Jack Wakeland

McCain's Altruist Conversion

52 posts in this topic

If the military draft is ever re-instated, here is how it will work:

1. Some precipitating military or terrorist event will lead *conservatives* of the altruist-statist stripe to foment for the draft

2. The liberal-left (and many on the right) will see a golden opportunity to institute compulsory "service"

3. The two camps will form a coalition, and re-instate the draft alongside a compulsorary "service" system, such that ALL young people of the draft age will either have to serve in the forces or the "americorp" or whatever it will be called.

If anyone were to be an enabler, ney, full-on initiator of this sequence, it would be altruist McCain.

So far, the only people calling for the draft have been ultra-liberal Democrats like Congressman Charles Rangel (here).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So far, the only people calling for the draft have been ultra-liberal Democrats like Congressman Charles Rangel (here).

But it's more of a stunt. The view is that if threatened with a draft that would subject their own children to war, the GOP would be less enthusiastic about their "shoot first ask questions later" policy. War is sometimes the answer. However, it is rarely the first answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So far, the only people calling for the draft have been ultra-liberal Democrats like Congressman Charles Rangel (here).

Granted. It is more an "informed" concern.

But there is already a plethora of examples of how "compassionate conservatives" aka religiously motivated altruists, are eager to expand altruistic programs.

AIDS in Africa -- what possible legitimate domestic or foreign policy interest of the American people is served by the billions now being funneled into this? My guess is that this is supported by conservocrats so they claim to be sympathetic to AIDS while trying to fight the disease in a context less dominated by gays.

Pharmacare -- Bush sponsored the biggest expansion of Medicare in decades, adding billions to the medicare spending

These are just two off the top of my head.

My point is that we should all be wise enough to know that people are most strongly motivated by their most *demonstrated* basic beliefs, and we all know to what ends altruism leads. I should emphasize I do distinguish between merely stale dutiful altruist bromides not much believed, and core values.

Just look at McCain's worldview and the main messages delivered at the convention: basically Washington is broken because of "self-interest" and the only people who can fix it are selfless people who put "Country First".

There is a frightening hard-core altruist flavor to all this that we haven't seen recently in politics, to my knowledge.

And as for spending reductions etc. That is nonsense. As Margaret Thatcher's architect of her privatization revolution one commented: "In the entire history of government programs, there has never been an unnecessary government program." Notice how McCain hasn't stated a *single* program that he will cut. The notion that the existing programs are "inefficient" is a chimera (I hope I don't need to explain why that is so.) So his administration isn't going to cut anything. Certainly none of the stuff already built on the edifice of altruism--his moral convictions will not permit him to try to undertake the battle to eliminate them. And he won't find any "waste", at least not any significant amount.

And frankly, I would rather have (more) socialized medicine enacted AS socialized medicine BY a socialist (something I can fight morally) than someone who claims to be an enemy of socialized medicine who then enacts (more) socialized medicine and labels the result capitalist medicine.

The right has been FAR more responsible, morally, for the destruction of capitalism than the left. The left fight capitalism and denounce it--that is a winnable battle; the right has subverted capitalism and supervised its replacement with a grotesque fascistic/corporativist/lobbyist-istic/demi-socialist undead frankenstein version of itself, which is now what "capitalism" has been redefined to mean. I recently had a spirited bar room discussion with various graduate students about capitalism and rights, and it is sadly the case that no one even has the remotest conception of what capitalism and rights are, in the sense us Objectivists or intellectually decent libertarians understand it to be. The left are my opponents. The right are my bitter enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quoting from Brad's link above...

From the T.J. Rodgers Q&A

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9887435-38.html

Switching to politics, who will you vote for in the 2008 presidential race?

In terms of president, Ron Paul is a non-nut and I voted for him. It won't happen in my lifetime that a third party is going to become important. Ross Perot--I didn't support him--showed that when both parties get out of touch and arrogantly refuse to listen, a third party can rise up temporarily.

Who am I going to vote for? You have to know what the choices are, which are not yet known. In my value system where the good guys are libertarians and the bad guys are totalitarian, there are two bad guys--McCain and Hillary. I would vote against them for anybody else. For example, I'd vote for Obama.

Why the antipathy toward McCain?

There's an article in Reason magazine about McCain. He's anti-free speech. He's a war guy. Those are about as bad as you can get from a libertarian perspective.

