I don’t think ‘civil’ means what he thinks it means: Andrew Sullivan is deluded again editon

Warning: Science Free Rant.

From the ever romantic Andrew this morning:

But I have read it and it struck me as a stirring, honest, forthright and properly conservative speech. I am relieved that in the important debate about the war, McCain is unbowed but civil.

From McCain himself:

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue. (Italics added, of course.)

Forthright, I’ll give Andrew. Honest? Civil? In any meaningful sense of the word, “properly” proper? Not so much.

Let’s review, shall we?

Arbitrary…well that’s a lie, the central one. I know that John McCain never lies, except, of course, he does, routinely.

Here’s Obama on his reason, not his arbitrary whim, for his policy of withdrawing the troops:

The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance

Here’s Clinton from a speech in September:

“If we don’t begin to withdraw our troops, we are going to continue to referee the Iraq civil war,” Clinton said. “There is no military solution in Iraq. If the Iraqis themselves don’t make up their minds that they’re going to live together, there is nothing the American military can do for them.”

In other words, both Democrats have assessed the situation in terms of the original reason for the surge — to create a window of military stability that would allow political progress — and concluded, correctly on the actual evidence from the ground, that for whatever tactical gains have been made, that purpose has not been met. They have looked at the situation on the ground, concluded that the surge on its own terms has thus failed, and the decision to withdraw is not arbitrary. Q.E.D.

McCain surely knows this argument. He may disagree, but he knows that the criticisms of his endless war policy are real and reasoned, not arbitrary — but he is both famously stubborn (self acknowledged) and basically has no choice. If the country concludes with this blog that the surge has failed its political goals and that the war is a disaster, he’s toast.

UPDATE:  See Georgia10’s diary at Daily Kos for a more detailed update on the “success” (sic) of the surge.

But Andrew knows this too — he’s written on this subject himself. He knows opposition to the war is not expedient, not reckless. He knows that those who support withdrawal do not ignore either the human calamities, either those to come, or those that have already occurred. He knows that those of us who were right about the war when he was wrong cared deeply about the kinds of threats our nation still faces despite, or rather, because of our disastrous and extended engagement in Iraq.

So why the saccharine, obsequious and deeply unthoughtful praise of the annointed one?

Andrew’s problem is an acute case of Man on a White Horse Syndrome. It sucked him into Bush in 2000. Lately, Andrew has succumbed to Obama — but if you read Andrew’s stuff with any attention, the central affirmative reason offered for the choice is that Obama makes Andrew feel good.

Now along comes McCain. He has all he trappings of a man to admire: a good story, a direct speaking style, and a claim, repeated endlessly, to be selfless in his commitment to hard truths. Even better, he calls himself conservative. Andrew swoons.

But Andrew — and many others — here commit exactly the same error made in 2000. Just because a man tells you he’s not a liar does not, in the real world, make that statement true. You have to check. Just because you want your hero to be a Perfect Gentle Knight, it does not mean that he is, say, “civil” or “respectful,” when in fact he is not. In his CPAC speech and at venue after venue, McCain makes stuff up about his opponents, distorts beyond recognition their positions and repeatedly insults and trivializes the other candidates, showing no respect for the possibility that Senators Clinton and Obama might have rational arguments for their points of view.

And that’s fine – really. This is a campaign, not a tupperware party; he’s trying to win; Clinton and Obama are grown ups who can — and must — fight their own corners.

But Andrew — and all his bedazzled fellow travelers in the political press — have no such excuse. They are blinded by the light emanating from McCain’s forehead, wide eyed calves, staring at their cowherd, and they seemed to have lost the capacity for actual, unromantic analysis of what was said.

This is exactly what got us into such deep trouble last time around. How quickly they forget.

Read McCain’s CPAC speech for yourself, (and by the way, actual, science – informed posts about substantive problems with McCain’s policies to come)…

and then listen to these words of true wisdom:

Explore posts in the same categories: Clinton, McCain, Obama, Politics, War, political follies, words mattter

Tags: Andrew Sullivan, Delusion, McCain, Politics

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.