, but also the Constitution's system of checks and balances, and even its explicit grant of the law-making power to Congress.

Mr. McCain has endorsed, in action if not rhetoric, the theory of the "unitary executive," which leaves the president unconstrained by Congress or the courts. Republicans like Mr. McCain believe the president as commander in chief of the military can do almost anything, including deny Americans arrested in America protection of the Constitution and access to the courts.

Interestingly, Barr suggests that cats and dogs won't start living together under an Obama Court:

Nor is it obvious that Barack Obama would attempt to pack the court with left-wing ideologues. He shocked some of his supporters by endorsing the ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms, and criticizing the recent decision overturning the death penalty for a child rapist. With the three members most likely to leave the Supreme Court in the near future occupying the more liberal side of the bench, the next appointments probably won't much change the Court's balance.

Finally, after some throat clearing about the risk of "judge-made rights," Barr makes a great point about the judiciary's duty to check the other branches:

However, the Constitution sometimes requires decisions or action by judges—"judicial activism," if you will—to ensure the country's fundamental law is followed. Thus, for example, if government improperly restricts free speech—think the McCain-Feingold law's ban on issue ads—the courts have an obligation to void the law. The same goes for efforts by government to ban firearms ownership, as the Court ruled this term in striking down the District of Columbia gun ban.

Whole thing here.

What if All These Fantasies Come Flailing Around?

matt.welch@reason.com (Matt Welch) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:51:00 EDT

In October 2006 The New Republic's John Judis wrote the single best magazine piece I have read about John McCain's foreign policy. The article's meat − 5,700 words detailing McCain's late-'90s conversion from Vietnam Syndrome pol to Neoconservative poster boy − provided good reportorial material I used in my own book. What made it all the more interesting, on some level, was that this point-by-point indictment was sandwiched between an intro about what a charmingly accessible guy McCain is, and this almost pathetically hope-despite-the-times conclusion:

If McCain is willing to reconsider his most basic belief about Vietnam, he could still change his mind about Iraq. It's true that little he said to me suggests he will adjust his worldview in the near future, but McCain has surprised his critics before. Perhaps he will do so again.

Well, now Judis has finally lost his religion.

All of which reminds me of something I've intended to do since reading this month-old post by Jay Rosen about an experiment in "crowdsourcing" a list of quality campaign coverage: Namely, provide a rough Top 10 of online-findable pieces of journalism about John McCain, whether pro or con or indifferent. Note: There'd be a bunch of quality pro-McCain Weekly Standard stuff in here, if only their archives weren't so horrible. Here goes:

1) The Life Story of Arizona's Maverick Senator McCain, by the Arizona Republic, Oct. 3, 1999 (updated March 1, 2007). A monster, novella-length bio.

2) Neo-McCain: The Making of an überhawk, by John Judis, The New Republic, Oct. 9, 2006. A one-stop shop for analysis of McCain's foreign policy evolution.

3) Prisoner of Conscience, by Todd Purdum, Vanity Fair, February 2007. Snapshot of the tensions nagging at McCain's conscience, the compromises he makes on the campaign trail, and the limits to the phrase "we cannot fail."

4) P.O.W. to Power Broker, a Chapter Most Telling, by Nicholas Kristof, New York Times, Feb. 27, 2000. Chronicles the messy edges of McCain's life between returning from Vietnam and entering Congress, with an emphasis on his wife-replacement process.

5) The Subversive: A Question of Honor, by Michael Lewis, New York Times Magazine, May 25, 1997. Go ahead − try not to like the guy after reading this!

6) I Liked a Pol, by Michael Lewis, New York Times Magazine, Nov. 21, 1999. In which one of our finest journalists chronicles and defends a man-crush so deep that A) McCain invited Lewis to come live with him, and B) at long last (and after scores of thousands of words) Lewis finally recused himself from covering his good friend.

7) Race Against Himself: Is John McCain Trying to Lose? by David Grann, The New Republic, March 13, 2000. A shrewd bit of psychoanalysis that rises far beyond the usual campaign-coverage guesswork.

8) The War Secrets Sen. John McCain Hides: Former POW Fights Public Access to POW/MIA Files, by Sydney Schanberg, APBnews.com, sometime in 2000. A startling tale of McCain's little-reported antics before, during and after the POW/MIA hearings in Congress.

9) Opiate for the Mrs.: When Laws Are Broken, Somebody's Got to Be Punished. In the Case of Cindy McCain, That Somebody is Tom Gosinski, by Amy Silverman, Phoenix New Times, Sept. 8, 1994. Hit the refresh button on this one any time you hear a happy post-facto spin either on Cindy McCain's drug habit/thievery, or John's harmless little anger problem.

10) McCain Pressed FCC in Case Involving Major Contributor, by Walter Robinson, Boston Globe, Jan. 5, 2000. Little-remembered fact: Back when his "transcendent issue" was the "iron triangle" between corporate fatcats, lobbyists, and pols, McCain was busted several times (and usually by Walter Robinson first) for having a campaign full of lobbyists, and a record of intervening on behalf of campaign contributors.

This is by no means definitive, etc., and I hope you list some other good pieces in the comments!

Turnabout is ... uh, What Were We Supposed to Angry About, Again?

matt.welch@reason.com (Matt Welch) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:39:00 EDT

OK, so you knew this was coming, right?

More here; via The Western Standard's Shotgun Blog.

Rough Ridin' on Economic Policy

matt.welch@reason.com (Matt Welch) — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:49:00 EDT

Over at the National Review, historian Michael Knox Beran offers a tart rejoinder to those contemporary politicians who would offer Teddy Roosevelt as their role model. Some snippets:

The Hepburn Act of 1906, for which he worked lustily, strengthened the Interstate Commerce Commission's grip on the railways − a step that led eventually to the dilapidation of the railroads and to Amtrak.