I got turned off by him in a personal meeting. I made a presentation to him that the government is wasting hundreds of millions of dollars in (technology-related) pork barrel spending. I showed that the pork barrel spending is not only fundamentally bad, but also harmful to the people getting the money, the semiconductor industry. When I got done with the presentation, he labeled the pork barrel spending "peanuts." He poked his finger in my chest and said that he's "going to get rid of your big fat stock options."

He's in favor of stifling free speech. He's in favor of the war. He doesn't truly care about lean government. You'd have difficulty picking between him and George W. Bush.

Three things jumped out at me, I placed them in bold above.

"Ron Paul is a non-nut and I voted for him". I don't think Ron Paul is a nut, but he's very wrong on self-defense.

"I'd vote for Obama". Since this was a March 6th q&a, I'm guessing he's changed his mind on this one.

"He's a war guy". Does this mean that T.J. Rodgers is a libertarian like all of the other libertarians who thinks we are at fault for the war? I see that as one of McCain's strengths.

Color me disappointed in T.J.

Another one bites the dust. and a another one down and another one down ... :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The right has been FAR more responsible, morally, for the destruction of capitalism than the left. The left fight capitalism and denounce it--that is a winnable battle; the right has subverted capitalism and supervised its replacement with a grotesque fascistic/corporativist/lobbyist-istic/demi-socialist undead frankenstein version of itself, which is now what "capitalism" has been redefined to mean. I recently had a spirited bar room discussion with various graduate students about capitalism and rights, and it is sadly the case that no one even has the remotest conception of what capitalism and rights are, in the sense us Objectivists or intellectually decent libertarians understand it to be. The left are my opponents. The right are my bitter enemies.

Exactly. Here is some of what 8 years of "compassionate conservatism" has left us with:

  • the TSA
  • Sarbanes-Oxley
  • No Child Left Behind
  • Medicare Part D
  • Government-engineered bailout of Bear Stearns
  • Full nationalization of mortgage lending
  • an explosion of earmarks
  • continued "unfunded mandates" at the state and local level that undermine the impact of tax cuts at the federal level

Can we be forgiven for asking how things could have possibly been much worse under the Democrats? At least they would have been upfront about what they were doing. We are now being asked to support a candidate whose main criticism of the conservatism of the past 8 years is that it hasn't been compassionate enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. Here is some of what 8 years of "compassionate conservatism" has left us with:
  • the TSA
  • Sarbanes-Oxley
  • No Child Left Behind
  • Medicare Part D
  • Government-engineered bailout of Bear Stearns
  • Full nationalization of mortgage lending
  • an explosion of earmarks
  • continued "unfunded mandates" at the state and local level that undermine the impact of tax cuts at the federal level

I don't know what news sources you've been reading, but what I've seen shows republicans hugely disappointed in the Bush's government spending, and every single incumbent Republican politician both swears to "traditional" laissez-faire principles, and fears the title "neo-con" more then death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think a single Republican running for office is saying anything of the sort. They've only been blaming the Democratic congress.

I watched 3 nights of the RNC, and I never heard a single condemnation of Bush, or praise for laissez-faire capitalism.

McCain is a nationalist. Nothing really good can come from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I simply don't understand these phantom dangers of McCain's altruism which must be stopped at all costs.

Nor do I. I am more concerned with the dangers of Obama's New Left altruism which must be stopped at all costs.

Every person who knows what Obama stands for and campaigns for him is a threat to victory, because it brings his evil into focus.

hear! hear!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The right has been FAR more responsible, morally, for the destruction of capitalism than the left. The left fight capitalism and denounce it--that is a winnable battle; the right has subverted capitalism and supervised its replacement with a grotesque fascistic/corporativist/lobbyist-istic/demi-socialist undead frankenstein version of itself, which is now what "capitalism" has been redefined to mean. I recently had a spirited bar room discussion with various graduate students about capitalism and rights, and it is sadly the case that no one even has the remotest conception of what capitalism and rights are, in the sense us Objectivists or intellectually decent libertarians understand it to be. The left are my opponents. The right are my bitter enemies.

There's no question that conservatism is not the answer. However, while both parties are altruists, one side is considerably more consistent and explicit than the other. On the left you have not only calls for socialized healthcare, but almost unified support for environmentalism and, with the exception of Lieberman, surrender to Islamic Totalitarianism. How's that for "hard-core"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-------------

McCain is a nationalist. ---------------

Can you support that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This morning, on Face the Nation, McCain presented his thoughts on service. When asked, he said “I fought so hard, for a long time, for kind of a National Service Idea that’s voluntary.”

