Print this post.Dateline: Wed, 10/21/2009 [print_link] This is a crosspost with Buzzflash, featuring selected comments
By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH
John and Cindy McCain, the beer fortune heiress who fueled his ascent. Inveterate reactionary and warmonger McCain typifies the utterly hypocritical nature of the Republican party, especially its occasional faux populist claims.
It was likely the GOP would lose the 2008 election, although that was hardly a sure thing. If the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the subsequent chain reaction in finance capitalism had occurred on November 18 instead of September 18, McCain might have won. If Hillary Clinton had somehow been able to pull out the Democratic nomination, whether or not the financial collapse and the revelation of the new Great Recession that had actually started some months earlier came before or after November 5, 2008, McCain might well have won anyway. (Given the way that Clinton ran her primary campaign, relying more and more on racism as it progressed, it is highly likely that huge numbers of African-Americans would have stayed home on election day.) But the financial collapse did occur before Election Day and Barack Obama was the nominee and he did win.
But let’s speculate for a moment (actually for the rest of this column) where our nation in general and the GOP would be if McCain had somehow won. Bad Day at Black Rock for both (no pun intended). For whether or not McCain served out his full term, by 2012, the Republican Party would have been facing at least 30 years in the wilderness. Why? Because they would have had to take the full responsibility for all the Republican policies and all the Bush/Cheney booby traps left for the next Administration, Republican or Democratic. But the Administration is Democratic and it happens to be one that simply doesn’t like to mix it up with the Republicans, that is all caught up in “bipartisanship,” and that does not like to “play the blame game,” no matter what the arguments are for doing precisely that.
And so, in terms of its political future, Barack Obama was heaven sent — for the GOP, in two senses. In this column, we will look at what the country would look like if McCain had won. Next week, we will look at how Obama is heaven sent for the GOP now, being in office and adopting, for the most part, the “let’s be gentlemen about this” strategy that simply doesn’t work with opponents who are anything but gentlemen. It reminds one of the foolishness expressed by FDR’s Secretary of State Henry Stimson when he was notified that U.S. Naval Intelligence had broken the Japanese diplomatic code: “Gentlemen do not read each other’s mail.”
Let’s begin with what a McCain/Palin Administration would have done on foreign policy, not necessarily in order of importance. There would be no movement of any kind towards furthering a settlement of the Palestine/Israel conflict. (Obama has taken very timid steps, but at least he has taken steps.) That would be simply adding more kindling to that tinderbox. On Iran, there would be not a hint of talks. Much more severe sanctions would be talked about, but preparations for a military attack, either by ourselves or the Israelis under U.S. protection, might very well be underway. The disastrous outcomes of that strategy would range from closure of the Straits of Hormuz to direct retaliation against Israel and further widening of the war. (Nuclear Pakistan comes in the Iranian side, anyone?) On North Korea, no talks, and thus that nation would be encouraged with its redevelopment of its nuclear program.
What is being proposed by the renegade Gen. McChrystal for Afghanistan would have already been done, U.S. public opinion be damned, and we would definitely be tied up there for years. (Obama still might very stupidly follow this path, but at least he hasn’t done so yet.) The “anti-Iran” missiles would be going into Eastern Europe and the relationship with Russia would be heading for the deep freeze. In support of their aggressive foreign policy, McCain’s personal reservations about this particular military construction program or that to the contrary notwithstanding, military spending would be soaring even more than it is under Obama. All of these policies would lead to either short- or long-term negative consequences for the United States. With a McCain Administration in place, they would all have the GOP label, whether a Democratic Congress (which would likely still be in place itself) went along or just offered the token resistance it did under Bush.
Turning to domestic policy, as is well-known to Greanvillepost readers, the Great Recession was caused by Republican policies. Because of the way he has conducted himself (more on that next week), the Republicans have been able to hang most of the blame around Obama’s neck. But under McCain, just think. There would have no stimulus package of any kind, except possibly for more tax cuts, which just make things worse, not better. The Democrats in Congress might have been able to put a mini one together, but if McCain had vetoed it they would have not been able to come close to an override. So the economy would be tanking even worse than it is, and that would be clearly laid at the door of the GOP.
There would be no debate on national health care reform, except possibly for some package of tax credits, that would cover no additional people and would do absolutely nothing to control the rise in health care costs, to say nothing of private insurance company premiums. Whether the system would collapse before the end of McCain’s first term, one cannot say. But the chances that that would happen would certainly have been increased. There would have been no tea party or birthers or deathers campaigns to distract the population from what is really going on. The bases of those movements do have some real complaints about what is happening to them. It would have been impossible for the GOP to organize them as they have into an “anti-government” (read “anti-Democrat,” race-based) movement and it might have been possible to organize some of them into a movement that would confront the real causes of their problems.
GM and Chrysler would have been allowed to go out of business. There would have been no extension of unemployment benefits. The bailout of the banks probably would have continued, because it was started under the Georgites. But the blame for its outcomes would have been correctly laid to the party whose policies lead to the mess in the first place, not to a Democratic Administration that out of weakness is just following along. Unemployment would be even higher, and so on and so forth. And there would be Sarah Palin, just a couple of heartbeats away from the Presidency.