As for the 1906 Food and Drug Act, which established the FDA, its principal beneficiaries (so Milton and Rose Friedman contend in Free to Choose) were the meat-packers, who were glad to have taxpayer-subsidized help in ensuring the quality of their cattle.

Roosevelt's dance with the command economy culminated in his "New Nationalism" manifesto. In the suitably visionary precincts of the John Brown Cemetery in Osawatomie, Kansas, on a hot day in August 1910, the ex-president mounted the tripod and lamented, in lugubrious and apocalyptic tones, the "absence of effective state" in America. He called for a paternalist form of government that would "control the mighty commercial forces" of the Republic. [...]
Roosevelt argued that laissez-faire economics had been superseded by a new, more efficient gospel of administrative supremacy. Edmund Morris, who in Theodore Rex was manifestly hypnotized by his hero's sound and fury, argued that "the outdated system of laissez-faire ... was accelerating out of control." So, at any rate, Roosevelt believed. Rather than use government to promote freer, more competitive markets, he used it to promote government itself. The state, not the market place, was his ideal.

Five years ago in reason, Michael McMenamin made the case for T.R.'s foreign policy record being one of admirable restraint.

Straight Talk

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:00:00 EDT

As we near the major party conventions, here are a few questions for presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain:

—In your book Worth the Fighting For, you write, "Our greatness depends upon our patriotism, and our patriotism is hardly encouraged when we cannot take pride in the highest public institutions." You've also said that "national pride will not survive the people's contempt for government." Do you really believe that the government is the root of American greatness? Would we better off as a nation if people refrained from criticizing the government? Does patriotism require us to support our country, "right or wrong?"

—U.S. News reported last December that part of your economic plan includes a new entitlement program for the unemployed. You've said that the federal government should make up part of the salary of workers who are forced to take lower-paying jobs. Economists estimate your plan will cost $4-5 billion per year, but as a longtime legislator, you should know that new entitlements tend to become more generous and more comprehensive over time. Should your plan eventually emulate the Danish worker security plan it's modeled after, it will likely cost $400 billion or more each year. Given that the federal government currently faces some $59 trillion in unfunded Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security liabilities, do we really need another federal entitlement?

—In your January primary debate, you referred to "greedy" Wall Street stockbrokers, and in contrasting your career to the business career of Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney, you said, "I led the largest squadron in the United States Navy. And I did it out of patriotism, not for profit." Do you think a career in public service is inherently more noble and virtuous than a career in the private sector? Are people who spend their lives on the taxpayer dole as politicians and government employees simply better people than those who create wealth and jobs through private enterprise?

—Public choice theory posits that government workers are just as self-interested and no less altruistic than private sector workers, and that we should acknowledge as much when making public policy. Do you believe in public choice theory?

—You're highly critical of businesses and corporations that benefit from government handouts and pork projects. And rightly so. But you and your wife's fortune comes from her inheritance of Hensley & Company, a Phoenix-based beer wholesaler and distributor. Beer wholesalers benefit from what's called the "three-tiered" alcohol distribution system, an anachronistic Prohibition-era law that requires beer, wine and liquor producers to first sell alcohol products to wholesalers, who then sell to retailers. The law essentially mandates a "middle man" in alcohol sales. It inflates the cost of alcohol for consumers by adding an extra mark-up—the bulk of which goes to huge companies like Hensley. In other words, alcohol wholesaling is a government-created and government-subsidized industry. How, then, does your family fortune jibe with your criticism of corporate welfare and corporate handouts?

—Is it the government's job to make us better people? If so, by whose definition of "better?"

—After the Supreme Court's decision in the Heller gun rights case, you admirably commented, "This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms." I couldn't agree more. But on the subject of campaign finance reform, you said in 2006 that, "I would rather have a clean government than one where, quote, First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government." How do you reconcile these two positions? Is a "clean" government (whatever that means) really more important than the rights and freedoms of its citizens?

—America was founded on the idea of inalienable, individual rights—our Declaration of Independence outlined three of the most important rights as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." But your speeches and public statements seem to show a kind of contempt for individualism, or at least a preference for a kind of patriotic national collectivism. You've said, for example, that "each and every one of us has a duty to serve a cause greater than our own self-interest." You've also said that patriotism should be about "putting the country first, before party or personal ambition, before anything." Do you really believe this? Should we put love of country ahead of family? Faith? Our morality, or sense of justice?

—In 1989, your wife Cindy became addicted to the prescription drugs Percocet and Vicodin. Eventually, she began stealing medication from the non-profit medical charity she ran to assist the victims of war and disaster areas. You and your wife were able to negotiate a settlement with the Justice Department that let her off with restitution and admission to a rehabilitation center, but no fines, jail time or even public disclosure. Certainly no one could fault you for trying to save your spouse from criminal sanction. But you're consistently one of the most strident drug warriors in Congress. You've voted to strengthen penalties against those who use and traffic in both illicit drugs and who divert prescription drugs. You've supported mandatory minimums and harsher penalties for first-time offenders. Why shouldn't average people without powerful connections who make the same mistakes your wife made be shown the same leniency and mercy the criminal justice system showed her?

My next column will pose questions to presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

Radley Balko is a senior editor of reason. A version of this article originally appeared on FoxNews.com.

Obama By Seven Points Over McCain

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:37:00 EDT

A new Reuters/Zogby poll of likely voters in the presidential race says:

More than a month after kicking off the general election campaign, Obama leads McCain by 47 percent to 40 percent. That is slightly better than his 5-point cushion in mid-June, shortly after he clinched the Democratic nomination fight against New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.
But Obama's 22-point advantage in June among independents, a critical voting bloc that could swing either way in the November election, shrunk to 3 points during a month in which the candidates battled on the economy and Obama was accused of shifting to the centre on several issues....