Also, he thinks that after 9/11 we shouldn’t have told Americans to go shop, but to go serve. He said, “We’re going to find ways for you to serve, a lot of it voluntary, a lot of it with reward.”

I think the senator is well aware that any talk of mandatory service would be the end of his political career. This gives me hope in that most Americans are too selfish to ultimately give up their time and life to go and serve.

Below is the link to the interview. The issue of service comes up starting at 6min 24sec

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4423278n

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-------------

McCain is a nationalist. ---------------

Can you support that?

McCain's campaign slogan is "Country First" and he is big on service to country, so I think that is very much nationalistic. There isn't much good to say about McCain when it comes to philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-------------

McCain is a nationalist. ---------------

Can you support that?

He rejects things like mandatory military service from a place of practicality - that it just wouldn't work and doesn't matter because we have a great military. This is rhetoric that I will never, ever put up with. It's insanity.

His slogan of " Country First " is probably the worst thing he could have done to isolate the individualists left on the Right. He believes that the country ought to come before the individual, and while I know there are Objectivists that support such policies, he will probably support the stripping of civil liberties int he name of national security.

One of his biggest, most monstrous attacks against the individual is McCain-Feingold, which lashes out at free political speech in the name of protecting the nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what news sources you've been reading, but what I've seen shows republicans hugely disappointed in the Bush's government spending, and every single incumbent Republican politician both swears to "traditional" laissez-faire principles, and fears the title "neo-con" more then death.

Why did they vote for these things, then? Most of these passed when the GOP controlled Congress. "The Democrats made us do it" isn't a good answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading McCain's acceptance speech, I am struck by the consistency of his altruism. When he says this:

If you find faults with our country, make it a better one. If you're disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them. Enlist in our armed forces. Become a teacher. Enter the ministry. Run for public office. Feed a hungry child. Teach an illiterate adult to read. Comfort the afflicted. Defend the rights of the oppressed. Our country will be the better, and you will be the happier. Because nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself.

it's clear that he really means his altruism and really hates the independent self. He is a man who has absolutely no conception of the real founding nature of America: where each individual pursues his own rationally selfish happiness. He has open contempt for that. I think Palin's decision to consciously have her Down Syndrome baby played a significant part in his choice of her - it showed the depth of her commitment to altruism.

The primary difference between McCain and Obama is that McCain wants total sacrifice for the sake of America; Obama wants total sacrifice for the sake of the world generally. Both of them are thorough-going mystics/altruists/collectivists, with McCain paying lip service to capitalism but a thorough socialist by logical implication. Both of them will accelerate America away from individualism and towards collectivism to whatever degree they can muster.

If McCain becomes President, he will not be as incompatible with a Democratic Congress as most seem to think. He might even be able to convince them that expanding a self-sacrificial war is a good thing precisely because it is self-sacrificial and accomplishes nothing but wasted lives and resources. Nuking our enemies is too swift and decisive and does not involve hundreds of thousands of American men bravely learning the meaning of self-sacrifice. A diffuse, never-ending half-war across a large swath of the world is the altruist's dream come true. Is that really the fundamental explanation for the quagmires of the past 60 years, the Vietnams and Iraqs?

Objectivism is not an optional solution to America's problems, it is the sole solution. Absent an understanding of the morality of rational self interest, America is going to keep electing these death worshippers and eventually bleed out from a million self-inflicted cuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why did they vote for these things, then? Most of these passed when the GOP controlled Congress.

I've been interested in exactly the same question, so I've been reading a few Republican news sources/blogs, and they asking themselves exactly this question, and are blaming themselves for the the Democratic takeover of Congress. "Return to our Conservative principles" is the ideological slogan of this election season, which they inevitably interpret as stronger social stances, a small government and much privatization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think a single Republican running for office is saying anything of the sort. They've only been blaming the Democratic congress.

I watched 3 nights of the RNC, and I never heard a single condemnation of Bush, or praise for laissez-faire capitalism.

Well... several of the commentators I heard said we were to understand McCain's (and others) vague condemnations of the last 8 years to be a veiled attack on the Bush presidency. I mean, c'mon... they can't come right out and say "George Bush stank!" -- he spoke at the convention and endorsed McCain after all!

McCain is a nationalist. Nothing really good can come from it.

Indeed.

I think that those who truly understand the power of fundamental ideas should find McCain very scary indeed.

As contrast, although I don't know a lot about her, Palin doesn't scare me in that way at all. (Although I have seen evidence based on her various official actions that she is a bit of a power monger."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Return to our Conservative principles" is the ideological slogan of [the GOP in] this election season, which they inevitably interpret as stronger social stances, a small government and much privatization.