The bottom line is that the country would be in even worse shape than it is now, due to a continuation of Republican policy. But, instead of being able to lay the blame at the feet of a Democrat who a) seems very reluctant to lay blame where it should be laid and b) is following some of those Republican polices himself, it would have possible to put the GOP right into the political crosshairs where they belong. And so, since the only nomination of Barack Obama made it highly unlikely that McCain would have won, Obama was indeed heaven sent for the GOP.
Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) and author/co-author/editor of 30 books. In addition to being a columnist for BuzzFlash, Dr. Jonas is also Managing Editor and a Contributing Author for TPJmagazine; a Featured Writer for Dandelion Salad; a Columnist for The Greanville POST; a Contributor to TheHarderStuff newsletter; a Contributor to The Planetary Movement; and a Contributing Columnist for the Project for the Old American Century, POAC.
I notice PM hasn’t posted today.
Submitted by daphne chyprious on Wed, 10/21/2009 – 7:54pm.
Maybe he’s reacting to the assertion – and evidence – that Obama’s not necessarily as potent as he believes. A pushover, in fact.
TSFW
Submitted by Yman on Wed, 10/21/2009 – 11:46am.
“If Hillary Clinton had somehow been able to pull out the Democratic nomination, whether or not the financial collapse and the revelation of the new Great Recession that had actually started some months earlier came before or after November 5, 2008, McCain might well have won anyway. (Given the way that Clinton ran her primary campaign, relying more and more on racism as it progressed, it is highly likely that huge numbers of African-Americans would have stayed home on election day.)”
Based on what, Doc? The same hopium-induced imagination you displayed during the primaries? Obama and Clinton tracked neck-and-neck with each other against McCain throughout the primaries, polling which included all those AA voters you imagine would have stayed home based upon your imagined acts of racism. All of this, of course, was before the economic collapse which ensured McCain’s defeat. Yet you imagine that McCain “might well have won anyway” (irrespective of the economic collapse) if Hillary had been the nominee? Hey, …… is that what attracts you to writing about politics rather than your area of alleged expertise? Because when writing about science, you need to use data and facts, but when writing on a blog about politics you feel comfortable just using your imagination?
BTW – Did you ever notice how often so many of the Obots use religious references when referring to Obama? Now that they’ve had the veil lifted (at least to some degree) from their eyes, Doc is claiming he was “heaven sent for the GOP”. Seriously funny stuff.
»
Professor of Preventative Medicine? How wonderfully qualified.
Submitted by Start Loving on Wed, 10/21/2009 – 11:29am.
What is frightening, if you are not able to see how totally unqualified you are to judge Pres. Obama and his strategy and policies, GOD HELP YOUR PATIENTS, AND THE PATIENTS OF YOUR STUDENTS.
This writing of yours is the hieght of blind tripe. Garbage.
»
Listen to Start Loving, Doc.
Submitted by Yman on Wed, 10/21/2009 – 11:48am.
He’s the expert ….. on writing “blind tripe”.
Dr. J. is quite right–
Submitted by Cole… on Wed, 10/21/2009 – 4:45pm.
–Obama is “heaven sent for the GOP”, obviously in a tongue in cheek kind of way. But had Hil won she also would be a “heaven sent” gift, the GOP would have been on her tail from the get-go, meeting with Murdock aside and forget her ‘under fire in Iraq’ claim or her play to the rifle guys with her little girl recall of learning to shoot and kill from her grand-dad, the GOP hated Bill and they hate Demos and they never showed any affection for her as first lady. She was part of Whitewater and Foster and the Monica thing and even though she would probably have done things in the same misguided way that Obama has she would be “heaven sent target of distraction” for the bush mess–which she also would not have investigated.
For many of us on the Progressive side, none of the last three left standing were good choices but the idea of ABB still held and McC was ABB jr. The possibility of a ABB jr. and ABB jr miss victory was abhorent.
All we had was “Hope and Change”–and a big voter turnout. Obama has, for all his efforts of bowing down to the bipartisan gods, not won any respect or thanks from the criminal right crowd and is loosing much from the Progressive side which keeps looking into its bag of “hope”, finding it empty.
»
No kidding.
Submitted by Yman on Thu, 10/22/2009 – 12:27pm.
Of course the GOP would have gone after her …. they would go after any Democrat who was elected. What’s your point? Are you seriously suggesting that the GOP would have gotten traction by recycling their old, failed attacks (i.e. Whitewater, Vince Foster, Monica Lewinsky, etc.)? Seriously? Not only did they not work the first time, but her approval ratings went up when they tried it. A few of them may have tried it, but it would not only have failed again, it likely would backfire in their faces.
I doubt the GOP would have had an issue with her meeting with Murdoch, so I’m not sure why you’re bringing that up. Same for her story of how her father taught her to shoot at the cabin her grandfather built. Her grandfather “taught her to kill”? First of all, she said her father taught her to shoot, and she said she went duck hunting. She never said she either “killed” or was “taught to kill” by her grandfather. It was part of her childhood, and nothing to be ashamed of. Besides, it’s not like she was actively lobbying and pandering to the pro-gun, hunting groups, like Obama was. Similarly, I’m not sure what’s wrong with the fact that she had a meeting with Murdoch … all of those seem to be things that you didn’t like, but they’re hardly something that would upset her GOP critics, or even the vast majority of Democrats. Were you as upset by Obama’s meeting with Murdoch?