Voters seem more interested in the economy than anything else:

The economy was ranked as the top issue by nearly half of all likely voters, 47 percent. The Iraq war, in second place, trailed well behind at 12 percent. Energy prices was third at 8 percent.

And what about candidates Ralph Nader and Bob Barr?:

When independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr, who are both in the process of trying to add their names to state ballots, are included in the survey Obama's margin over McCain grows to 10 percentage points, 46 percent to 36 percent.
Nader and Barr each picked up 3 percent, but nearly all of their support came from McCain.

More here.

Obama's Memory Hole

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:03:00 EDT

Los Angeles Times' blogger Andrew Malcolm writes:

When President Bush ordered the surge in January, 2007, [Sen. Barack] Obama said, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse," a position he maintained throughout 2007. This year he acknowledged progress, but maintained his position that political progress was lacking.
Tuesday, while Obama gave a speech on foreign policy, the New York Daily News was first to notice the removal of parts of Obama's campaign site listing the Iraq troop surge as part of "The Problem." An Obama spokeswoman said it was just part of an "update" to "reflect changes in current events," as our colleague Frank James notes in the Swamp. The update includes a new section on the rise of al-Qaeda violence in Afghanistan.

More, including a video comparing older Obama statements with newer ones by his spokesman, here. Malcolm concludes that this sort of thing is "a reminder of how carefully voters must listen during these last four campaign months." Which is good advice, regardless of the candidate and the issue at hand.

McCain on School Choice

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:28:00 EDT

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is addressing an NAACP convention in Cincinnati today. His remarks touch on education and here's a preview courtesy of the Cincy Enquirer:

"If I am elected president, school choice for all who want it, an expansion of opportunity scholarships and alternative certification for teachers will all be part of a serious agenda of education reform," McCain said in the excerpts.
"After decades of hearing the same big promises from the public education establishment, and seeing the same poor results, it is surely time to shake off old ways and to demand new reforms," he said. "That isn't just my opinion. It is the conviction of parents in poor neighborhoods across this nation who want better lives for their children."

McCain's rival, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) spoke to the same group on Monday. The Enquirer's gloss: "Obama [said] he would push the government to provide more education and economic assistance, but he also urged blacks to demand more of themselves."

More here.

reason on education here.

Update: If you're interested in McCain's full remarks to the NAACP, go here. More details from the education section:

When a public system fails, repeatedly, to meet...minimal objectives, parents ask only for a choice in the education of their children. Some parents may choose a better public school. Some may choose a private school. Many will choose a charter school. No entrenched bureaucracy or union should deny parents that choice and children that opportunity.
We should also offer more choices to those who wish to become teachers. Many thousands of highly qualified men and women have great knowledge, wisdom, and experience to offer public school students. But a monopoly on teacher certification prevents them from getting that chance. You can be a Nobel Laureate and not qualify to teach in most public schools today. They don't have all the proper credits in educational "theory" or "methodology"—all they have is learning and the desire and ability to share it. If we're putting the interests of students first, then those qualifications should be enough.
If I am elected president, school choice for all who want it, an expansion of Opportunity Scholarships, and alternative certification for teachers will all be part of a serious agenda of education reform.

That's pretty good rhetoric, for sure (and I say that as someone who would prefer the feds stay out of education). "Education presidents" have a way of disappointing their supporters, but those are some pretty powerful statements and it will be interesting to see if a) anyone really cares what presidential candidates think about education, b) if and how Obama responds, and c) how the teachers unions respond.

Barry Who?

matt.welch@reason.com (Matt Welch) — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:18:00 EDT

On Monday, Michael Moynihan blogged about an interview with John McCain that the New York Times published over the weekend. I thought there were a couple of exchanges* worth further note in these worrying times of Freddie/Fannie bailouts, loose talk about re-regulation, seemingly limitless imperial responsibilities, and libertarians tiring of being kicked to the curb by the Republican Party:

Q: How do you think of yourself as a conservative? Do you think of yourself more as a Goldwater conservative or Reagan conservative or George W. Bush conservative?
Senator John McCain: A Teddy Roosevelt conservative, I think. He's probably my major role model; we could go back to Lincoln, of course. In the 20th century Teddy Roosevelt. I think Teddy Roosevelt, he had a great vision of America's role in the 20th Century. He was a great environmentalist. He loved the country. He is the person who brought the government into a more modern − into the 20th century as well. He was probably engaged more in national security slash international affairs that any president ever been. [...]
Q: Roosevelt wasn't really a small government person. He saw an active role for government. What thing in your record would you say are in a similar vein of using government to do things that....
Mr. McCain: Campaign Finance reform − obviously he was a great reformer − is one of them. Climate change is another. He was a great environmentalist [...]
Q: Was it a good idea for the federal government to intervene in Bear Stearns?
Mr. McCain: I think we had to. American is in extremely difficult economic times. I agree with literally every expert on the economy: If Bear Stearns had collapsed it would have had a ripple effect in the market. And that's why this latest mortgage crisis with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, are − excuse me, with the home loan mortgage people − is that we worry of the ripple effect of their collapse. [...]
Q: Do you think the government is ultimately on the hook for Fannie and Freddie, if the worst-case scenario materializes?
Mr. McCain: I don't think the question is so much, is it on the hook, as much as it is, could we afford to have a collapse? And I keep being asked about a quote, government bailout. I don't know if a government, quote, bailout is necessary now. Because there are other courses of action that are being explored in order to ensure their survival. But I don't believe we can afford to have them fail − because of their impact on the overall economy, and the housing situation which we already know is in dire straits − and I've head that there is various options. I also note with sorrow that their stock continues to go down, and the situation becomes more and more severe.