We will see. ALL conservatives in ALL countries in ALL elections, past, present, and future, have praised "small government."

In Canada, Brian Mulroney (circa Reagan) promised to cut government and balance the budget. Each year, his finance minister made promises about how *next* year the budget was going to be balanced. For 7 years this happened. (And it actually took the liberals coming to power to finally balance the budget!)

Paradoxically, it is easier for a liberal to privatize, cut programs, and balance budgets! Liberals are more driven by a secular political philosophy, which of course derives indirectly from altruist principles. But conservatives (for the greater part) are more directly driven by a religious/altruist moral philosophy in conjunction with a very sloppily conceived political... grab bag... ("philosophy" would be far too generous a term.) So a liberal has a much weaker force between him and reality, if, for example, it is either the choice of some program or balancing the budget. A Bush (or McCain) when faced with, say, "AIDS in Africa" vs. starving unemployed Americans in a recession and war, will choose... the AIDS program for Africa. Do the altruist math.

There is nothing about the fascistic/statist legacy of Bush that McCain is likely to discard, since he himself helped sponsor or promote a lot of it! (ex. McCain-Feingold).

GOP/conservative claims about allegiance to "small government", free markets, etc. are empty claims with no real connection to what they actual do politically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's no question that conservatism is not the answer. However, while both parties are altruists, one side is considerably more consistent and explicit than the other. On the left you have not only calls for socialized healthcare, but almost unified support for environmentalism and, with the exception of Lieberman, surrender to Islamic Totalitarianism.

First, Environmentalism is essentially a secular-moral philosophy (intrinsic worship of planet combined with demands for altruist sacrifice of humans to same.) When it is not attacked AS a (false) moral philosophy, it will succeed and vanquish all enemies, and this includes the GOP. All GOP candidates will add check-mark endorsement of being "environmentalist"--they will only quibble about how much man should be sacrificed. And don't be too quick to assume the "social force" here is all on the side of the left--because intrincist-altruist philosophy is much closer morally to the christian conservatives than to the more secular liberals. Here is my prediction of a fantasy campaign between Gore and McCain: Gore demands 100 units of enviro-socialism. McCain evades any explicit claims, but throws some "environmentally responsible" talk in all the time. Scenario 1: Gore wins--he ends up enacting 25 units of e.s.; Scenario 2: McCain wins--he ends up enacting 40 units of e.s. and then boasting about how he saved the country from 100 units of e.s.

Second, on health care, see my comments about. Billary tried and failed to get their universal health care system achieved. They promised 100 units of socialism and delivered 0. Bush didn't (as I recall) promise any units. He delivered 25 with Pharmacare. Obama is now promising 100 units. McCain is promising "lots of units" (without saying how many) but allegedly not via socialism. But how else shall a POLITICIAN deliver more health care??? Well, given that he won't cut hundreds of other non-health-related programs to free up the money to insure more Americans are less taxed to enable them to spend more on health care... the only answer is more socialism. So whereas the Democrat's full-on socialized program could (again) be defeated in its entirety, the McCain people will inevitably deliver another 25 units or more of socialized medicine, and of course will have no trouble getting it passed because the democrats will be more than happy to support at least partial additional socialization.

Third, on Islamism, it is important to be fair about this. Obama (and if I recall, Biden) made a very strong, explicit claim about the need to fight the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan AND Pakistan (and wherever else they arise.) This is a policy we can agree with and support. The war in Iraq was not justified, and has arguably given Iran a huge new theatre in which to promote their Islamist agenda. But I will agree with McCain that we should finish the occupation on a strong note, not scurrying as if in defeat. But on the other hand, you can win a war but you can't "win" an occupation. That country is going to be a mess for as long as Iran's government exists in its present form. (That either Iraq's government or the U.S. allowed Iran's president to come and visit was atrocious--maybe some kind of talks or relations might be valuable or indicated, I'm not an expert on foreign relations, but to allow the president to visit while his country is brazenly sponsoring vast amounts of terrorism in your country is just morally execrable and can serve no possible purpose except the utter demoralization of your citizens and the emboldening of the terrorists and their sympathizers working in your country.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from my blog. If posting one's blog entries in a reply is against forum rules, please let me know and delete it.

