Posted by
Andrews on Saturday, May 17, 2008 3:42:25 PM
I keep hearing the argument that we should not support McCain so that the Democrats get the blame when things go wrong.
I have addressed this before, but I feel the need to explain one more time why this is a bad idea.
Now, for the sake of this argument, let us say that McCain is every bit as left on domestic issues as Obama or Clinton.
I don't agree, but it is not worth arguing that. Let us say that he is. However, that does not change the "R" after his name. No matter how far he leans to the left, the Democrats will still oppose him, even if he espouses outright communism. Just look at how the Democrats opposed Bush's massive prescription drug proposal. No matter how left McCain is, Democrats will oppose him as they worry the Republicans will get "credit" for socialist ideas.
Without the Democrats to support him, McCain will have to rely on Republican support. As the Republicans in congress worry about reelection, this will be a factor even if McCain's interest in reelection doesn't
drive him to the right. The simple need for Republican support in congress will move him rightward, making him, of necessity, better than Obama or Clinton.
However, let us just ignore that. Let us suppose, for some reason, the Democrats decide to let him pass all the left-leaning bills he wants. Let us suppose the opposition is right and he will be every bit as bad as Obama or Clinton. There is still one other issue, defense.
Now, I don't know anyone, even those who despise the man, who think McCain will negotiate with terrorists, let Iran build a bomb, allow China to seize Taiwan, stand by while Chavez exports "the revolution" to the rest of South America and the Caribbean, or anything else that either of the Democrats might do. Just look at
Obama's immediate assumption that any talk of negotiating with terrorists means him. Doesn't that tell you something?
So, yes, maybe people will be unhappy with McCain and blame him. Maybe it would be better if they blamed the Democrats. But all of that means nothing if Iran gets the bomb and hands it off to Hamas. When you are reduced to component atoms, who gets blamed is really a moot point.
POSTSCRIPT
And to those who accuse me of "playing to fears", I am not. I really do fear Iran getting the bomb, the US allowing Islamic fundamentalism to rule the Middle East, a solid Chavez block in South America or the Caribbean, Chinese expansionism, renewed Russian expansionism, and a number of other things. I am not "playing to fears", though I do present the worst case scenario. However, I really do think four years of Obama or Clinton will leave us in a much worse world, the way four years of Carter and eight of Clinton both left us in a much worse international environment.
CORRECTION: Originally I said "deal with terrorists" rather than "negotiate with terrorists". As "deal with" can be read two ways, I think the current wording is much better. But since it was posted for a while before the change, I thought I should post this little notice for those who read and misunderstood the original post.
ADDITIONAL NOTE
I have changed my spelling of Hammas to Hamas, as that appears to be the present preferred transliteration. I seem to recall it having two m's at one time, but that may be a mistake on my part. On the other hand, transliterations from Arabic always seem to shift. Everyone who lived through the 80's has to recall the Lybian dictator's million different names: Gaddhafi, Qadhafi, Ghaddaffy, Qadafi, and on and on.
In some ways it seems silly, to worry about transliterations. I
mentioned before my annoyance at the scholars who changed Hector into Hektor and Achilles into Akhilleus. Neither is more correct. Anything other than Greek characters is an approximation, so why bicker over which approximation is best?
Still, since it seems one M is the rule of the day, Hamas it is.