People often ask me what kind of president I think McCain would make; what would be surprising, etc. With the important caveat that I don't really know, I think many would be startled by just how far (back) to the interventionist economic left McCain would be willing and eager to traverse with an emboldened Democratic majority attempting to "fix" a worsening economy. Yes, he would veto the crap out of some spending bills larded with earmarks; and yes, for my money he has a much more favorable posture toward both entitlement reform and international trade (at least, with those few countries he doesn't want to slap punitive economic sanctions on).

But on Democrat-friendly stuff like government bailouts, global warming legislation, and atrocious nanny-boo proposals to keep "predators" off that Internet thingie he's heard so much about, McCain's foundational and occasionally creepy T.R. crush would mean considerably more than just sticking the Great White Fleet 2.0 under the tent of every tinpot dictator able to photoshop missile-launch pictures. When even Barry Goldwater's own replacement turns down a softball opportunity to give cheap props to a guy so far removed from modern-day politics that the Democratic Party is happy to fertilize his grave with empty praise, it might just indicate something.

* I actually cleaned up some of the punctuation in the NYT transcript; stuff on the level of adding question marks and changing commas into semi-colons.

Are We a "Nation of Whiners"?

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:51:00 EDT

Back in the olden days, when GOP presidential candidate John McCain admitted he knew nada about economics, he brought in failed presidential candidate and former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) to burnish his cred. Gramm's main contribution to date? Either fearlessly telling the truth or being a headline-grabbing, poll-killing idjit. You decide:

McCain was already running into a stiff headwind because of an ailing economy, and his task only became tougher after former senator Phil Gramm...suggested that the United States has "become a nation of whiners."
Gramm, who has helped shape McCain's presidential campaign and is a close friend of the candidate, expressed no regret on Thursday for the comments he made in an interview with the Washington Times, saying: "I'm not going to retract any of it. Every word I said was true."

McCain's official response?

Gramm "does not speak for me. I speak for me. I strongly disagree," McCain said during a press availability here, which took place at the same time Gramm was wrapping up a discussion with the Wall Street Journal editorial board about the candidate's economic program.
"The person here in Michigan who just lost his job isn't suffering from a mental recession," McCain added. Asked whether Gramm would play a significant role in shaping economic policy in a McCain administration, the senator joked: "I think Senator Gramm would be in serious consideration for ambassador to Belarus, although I'm not sure the citizens of Minsk would welcome that."...
For the first time since August 2002, the Labor Department said, every metropolitan area registered unemployment rate increases over the previous year, with Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn leading the way with a 2.1-percentage-point leap. The region lost 47,400 payroll jobs, nearly double the next highest job-loss total, in the Los Angeles-Long Beach area.

More here.

I almost think McCain should lose for the Belarus joke alone.

What say you, Hit & Run readers? Are we a nation of whiners? Or a nation of winners?

John McCain's eight greatest gag lines.

Bonus: In a 1978 reason article, Phil Gramm, then an economics professor at Texas A&M wrote:

"We might rely on collectivism to produce goods that we don't really need and goods we have a lot of substitutes for; but those things that we must have—that we cannot live without, at least in the manner in which we choose to live—those things have got to be reserved for private production, not government production."

Click here to see exactly what changed Gramm's mind in 1997. The answer may surprise you.

What Are You, a Terrorist?

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:30:00 EDT

During the last year the focus of the debate about amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) has been retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that cooperated with President Bush's illegal post-9/11 program of warrantless wiretaps. But the scandal from now on will be what's legal. Although Democrats, including Barack Obama, made a big show of resisting the immunity provision, they seemed resigned from the beginning to surrendering the privacy of Americans' international communications. Under the newly revised FISA, only the executive branch's good faith and competence will protect innocent people from warrantless snooping. Which is fine, if you assume that government officials never have bad motives and never make mistakes. According to Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.), The New York Times reports, "there is nothing to fear in the bill...'unless you have Al Qaeda on your speed dial.'"

Bond seems to speak for most Americans. The most common reader response I get when I write about this subject is, "What makes you think the government is interested in spying on you? Get over yourself!" The second most common response is, "What are you, a terrorist?"

Polling on this issue suggests that framing it the way Bond does makes a big difference. An August 2007 ICR poll commissioned by Democrats.com told respondents, "President Bush wants the power to wiretap the phone calls and emails of Americans without a search warrant from a judge." Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) disapproved, 60 percent strongly. A January 2006 ABC News poll, by contrast, told respondents, "The National Security Agency has been investigating people suspected of involvement with terrorism by secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some people in the United States and other countries, without first getting court approval to do so." Asked whether "this wiretapping of telephone calls and e-mails without court approval" was "an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism," 56 percent said it was acceptable.

Just saying terrorism, it seems, makes concerns about civil liberties disappear. Notably, of the two major-party presidential candidates, it was Obama, the one who supposedly is more sensitive to civil liberties (having taught constitutional law and all), who voted for the FISA amendments. McCain supports the bill too, but he was too busy campaigning to cast a vote, and he knew it wouldn't be close. The Senate vote was 69 to 28, which means senators are even more eager than their constituents to let the government spy at will. Only on terrorists, of course.

Obama, McCain, and Financial Disaster

schapman@tribune.com (Steve Chapman) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:00:00 EDT

Federal budget policy is a dry subject with far too many numbers and charts, which makes it uninviting to most Americans. But the theme of the current budget story is one that could have come from a blockbuster summer movie: We are doomed. There is a fiscal asteroid on course to pulverize us, and no one is coming to the rescue.

The problem is simple and depressingly familiar. This year, federal spending will exceed federal revenue by more than $400 billion. Given the weak state of the economy, the deficit will get worse before it gets better.

Actually, it may never get better, because the current shortfall coincides with the start of the most dreaded fiscal event of all time: the retirement of the baby boomers, who will soon consume eye-popping amounts in Social Security and Medicare.

If that's not bad enough, Bruce Willis is not on hand to intercept the doomsday object before it arrives. Worse yet, neither Barack Obama nor John McCain wants the job.