The Dirty Kuffar

The Nationalism of John McCain

Perhaps the most troubling part of this election, but one that may open the eyes of the few individualists left on the Right, is John McCain's campaign slogan and the overall theme of last weeks Republican Convention: Country First. John McCain has called himself a servant of the nation first, and self second ( Or even further down the list ). This is a terrible distinction for several reasons that I will discuss later, but for now, how has this idea of " Country First " manifest itself in the political mentality and philosophy of John McCain?

Well, the most obvious and most shocking is his reluctant opposition to conscription, which he has stated before ( After voting FOR it in the 90s ) is based solely on practicality. McCain has stated time and again that the only time he would support a draft would be " if World War III broke out ".

This is a monstrous slap in the face to any concept of individual rights. The Draft may be the worst thing in our country's history outside of slavery, because it is in fact de facto slavery. It calls itself conscription, and they give you benefits throughout your life, but they consider your life to be one that can be disposed of for the greater good of the country. Something of that magnitude of evil cannot be opposed from the point of practicality. Frankly, I think the moral-practical distinction is non-sense and has given rise to sayings like " Well Communism is good on paper but not in practice ". How possibly could something be good on paper, in theory, but not in practice? Morality is for the good of man's life qua man, so no such distinction is valid. McCain can and MUST come out against this kind of slavery based on a moral premise that man's life is his own, and not something that can be used by the state for their ends. I will never, ever in my life support a candidate that leaves forced military service on the table of options at any time of national urgency. It is a worse idea than universal health care or anything Obama supports. It is the greatest evil I could imagine possible in a great nation like America nowadays, and with the looming possibility of a world war transpiring, I'm not going to trust McCain with my life and the life of my loved ones.

Another supposed service to America which inhibited it's free speech in the political arena was the McCain-Feingold bill of 2002. Many see this as a testament to McCain's maverick nature, and willingness to put aside his own selfish interests in the name of supporting the nation and working with a Democrat. I see this as a testament to John McCain's willingness to sacrifice a founding principle such as free speech to the greater good of the country. But once again, nothing immoral can ever be considered the good of anything except the betterment of evil and evil men. To disallow free speech in such a profound way is to show a true disdain for individualism. McCain-Feingold hasn't helped the country, but by McCain's twisted Nationalist-Altruist logic, it has, perhaps because it has limited the freedom of money-hungry, evil corporations.

And an event as recent as the date this was posted, McCain has given his support to the federal bailing out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This is only after 3 days of Republicans clamoring for smaller government that does not interfere in business any longer. Of course this will cost the American tax payer billions of dollars, but who cares? It is, after all, for the greater good of the country. McCain has said he is only supporting a move to bail them out so they can work to fully privatize them, but you don't teach companies lessons by bailing them out. Government safety nets are not good motivations to get your stuff straight. But of course, if he did not do this, people would claim he was not doing what was right for the country since the prevailing sentiment around the recent bailouts is that it's a matter of national security and stability, and needs to be handled by the government. If McCain opposed this, perhaps he would be a true Maverick. But he has not, and he is not.

McSame has also declared global warming a national security issue, and as such has gone so far from the free market ideology he supposedly holds strong to that he supported a bill with Lieberman to install cap-and-trade agreements with America. He's also stated that we should join in with Kyoto. This is not a man who thinks rationally, but a man who thinks nationally. No good can come of such a thought process.

It's a flawed stance to do things for the sake of the nation, or for any collective cause outside of yourself. For example, the story of McCain in the Hanoi Hotel where McCain finally realized what it meant to act selflessly by way of example with fellow prisoners who fed McCain while he was unable to feed himself because of 2 broken arms. This is a story of true heroism, and McCain should be considered one of the bravest individuals to run for president in quite sometime, but were those men acting selflessly in that prison? I think not, but again, by McCain's altruist logic, this is selflessness. Feeding a fellow soldier, helping him to recover, encouraging him to fight on, is not an act of selflessness. It is an act of 2 individuals bound by the ideal of the American dream helping one another. If these 2 men were selfish, by altruist logic, they would probably have used McCain for their own food but would this have benefited them? Another American dead? No.

And if McCain is to take his creed of unselfish charity to it's real conclusion, why did he not tell those prisoners to eat his food and let him die? Surely McCain is a selfish bastard for wanting to eat when he is far worse off than the men beside him. McCain was the most likely to die, and he should have accepted that and died in peace...Leave the stronger ones alone. But few people will accept such a suicidal credo and for good reason. It simply does not make sense.