ABB? Not sure what that is, but presumably you’re suggesting Obama was a better choice than McCain. Uhhhhm, …… no kidding.
BTW – She also would not have investigated Bush? I don’t know if she would have or wouldn’t have. Unlike the delusional Clinton-haters, I don’t pretend to have the ability to read minds or predict the future. That being said, …. …. we know Obama’s not going to. After all, …… it’s time to “look forward”.
We Had But One Chance…
Submitted by neoconned on Wed, 10/21/2009 – 9:33pm.
…and it required Obama to take off running with his agenda from Day 1. Had he done so, the first effects of his program would become evident about now. If he had done the right things, unemployment would be going down, foreclosures would be dropping, millions of American mortgagees would be getting a new deal on their debt (while the banks would also be getting helped through fixing their greedy “mistakes”), and the Republicans would be seen as bigger fools by more voters than they currently do. If he did the wrong things, could he be worse off than he currently is?
But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Barry had to make nice with the sandbox bullies and blow it! Where’s that Audacious Hope we were promised? You, know, the one the nation voted for?
Despite all of the talk (including by Keith Olbermann tonight on Countdown) that the GOP is in dire straits, I don’t see it. Rush and the other flaming Nazi gasbags are hard at work rebuilding their base and keeping it from recovering from their insanity. My very subjective observations indicate that it is working; meanwhile, the polls show that the majority of independents have had enough of “change” that isn’t and are back to leaning Republican. And the bad economic news hasn’t finished coming in yet.
Yes, for these reasons and many more, Obama will prove to be the savior of the GOP – and the GOP can just like the fact that a half-black man did what thousands of their wealthy white trash could not – revive their party. I love it – NOT!
4 comments
A most astute analysis by “Dr J”. Ah, what a world this would be if this kind of mind was given the type of media platform offered to people like Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of that human offal…Life would begin to smile again for many of us. Thanks for posting this.
Dameroy76
Giving Obama credit for innocence is a bit naive in my view. The man is a clever and articulate politician and he plays to his personal instincts, but politically he’s rotten. What is his game plan? Nothing makes sense. If he wants to extend his political shelf life, let alone become a memorable president, playing to the right and accommodating the plutocracy is hardly the way to do it. The nation is crying for DECISIVE leadership, a show of principles, and all the man does is vacillate and compromise and finally choose the most cautious option tilted right! All of this does not begin to placate the Right itself, so as I say, I can’t figure the man but he looks like deadmeat in the next election. If he becomes another one-termer he owes that to himself and no one else.
Until we break with this two party sham, and the belief that the profit driven system (Capitalism) has anything positive left to offer humankind than the pendulum will continue swinging back and forth between these two malignant bourgeois parties. Moreover, as the system continues to decay our apathy will subsequently disintegrate along with the corpse if anyone ever again rests their hopes on a man and party with no apparent principles. It is clear now Barack Obama lied his way into office, and therefore I care little about his miniscule advances, which as we know after seeing this bill do far more harm than good, and dig the ditch just a little bit deeper as the Democrats toss more bodies into the profit driven private insurance system – and then mandate it! They just dug their own graves, and maybe ours. Anyone furious?
This is true simply because neither party has solutions to the crisis on any level. Therefore, it is no surprise the cowardice (disguised as idealism) of “pragmatic” and “moderate” liberals has managed to resurrect a party and base so deplorable, simplistic, backward, racist, and ideologically bankrupt, that they should have passed from the stage of history long ago by “populists” simply applying one principled position, and standing behind it . How much longer can we take this? With reservation, I am getting behind either Nader, or Kucinich in 2012 for President – that’s pragmatism.
It is time leftists revisited these words written in 1937, and perhaps engrave them on the wall so they don’t continue to have false hope. The time has come that we stop preaching to the choir as well …present company included:
We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon.
But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations.
Liberalism manifests itself in various ways.
To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.
To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one’s suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one’s own inclination. This is a second type.
Mao Tse Tung – Combat Liberalism
http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/CL37.html
Glad someone has not forgotten the wisdom of Mao and authentic revolutionaries. His warning about liberals and their spurious solutions to the capitalist crisis are well taken. Liberals and the masses who follow them practice the “pragmatism of fools.”
There’s much to learn to navigate these ultra treacherous political waters in America. But first thing people in America must understand is that you cannot get a rabbit to act like a horse: the US two-party system is a corporate game, a fraud, an utter con game, and must be abandoned for the pestilence it is. New parties and movements must take their place, parties that truly represent the interests of the populace.
As an Australian living in Thailand at the moment I can see things in a clearer perspective. Much of what we see in America is mirrored in British politics as well, and that includes Australia and New Zealand. From the sterile establishment parties yo-yo to the rump political spectrum. A disgrace and a burden on humanity. Thank you for this fine article and comments.
WF, Chiang Mai, Thai