The latest proof came when McCain unveiled his economic plan, in which he vows to eliminate the deficit in four years. His plan to balance the budget is simple: He plans to balance the budget. Exactly which programs he will trim to reach that goal are anyone's guess.

For someone with a reputation as a fearless foe of congressional earmarks and pork-barrel waste, McCain is amazingly timid in taking on the rest of the budget. About his only specific proposal is a one-year freeze in those discretionary programs that don't involve defense or veterans.

McCain doesn't say how much that would save, but it wouldn't be a lot. Those expenditures amount to only 17 percent of all federal outlays. Eighty-three percent of the budget would keep on growing. After a year, so would the other 17 percent.

He vows to follow up with "comprehensive spending controls." But promising to control spending in general means promising to control nothing in particular.

Just because voters will go along with a vague limit on total outlays doesn't mean they are willing to surrender funds going to them or their favorite causes. It's one thing to inform a toddler that he shouldn't eat too much candy. It's another to take the Tootsie Roll Pop out of his hand.

The Republican standard-bearer, however, acts as though the task will be easy. Among the methods offered in this plan: "Eliminate broken programs. The federal government itself admits that one in five programs do not perform." How about naming one? How about promising to pound a stake through its heart?

When it comes to spending, though, Obama is even worse. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation added up all the promises made by the two candidates and found that McCain's would cost taxpayers an extra $68 billion a year. Obama's add up to $344 billion a year.

The Illinois senator's pledge to get tough on unnecessary expenditures is as solid as cotton candy. Among his vows is to "slash earmarks to no greater than what they were in 2001," but earmarks make up less than 2 percent of the budget. Trying to restore fiscal discipline by cutting earmarks is like trying to lose weight by adopting an exercise program for your left index finger.

Obama claims he'll pay for all his new spending with new revenues and spending cuts. But like McCain, he has been hazy on the details. And it will be far easier for him to get Congress to approve new spending than to enact the measures needed to pay for it. Unless Obama is willing to take on his own party with the veto pen, we should expect four more years of irresponsible budgeting.

His only defense is that he would not have to make up as much lost revenue as his rival. The Tax Policy Center says his tax plan would cut federal receipts by $2.7 trillion over the next decade, compared with $3.6 trillion for McCain.

The details differ, but the basic picture is the same regardless of who wins: Washington will spend more, red ink will roll down like a mighty river, and we as a nation will continue to dodge the critical choices we face.

It would be nice to think some unexpected event will save us from the consequences of that folly. But as McCain is fond of saying, it's always darkest just before it goes totally black.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Pity the Poor Incumbent

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:00:00 EDT

Members of Congress don't like being criticized, especially close to an election. They also don't like facing challengers who can pay for their own campaigns.

In 2002 Congress passed a law that addressed both of these problems. It was called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), because "Bipartisan Incumbent Protection Act" would have been too revealing.

Last summer and last month, in decisions almost exactly a year apart, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that BCRA's restrictions on issue ads and its attempt to erase rich candidates' fund raising advantage violate the First Amendment. These cases highlight the need for true campaign reform: deregulation of election-related speech. Yet both major-party presidential candidates want to move in the opposite direction, imposing new restrictions on Americans' ability to put their money where their mouths are.

Last year's case dealt with BCRA's ban on "electioneering communications," interest group ads that mention candidates for federal office within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The Court concluded that the ban, when applied to messages that are neither "express advocacy" (explicitly calling for a candidate's election or defeat) nor its "functional equivalent," infringes upon the constitutional right to freedom of speech.

In last month's case, the Court overturned a BCRA provision that triples the individual contribution limit and eliminates the cap on coordinated party expenditures for candidates opposed by wealthy people financing their own campaigns. "The unprecedented step of imposing different...limits on candidates vying for the same seat is antithetical to the First Amendment," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five-member majority.

Alito rejected the government's claim that such an asymmetrical arrangement is necessary to "level electoral opportunities," saying that argument "has ominous implications." He noted that "different candidates have different strengths": Some are wealthy, while others have wealthy supporters; some are celebrities, while others come from famous families. (He might also have noted that some are taller, better-looking, and better-spoken than others.) It's up to voters to weigh these advantages, Alito said, warning that "it is a dangerous business for Congress to use the election laws to influence the voters' choices."

One candidate strength Alito was too tactful to mention is incumbency, which confers name recognition, free publicity, and the power to dispense favors, which in turn attracts campaign contributions. Those advantages seem to make a big difference: Since 1980 the re-election rate for House members has ranged from 88 percent to 98 percent.

Combine the enormous advantages of incumbency with the campaign contribution limits Congress imposed in 1974, and you start to see why rich guys are tempted to run for office. The Supreme Court has said they have a First Amendment right to finance their own campaigns but not to finance other people's campaigns.

Most of the current Court is skeptical of that distinction, but at least four justices seem inclined to eliminate it by allowing restrictions on expenditures as well as contributions. The next Supreme Court appointment could make a crucial difference for the freedom of Americans to engage in political speech, directly or by proxy, without fear of being fined or going to prison.

Unfortunately, John McCain and Barack Obama both seem to think the main problem with campaign finance restrictions is that there aren't enough of them. McCain spearheaded BCRA and made campaign reform the signature issue of his 2000 presidential campaign. Both McCain and Obama worry that money plays too big a role in political campaigns, and both have decried the influence of ads sponsored by the independent groups that have proliferated because of BCRA's restrictions.

Then again, McCain has been criticized for excessive coziness with lobbyists, while Obama's credibility on this issue took a big hit when he decided to decline taxpayer funding for his general election campaign so he could avoid spending limits. I'm not sure who the bigger faker is, but he could turn out to be a smaller menace to freedom of speech.

NASCAR Dads Seem To Be Really Sensitive About Politics...

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:37:00 EDT

...or maybe it's just the owners of NASCAR. From Politics:

Voters should not expect to see either John McCain or Barack Obama making appearances at NASCAR events in Daytona Beach Florida, or a dozen other speedways across the country before Election Day. According to officials from the International Speedway Corporation (ISC), which owns the Daytona International Speedway, as well as major facilities in both candidates' home states of Arizona and Illinois, the company is implementing a firm policy that prohibits political candidates from campaigning in any capacity at their racing events.
Politics was informed of the policy after a credentialing request had been denied to cover an unofficial appearance in Daytona by Libertarian Party presidential nominee, Bob Barr. ISC officials explained that credentialing a political reporter would, in their view, constitute the facilitation of a campaign event, in sharp violation of their policy.
The officials declined to provide details of the policy, and offered only a vague explanation of when the policy had gone into effect. But they expressed a belief that fans attending events at their speedways are sensitive to what might be construed as intrusive political activity.

Needless to say, that policy wasn't in place earlier this year when motoring enthusiast Rudy Giuliani campaigned at the Daytona Speedway. More here.

So fans attending events might not want to be burdened by politicians showing up (and who can blame them?), but it's worth remembering that NASCAR and racetrack owners (and others involved in stadiums, arenas, and what-have-you) are never shy about getting public subsidies for their venues. Even when the venue is a NASCAR museum.

Attn. SoCal Reasonoids: Listen to KPCC-FM 89.3 Tonight to Hear All Things McCained

matt.welch@reason.com (Matt Welch) — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 09:45:00 EDT

The flagship of Southern California Public Radio is broadcasting an hour-long excerpt from a talk I gave in May to Zocalo L.A. about the Republican presidential nominee. You can listen to a live stream at that address, and I'm sure the archive will go up soon.

Speaking of my SoCal swing, I neglected to link to Part VIII (of VIII) from my video interview with L.A. Times blogger Andrew Malcolm. So here it is, complete with links to the first seven segments.

And finally, on this celebratory weekend, when the National Mall (at least when I visited it in the early afternoon of July 4) is a refuse-choked filthbucket of empty plastic bottles, dirty diapers on the grass, and meathead semi-law enforcement drones busy forcing you off what few sidewalks and street corners aren't already randomly blocked off, perhaps you need a patriotic refresher course from our esteemed presidential candidates. So, thanks to the indispensable Parade magazine, here it is.

Happy Independence Day! Here's How You "Must" Celebrate!

matt.welch@reason.com (Matt Welch) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:46:00 EDT

Any time a presidential candidate follows the phrase "loving your country" with the word "must," a shiver runs through me, and not in the Chris Matthews way. Here's Barack Obama yesterday, as part of his week-long patriogasm in the run-up to Independence Day:

loving your country shouldn't just mean watching fireworks on the Fourth of July. Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it.

First of all, as reason columnist Greg Beato has amply documented, it's getting harder and harder for happiness-pursuing Americans to watch their own damned fireworks, thanks to politicians of the nanny-boo Chicago school. Second of all, who died and made this guy the arbiter of what "loving your country must mean"? He's been musting all week, too:

[P]atriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice - to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause. [...]
For the rest of us - for those of us not in uniform or without loved ones in the military - the call to sacrifice for the country's greater good remains an imperative of citizenship.

Sacrifice for the greater good, sacrifice for the greater good ... where have I heard that before?

Read John McCain's alarming views on national service here. Barack Obama's various bad ideas on the subject can be found here. Paul Thornton warned us about national service back in May, and in the June issue, Gene Healy explained just how and why it came to pass that "Today's candidates are running enthusiastically for national preacher-and much else besides."

On Wesley Clark and Other Irrelevancies

matt.welch@reason.com (Matt Welch) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:54:00 EDT

I will freely admit that one of my many failings as a political journalist and commentator is that, deep down in the nether regions, I really don't care about 90% of symbolic kerfuffles that seize the frontal lobes of campaign coverage for days and weeks at a time. I remember once at the 2004 Democratic Convention going on Hugh Hewitt's show and having him ask me, in high excitement, about wasn't it true that Michael Moore sitting next to Jimmy Carter in the rafters was going to be the biggest single story of this campaign?, and me just staring at him blankly, trying to imagine what it must be like to think that way. (Hewitt, I should add, very well might have been right; who knows!)

That's kind of how I feel about the ongoing hullaballoo over Wesley Clark saying this:

He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn't held executive responsibility. [...] That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded - that wasn't a wartime squadron. [...]
I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president. [...]
John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as president. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country - but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions. And in this area his judgment has been flawed - he not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, nonmilitary elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America.

This is one of those marvelous passages where just about every statement (as far as I can quickly reckon) is true, yet I disagree with it. That is to say, it's true that McCain has rarely held executive responsibility (he's an aviator-turned-legislator, after all), and never in a theater of war (though I would argue that his leadership as a POW was extremely impressive, even if he wasn't at the top of the chain of command in Hanoi), but ... who gives a rat's ass? McCain did lead a squadron, and by most accounts did a bang-up job of it, and at any rate, since when is holding a command during wartime a prerequisite for faithfully executing the laws of this land? Command-holder Wesley Clark, self-evidently, is an atrocious politician, and the presidency (I think) requires at least non-incompetence politically. McCain's father and grandfather held commands during war, and they would have been lousy presidents, largely for the same one reason that troubles me most about John Sidney III, at least the post-1997 version − when anyone yelled "war!" they immediately replied "how high?"

As for all the high dudgeon and questioning-his-patriotism and gorbledy-fark salad: Well, you kids have your fun. I hear that Darth Cheney McChimptard canceled the solar power, and Michael Moore is still fat!

Everyone Knows it's Cindy (Except Newsweek)

matt.welch@reason.com (Matt Welch) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:47:00 EDT

Newsweek has a 5,000-word cover story out on Cindy McCain. Here's how the magazine dispatches with the most interesting part of Cindy's life story: Her confessions (first to the feds, then to the public) about stealing painkillers from her own nonprofit:

The McCains knew the story would get out. They chose to tell what happened to a handpicked group of reporters they thought would be fair. The Arizona Republic wasn't included, and the day after the story broke, the paper ran an ugly editorial cartoon depicting Cindy as a junkie shaking down babies for pills. Cindy retreated further from public life and stayed away from reporters.

Er, that's one way of looking at it. Another, more contextual one is that the handpicked reporters

were offered an exclusive story in exchange for agreeing to certain terms. They would attend individual interview sessions Aug. 19 and sit on the story until Aug. 22.

Why the weird time lag? More on that below. What was the "exclusive story"? That Cindy had been addicted to Vicodin and Percocet for three years, going so far as stealing from her own international aid outfit. Why was she talking about it now, more than a year since she'd come clean?

"If what I say can help just one person to face the problem, it's worthwhile," she said. "They should know it's OK to be scared. It's OK to talk about it. And there's nothing wrong with staying home, carpooling and potty-training a 3-year-old."

Inspirational! But there were a couple of important details that Mrs. McCain was leaving out. Chiefly, that on Aug. 22, the day that all the Cindy-beats-drug-addiction hero stories were splashed across the wires and airwaves, Maricopa County was busy unsealing a 212-page extortion investigation into one of her ex-employees, Tom Gosinski, who had sued her for wrongful termination and tipped off the Drug Enforcement Agency that she had written bogus painkiller prescriptions in his name. The McCains knew that Aug. 22 was going to be the first day the public found out about Cindy's illegal drug problems; they just got out in front of it with a heart-rending story, scrubbed clean of seamy details and juicy context.

The extortion investigation into Gosinski − which, by the way, was initiated at the behest of legendary Washington fixer and McCain family friend John Dowd − quietly died nine months later.

Does any of this matter, in a world where Vicodin and Percocet should be easier for all of us to get without having to shake a baby upside-down? Not unless you care to know the darkest corner of McCainiac damage control/suppression, or if you're relying on Newsweek for warts-and-all political reporting. I'm actually a huge fan of Cindy; her magical realism about key moments in her life is all part of the fun.

Would President McCain Obey the Law?

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:00:00 EDT

In asking Congress to allow warrantless surveillance of Americans' international communications, President Bush is seeking permission to do something he believes he does not need permission to do. Like a parent confronted by a defiant teenager, Congress is giving in while insisting it isn't.

Federal law already says the government may listen to the phone calls or read the email of people in the United States only if it follows procedures established by statute. The amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) approved by the House last week say it again. Twice. In effect, Congress is saying, "We mean it. Seriously."

In Congress' defense (did I really say that?), it's hard to think of an effective statutory response to a president who, like Bush, feels free to ignore the law when it forbids him to do what he thinks is necessary to fight terrorism. The only solution to that problem is to replace Bush with a president who is more inclined to respect the rule of law and the separation of powers.

Although he may change his tune if he's elected (especially since he'll face a Democrat-controlled Congress disinclined to check his power), Barack Obama at least claims to believe in these principles. "As president," he told The Boston Globe in December, "I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes."

The Illinois senator disappointed many of his supporters by backing the FISA amendments, which not only approve warrantless wiretaps but grant retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that assisted the Bush administration's illegal post-9/11 surveillance program. Still, he emphasized that Congress has the authority to restrict or rescind the president's spying powers.

"Under this compromise legislation," Obama said, "the president's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance, making it clear that the president cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people."

By contrast, Obama's straight-talking opponent, John McCain, has vacillated on this issue and now seems unwilling to give a straight answer to the question of whether, as president, he would obey the law. "I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is," McCain told the Globe in December. "I don't think the president has the right to disobey any law."

Yet a McCain adviser contradicted that position in a May letter to National Review Online, saying the Arizona senator believes "neither the Administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people...understand were Constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001." He added that "John McCain will do everything he can to protect Americans from [terrorist] threats, including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution."

The reference to Article II implies that the president has constitutional authority to flout statutory restrictions on wiretaps, the very position that McCain disavowed in December. Pressed by The New York Times to explain the blatant contradiction, a campaign spokesman wrote in an email message, "To the extent that the comments of members of our staff are misinterpreted, they shouldn't be read into as anything otherwise." Thanks for clearing that up.

In response to the Times story, McCain himself claimed "it's ambiguous as to whether the president acted within his authority" when he ordered the warrantless wiretaps. No more need be said on the subject, according to McCain, because we should "move forward" instead of "looking back." The question for voters is whether they want to move forward with a president whose commitment to obey the law is ambiguous.

McCain's Ron Paul Problem

matt.welch@reason.com (Matt Welch) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:19:00 EDT

That's what I talked about in Part VII of my eight-segment interview with L.A. Times political blogger Andrew Malcolm (note: this was recorded before Bob Barr won the Libertarian Party nomination). Part VI was a discussion of the role of religion in McCain's life and politics. Parts I-V are linked to and described here.

Speaking of Malcolm, he has a shrewd take here (and not only because he quotes me!) about how McCain's underdog mentality has placed him right where he wants to be, at least psychologically − hopelessly behind.

Who Was He, and What Is He Doing Not Here?

matt.welch@reason.com (Matt Welch) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:01:00 EDT

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen is feeling a tad defensive about his coverage of John McCain:

In some recent magazine articles, I and certain of my colleagues have been accused of being soft on McCain, forgiving him his flips, his flops and his mostly conservative ideology. I do not plead guilty to this charge, because, over the years, the man's imperfections have not escaped my keen eye.