Another point of McCain's military service; while serving, what was McCain fighting for? What Country? I am certain McCain realizes he was not fighting for a country, but for a broader ideal. People deserve freedom, and it is in our interest to spread the American way from nation to nation. Capitalism, Constitutional Republicanism, rugged individualism. America was not founded on the bizarre, mystical notion that man was a means to an end for society, but that man was an end in himself. His life was his own, to be used as he saw fit, to benefit himself and those he loved and cared for. We left the idea of man as a living sacrifice to the rest in the dark ages. Reason had dictated something different to John Locke and to our founding fathers. John McCain ought to be commended for fighting for the American ideal, as all those serving do, but he and others need to be reminded they were not over there to suffer and die for their country, but to achieve victory. George S. Patton, or at least a portrayal of him once said that no poor bastard ever did anything for his country by dying for it, but by making the other poor bastard die for his. We are not in war to serve the needs of others primarily, but to defend ourselves and to spread the American ideal.

John McCain needs, but he will not, repudiate his nationalist ethos in exchange for a new philosophy that man lives for himself, and that to defend his country is admirable, but not an end in itself. We defend America, the greatest nation to ever exist, because it is good, because it allows us to prosper, not just because it IS a country we reside in. Let us leave Nationalism dead and buried in the 20th century, with all the horrendous forms of collectivism that rose out of that time. McCain ought to put the individual first in this election, and until he does, I cannot find a good reason to vote for him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is from my blog. If posting one's blog entries in a reply is against forum rules, please let me know and delete it.

The Dirty Kuffar

The Nationalism of John McCain

[...]

John McCain needs, but he will not, repudiate his nationalist ethos in exchange for a new philosophy that man lives for himself, and that to defend his country is admirable, but not an end in itself. We defend America, the greatest nation to ever exist, because it is good, because it allows us to prosper, not just because it IS a country we reside in. Let us leave Nationalism dead and buried in the 20th century, with all the horrendous forms of collectivism that rose out of that time. McCain ought to put the individual first in this election, and until he does, I cannot find a good reason to vote for him

One of the largest holes in this argument is that nationalists are usually anti-immigrant and anti-free trade, both of which McCain supports. A better example would be Pat Buchanan, who actually is a nationalist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the largest holes in this argument is that nationalists are usually anti-immigrant and anti-free trade, both of which McCain supports. A better example would be Pat Buchanan, who actually is a nationalist.

One of the larger overall problems is this mindset of "Let me just sit on the sidelines and take sniping shots at both sides".

Our job is to decide the better candidate, so unless both candidates are rationally just simply stomach-churningly unacceptable, this task is not helped when we are pointed out that both candidates have flaws, and that the only flawless person was the guy pointing such things out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, "Kuffar" is the Muslim word for infidel, so unless John McCain has suddenly turned to Islam the very title of the blog is yet one more example of making a trade of candidates' flaws, and of enlarging or adding exaggerations whenever possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is from my blog. If posting one's blog entries in a reply is against forum rules, please let me know and delete it.

The Dirty Kuffar

The Nationalism of John McCain

[...]

John McCain needs, but he will not, repudiate his nationalist ethos in exchange for a new philosophy that man lives for himself, and that to defend his country is admirable, but not an end in itself. We defend America, the greatest nation to ever exist, because it is good, because it allows us to prosper, not just because it IS a country we reside in. Let us leave Nationalism dead and buried in the 20th century, with all the horrendous forms of collectivism that rose out of that time. McCain ought to put the individual first in this election, and until he does, I cannot find a good reason to vote for him

One of the largest holes in this argument is that nationalists are usually anti-immigrant and anti-free trade, both of which McCain supports. A better example would be Pat Buchanan, who actually is a nationalist.

I'd say McCain's position on free trade is the only thing that is good about him. However on immigration, much like Bush. McCain continues to swing back and forth between open and closed immigration. It's a subject I don't think he has a clear opinion on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the largest holes in this argument is that nationalists are usually anti-immigrant and anti-free trade, both of which McCain supports. A better example would be Pat Buchanan, who actually is a nationalist.

One of the larger overall problems is this mindset of "Let me just sit on the sidelines and take sniping shots at both sides".

Our job is to decide the better candidate, so unless both candidates are rationally just simply stomach-churningly unacceptable, this task is not helped when we are pointed out that both candidates have flaws, and that the only flawless person was the guy pointing such things out.

I do think they're both equally upsetting candidates.

And to your comment about the blog, that is the name of the blog itself, i.e " Little Green Footballs ". The title of the blog post is " The Nationalism of John McCain "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites