William Safire's political dictionary tells us that the term maverick derives from Samuel Augustus Maverick, a Texas rancher who became infamous during the 1840s for refusing to brand his cattle. He claimed it was to prevent animal cruelty, but his neighbors knew him as a liar and a thief, who used this subterfuge to claim all unbranded cattle on the open range. When lawsuits didn't stop him, gunfire erupted. Safire defines current usage as "One who is unorthodox in his political views and disdainful of party loyalty, who 'bears no man's brand.'"
Senator John McCain is hardly the first maverick to make a rapid political ascent in America according to Safire. Andrew Jackson earned that honor. So did Teddy Roosevelt and his cousin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. All three redefined political tradition in their own times, and America greatly benefited from it.
Is McCain about to redefine political tradition, or is he going to fracture the body politic like President George W. Bush has? I'd like to believe the former, but I fear the later. I've seen how Washington has become gridlocked by moneyed interests. I admire how Senator McCain has stood up to many of them, particularly the tobacco industry. For too long I've seen our political leaders posturing in front of the cameras instead of doing the hard behind-the-scenes work to hammer our effective change. McCain is a hard worker who has overcome the opposition of many in his own party to enact the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act and to stop pork barrel spending. On the other hand, how well could President McCain govern when only 16 of his Senate colleagues and 29 of his House colleagues support his nomination? These are the people who know him best. McCain served two terms in the House from 1983 until 1987 and three plus terms in the Senate from 1987 until now. I never had any direct contact with McCain, but even at that distance I've heard stories from friends on Capitol Hill of McCain's hairtrigger temper and of the deaf ear he turned on entreaties for party loyalty.
Senator Barack Obama is no maverick; he's an outsider. He's a community organizer from Chicago, a party builder, a golden tongued orator, and someone who can inspire young people. He's new to Washington, barely three and a half years into his first term in the Senate. People like him. Nearly all of his Senate and House colleagues support him. However, he is devoid of executive or foreign policy experience, both of which are quite important to becoming effective as president. Some outsider presidents have done well -- Reagan and Kennedy, but others have done poorly -- Bush 43 and Carter. Somehow, America has been strong enough to survive the bad presidents and to move ahead under the goods ones.
President McCain would have to work with a Democratic Congress, which would curtail many of his proposals, but President Obama could easily overstep, as President Clinton did, and find that the people may restore divided government after two years as occurred in the 1994 election.
If there's one thing I'm grateful for in this historic presidential election campaign, it is that we have such strong and independent candidates to choose from. Democracy is the most difficult form of government to sustain over the long haul. It's like a high performance race car; it takes a lot of maintenance and care to harness all that power. Having such strong candidates to choose from will strengthen this country no matter who wins.
Maverick?
I thought McCain got his Maverick brand for standing up to the religious right. Now he is given into them and reigniting the culture wars.
McCain has been very inept in managing his campaign. Would he do a lot better running our government? Plus McCain only really cares about the military and self-admittedly doesn't know much about the economy. I don't see how a McCain administration would be able to break with the Borrow and Spend policies of Bush? McCain talks about cutting spending, but he is not specific about what he would cut.
Anyone who refuses to identify the cuts they would make to popular programs is NOT serious about cutting spending. Serious spending cuts will have to come from the military by freezing the military percent GDP the way Bush 41 and Clinton did it. There is no way a Commander in Chief McCain would cut the budget of his military. I don't see McCaim being an effective president.
McCain is running against Obama?
"Senator John McCain is hardly the first maverick to make a rapid political ascent in America according to Safire."
Rapid? He's been a member of Congress for 25 years.
He's 72 years old. If that's rapid I'd like to see what slow is . . .
Seems like Obama is the one who made a rapid political ascent.
Bailout
The bailout of Freddie/Fannie that McCain supports will ensure that spending is not cut. More indication that he is not serious about cutting spending. The Bush tax cuts are not sustainable given the demands.
Evidence of Maverickdom
I thought McCain got his Maverick brand for standing up to the religious right....
McCain showed he is willing to infuriate the entire Republican establishment by crossing party lines to work bipartisanly with Democrats on campaign finance reform, McCain-Feingold. Many on the right have not forgiven him to this day.
I'd like to see an issue on which Obama is willing to similarly infuriate the Democratic establishment and left by working with Republicans. I'd enjoy seeing someone in one of the debates ask him to name that issue. It sure didn't seem to be "free trade" in light of the way Goolsbee got sent into exile for the rest of the primary season after talking to the Canadians. Could there be another one? No sign of it.
McCain has been very inept in managing his campaign....
That must be why today he's ahead in the Gallup tracking poll and tied in the Rasmussen poll, when by rights he should be 15 points down.