The magazine article he alludes to is findable here. Cohen continues on, grudgingly:

But, for the record, let's recapitulate: McCain has either reversed himself or significantly amended his positions on immigration, tax cuts for the wealthy, campaign spending (as it applies to use of his wife's corporate airplane) and, most recently, offshore drilling. In the more distant past, he has denounced then embraced certain ministers of medieval views and changed his mind about the Confederate flag, which flies by state sanction in South Carolina only, I suspect, to provide Republican candidates with a chance to choose tradition over common decency. There, I've said it all.

Throat thus cleared, here comes the big "but":

But here is the difference between McCain and Obama -- and Obama had better pay attention. McCain is a known commodity. It's not just that he's been around a long time and staked out positions antithetical to those of his Republican base. It's also -- and more important -- that we know his bottom line. As his North Vietnamese captors found out, there is only so far he will go, and then his pride or his sense of honor takes over.

Question: If demonstrating an impressively brave breaking point in a Vietnamese prison gives you a qualitative advantage in becoming U.S. president, wouldn't that mean we should really be looking for the few tough S.O.B.s who didn't break at all? Like, you know, James Stockdale?

Your Next President, Robert Jordan

matt.welch@reason.com (Matt Welch) — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:11:00 EDT

I recently sat down with the L.A. Times' delightful Andrew Malcolm, the Oldest Rookie of political blogging, to talk about my John McCain book. The first segment of the interview went up last week; now we've got four more!

Part II is about McCain's unusual co-opting of 12-step recovery ideas and terminology. Part III examines the wide gap between McCain's foreign policy reputation and reality. Part IV talks about the centrality of "healing Vietnam" in the first two decades of his political career. And Part V delves into his interesting psychology of "beautiful fatalism" and aspiring to be Robert Jordan from For Whom the Bell Tolls.

Is the Habeas Ruling Really One of the Worst Decisions in American History?

info@reason.com (Damon W. Root) — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:59:00 EDT

As Matt Welch recently noted, John McCain is none too happy with Boumediene v. Bush, calling the Supreme Court's recognition of habeas corpus for enemy combatants "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." Could that possibly be true? As a measuring stick, I'd suggest using The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom, a new book by the Cato Institute's Robert Levy and the Institute for Justice's Chip Mellor.

On issues ranging from eminent domain abuse to the restriction of civil liberties during wartime, Levy and Mellor paint a consistent—and consistently depressing—picture of the Court upholding and enhancing government actions at the expense of individual rights. That's as good a definition of a "worst decision" as you'll ever get: state power trumping individual liberty.

Where does Boumediene fall on that scale? Even if you accept Chief Justice John Roberts's dissent, which argues that the Court permanently weakened the separation of powers by substituting its judgment for that of "the people's representatives," the decision hardly sinks to the depths of, say, Korematsu v. United States, where the majority upheld Franklin Roosevelt's internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

In Roberts's view, Congress already protected "whatever rights the detainees may possess" via the Detainee Treatment Act, making the Court's actions both unwarranted and unnecessary. Moreover, his dissent predicts that, "the habeas process the Court mandates will most likely end up looking a lot like the DTA system it replaces." If this is correct, then the real problem with Boumediene isn't the risk it poses to national security (as McCain has stressed) but its long-term political fallout. That's at least a debatable point, though I'd argue that the Court has upheld the separation of powers by exercising a necessary check on the other branches. Furthermore, as legal blogger Marty Lederman has noted:

On the basic habeas question, perhaps the most explanatory line of the majority opinion is this one: "The test for determining the scope of [the Suspension Clause] must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain." In other words, because the Government chose to detain these prisoners at GTMO for the very purpose of avoiding a judicial check on the legality of the detentions, the Court will ensure that the constitutional guarantee extends to the naval base.

But for the last word, I turn to the increasingly libertarian George Will, whose column yesterday made short work of McCain's legal scholarship:

Did McCain's extravagant condemnation of the court's habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents? More likely, some clever ignoramus convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court—meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees—a campaign issue.

Nassty Speculatorssess!

matt.welch@reason.com (Matt Welch) — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:37:00 EDT

Your Republican presidential nominee today, according to his prepared remarks on oil prices:

There is the further problem of speculation on the oil futures market, which in many cases has nothing to do with the actual sale, purchase, or delivery of oil. [...]
[W]e all know that some people on Wall Street are not above gaming the system. When you have enough speculators betting on the rising price of oil, that itself can cause oil prices to keep on rising. And while a few reckless speculators are counting their paper profits, most Americans are coming up on the short end -- using more and more of their hard-earned paychecks to buy gas for the truck, tractor, or family car.
Investigation is underway to root out this kind of reckless wagering, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk. Where we find such abuses, they need to be swiftly punished. And to make sure it never happens again, we must reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market, so that they are just as clear and effective as the rules applied to stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments. In all of these markets, reform must assure transparency, prevent abuse, and protect the public interest.

What McCain Thought Upon Re-Entry

matt.welch@reason.com (Matt Welch) — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:34:00 EDT

In 1973, after returning from five and a half years of captivity in Vietnam, John McCain spent nine months at the National War College, engaging in what he has described as "a private tutorial on the war, choosing all the texts myself, in the hope that I might better understand how we came to be involved in the war and why, after paying such a terrible cost, we lost." Thinking that this could be a Rosetta Stone for McCain's foreign policy evolution, and for his potentially conflicting feelings about his own arduous service in Southeast Asia, I sought his thesis paper via Freedom of Information Act. The results (which came too late for my book, though I write about it in the forthcoming paperback) were different than advertised: It was basically a meditation not on How We Got Involved in Vietnam, but rather on the practical efficacy of the military's code of conduct governing prisoners of war. I wrote about the paper briefly for reason here, and more expansively for the L.A. Times here.

The New York Times asked me for a copy of the paper a while back, and I handed it over. You can read the Gray Lady's write-up here.

Another interesting artifact of his thinking at the time can be found in this 12,000-word U.S. News & World Report essay he wrote in May 1973.