He's so mavericky
When most Americans say our country is on the wrong track they don't mean: Politicians do not take positions contrary to their own party more often. They mean the country is on the wrong track.
Was McCain a maverick when he originally opposed the Bush Tax cuts, or now that he thinks they should be permanent? Was he a maverick for supporting immigration reform or now because he says he would vote against his own bill? Was McCain a maverick when he opposed offshore drilling or now that he says we must drill drill drill? Was he a maverick for calling the religious right intolerant or now that he so successfully pandered to them? Was he a maverick when opposed earmarks or when he chose America's rooting tooting-ist earmark happy mayor to be his co-pilot and soul mate.
So if you don't put your brand on it you can always claim anything unbranded belongs to you.
I'm guessing you own an SUV, but now you are thinking really hard about a hybrid.
So why are we on the wrong track again?
Guess where people say their country is on the right track.
When most Americans say our country is on the wrong track they don't mean: Politicians do not take positions contrary to their own party more often. They mean the country is on the wrong track.
This "people say our country is in the wrong track" business is interesting. I've been hearing this for 30 years, but never once remember election-year polls reporting "people say the country is on the right track". (Which would lead to politicians running for office saying "Boo to change! Things are fine, keep them as they are!". Which I don't remember either.)
That's not a mere personal anecdote. The Pew Global Attitudes Surveys report that in western democracies with a free press, voters chronically -- that is, near always -- say in polls, "our country is on the wrong track".
The last survey quantified this on economic issues by asking people to report how they were doing personally economically, and also how their country was doing.
The result across 24 countries was a median of 64% of the people saying they were doing "good", a majority in 15 of the countries -- but a majority in 18 of the countries said their countries were doing "bad", with a median of 63% reporting so.
In fact, in 20 of the 24 countries the people said the country was doing worse they they were personally. In three cases they said the country was doing better. Those were Egypt, Jordan and China, and Russia was break-even. Not a free, modern country with a free press in the lot.
Curiously, measuring the gap between "I'm doing good" and "the nation is doing bad", and matching it up against freedom-of-the-press national rankings by Freedom House produces a strong correlation between greater freedom of the press and more people reporting they are doing "good" while their nation is doing "bad".
The four nations where people reported the economy was doing best relative to themselves were Jordan, Egypt, China, Russia.
Those where people reported the economy was doing the worst compared to themselves were Britain, France, Japan ... and most of all, #1, the USA ... where 71% of people said "I'm doing 'good' economically" and 77% of the same people said "The nation is doing 'bad' economically".
It's enough to make one suspect both that propaganda actually works for authoritarian regimes, and that in free nations the press maximizes profits and competing political parties maximize political gains by selling stories that are disporporionately bad compared to reality.
HL Menken said:
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins."
Of course he was just being a cynic, without any empirical data to back that up.
Anyhow, kudos to the Russians, Egyptian and Jordanians for having their countries on the right track.
Be a maverick, get a SUV today!
I'm guessing you own an SUV, but now you are thinking really hard about a hybrid.
Well, you're guessing wrong on both counts there.
But if I had any use for a SUV, I'd sure be considering leasing one right now as a can't lose bet to short the price of oil. Before oil falls any further and gas follows.
(It's almost as good as taking the "won't" side of the betting on whether "The Large Hadron Collider will destroy Earth" after it boots up this Wednesday. That bet you could lose of course, but it's unlikely you'd ever have to pay up.)
Polls of popular vote don't matter
You don't have to win the popular vote in this election. I think that lesson was reinforced quite recently ;-)
Look at electoral vote count. CNN has a chart on it.
Also, remember that those are phone (land line) polls. Cell phone users aren't polled, and most people under 30 are now on cell-only . . . they are being undercounted and they are a huge base for Obama.
Jim beat me to it
McCain has been very inept in managing his campaign.
You have to be kidding. He just transformed the race by naming Super Sarah as his running mate.
Poll technology
McCain and the Republicans have so much going against them -- even Republicans are sick of Republicans this year -- that McCain should be 15 points down even in polls conducted by ouija board and dowsing stick.
Dukakis was up by 17 points at this point. Obama has barely been able to draw above 45% even during his fleeting post-convention bump. Something is keeping his campaign from getting traction. That's just a fact.
Electoral votes are what counts
CNN has Obama ahead in key states, and leading in electoral votes:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html
The focus is on electoral votes; nationwide polls are relatively useless because popular vote totals aren't what wins the presidential election (as recent history shows)
It's all about playing to get electoral votes. Minnesota and Iowa were added to the Obama column just last week:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/03/electoral-map-alert-obam...
Obama is gaining traction in my neck of the woods . . .
Post new comment