• June 20, 2013

Previous

Next

John McCain: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Remember Who I Was

November 17, 2010, 1:24 pm

Senator John McCain of Arizona stands at the epicenter of the controversy surrounding the repeal of Congress’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and everyone from Jon Stewart, to Cindy McCain (at least prior to her most recent tweet), is giving the old sailor some guff.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the ghost of Barry Goldwater, McCain’s mentor, was spooking one of the senator’s many mansions, dragging symbolic chains, and intoning libertarian mantras in a haunting falsetto.

Viewed in the broader context of McCain’s lengthy political career, his willingness to throw his body over a rolling grenade in defense of the Conservative Christian agenda is both ironic and significant for understanding Faith and Values politicking in the next few years.

First, the irony. The senator’s intervention would have been unthinkable just a little while back. To the best of my knowledge McCain is one of the only major Republicans of the post-Reagan era to ever publicly take on the Christian Right.

"Really? I said that?"

I take you back to the aftermath of the 2000 GOP primary in South Carolina where McCain railed against Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as “agents of intolerance” and “forces of evil” (McCain was incensed, apparently, over being the victim of a smear campaign run by Conservative Christian operatives who insinuated he had fathered an illegitimate child).

In truth, McCain’s difficulties with Conservative Christians went back even further. He had rumbled with them over the confirmation hearings of his close friend John Tower, nominated by George H.W. Bush for Secretary of Defense in 1989. Tower was sacked pretty viciously, even by Washington standards.

Payback came in the 2003 Worth the Fighting For: The Education of An American Maverick and the Heroes Who Inspired Him. There, McCain skewered Paul Weyrich, one of the Bad Boys of the Christian Right and one of Tower’s leading detractors.

McCain, showing off some passable creative writing skills, described  him as a “Dickensian villain,” “Corpulent and dyspeptic.” “[Weyrich's] moral certitude,” wrote McCain, “left little room for the basic rules of behavior that secular politicians, sinners though we surely are, feel obliged to respect.”

I feel obliged to stress this point: in 2003, at least, John McCain saw himself as a “secular politician.” By 2007 he gave up the ghost, proclaimed America a “Christian Nation” and let bygones be bygones.

And so it goes in an America where secularism is increasingly becoming an unspeakable word. I’ll get to that in due course, though I want to be clear that many of secularism’s most unprincipled critics are teaching on your campus. But I am divigating.

For now I want to note that the sheer doggedness of the senator’s opposition to the repeal of DADT needs to be thought about carefully.

My question is: why does McCain want to fight this fight? Why prolong a losing battle which sets him against the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, popular opinion, 70% of active and non-active duty personnel (if recent reports are correct) and—permit me to editorialize—common sense and common decency?

One possible answer is the old “because someone said that God said so!” The someones in question would be the usual suspects. That the Senator and the GOP in general feel the need to placate the “Christian base” until the general election seems like an obvious explanation for McCain’s last stand.

That base is clearly opposed to the repeal of DADT. If I can forecast arguments that you will be hearing more about in the future get ready for a “religious liberty” angle.

It will be claimed that a military chaplain opposed to homosexuality will not be able to express that sentiment in his or her pastoral work. It will also be alleged that a cleric may be forced to minister to a gay person, or engage in some such action that is, apparently, beyond the pale for servants of a good and gracious God.

In any case, let me close by saying that even though I often disagreed with John McCain’s political positions I always thought the man was kind of simpatico. He was a war hero, a salty sea dog with a terrible temper, and a likable iconoclast. He was a strange mix–a non-conformist who upheld “traditional” American values.

Too, he once was a secular politician, a Republican secular politician. Now Republicans and even Democrats of that ilk are increasingly difficult to find.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to John McCain: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Remember Who I Was

juice - November 17, 2010 at 2:37 pm

Hypocritical. I though much more of Mr. McCain when he was running against George Bush.

juice - November 17, 2010 at 2:42 pm

And less of him during his ugly campaign against Obama.
|blog|
http://www.google.com/profiles/dui.sr22.insurance
[url=http://www.google.com/profiles/dui.sr22.insurance]|blog|[/url]

_perplexed_ - November 17, 2010 at 3:58 pm

One can’t be a hero forever. Maybe McCain just ran out of courage– he has surely been tested a great deal more than most of us.

jcisneros - November 18, 2010 at 9:45 am

It is sad to see Senator McCain revert to the stereotypical picture of the grumpy old man. One can almost see him screaming at the top of his lungs, “You kids get off of my lawn!!”

To see him join a small, but noisy group of doomsayers whose only purpose seems to be to dictate to everybody how to live their lives is disheartening, to say the least. I could go to great lengths here and debunk all of the arguments McCain and others are making, but to what end? Most of these folks are not interested in the truth. Instead, I will simply post some indisputable facts.

1. Those nations that dropped restrictions on open gay service encountered only a minimal amount of problems.

2. In the UK, all military branches recruit openly at gay pride festivals and march in gay pride parades. This is viewed as “business as usual” for military recruiters.

Opinion on service chaplains below, take it as you will.

Chaplains are expected to do their duty as members of their service branch, and if that includes being sensitive to the nature of their sermons, then so be it. Chaplains may freely resign their commissions and preach elsewhere. The military is not a branch of the “Club for Religious Conservatives” nor should it be.

McCain has lost his way. The invasion of the Republican Party by religious/social conservatives and reactionists has unhinged him. What makes it worse is that he has given up the ghost and embraced them.

~JC

ricksburgh - November 19, 2010 at 10:28 am

A message from the grammatical right:
“To the best of my knowledge McCain is one of the only major Republicans of the post-Reagan era to ever publicly take on the Christian Right.”
The phrase “one of the only” is a grammatical abomination worthy of hell fire.
Either “McCain is one of the FEW major Republicans” or “McCain is the ONLY major Republican”.
Repent and be saved.

jacquesberlinerblau - November 19, 2010 at 4:31 pm

You had me pleading for clemency until you failed to capitalize “right.” That would be “grammatical Right,” no? Burn in hell with me, Ricksburgh . . . . . .

opentosuggestion - November 20, 2010 at 5:57 pm

Is ricksburgh guilty of a grammatical error or a typing error or, at worst, a spelling error?

nordicexpat - November 21, 2010 at 3:26 pm

@ricksburgh,
Well, at least you didn’t criticize Berlinerblau for splitting an infinitive.

Ok, I’ll bite. Please explain why “one of the only” is a “grammatical abomination worthy of hell fire.” And before you go pleading etymology on me, tell me whether you think any of the following are incorrect:

“Only a few of the major Republicans of the post-Reagan era have taken on the Christian right.”

“Senator A is one of only two major Republicans of the post-Reagan era who have taken on the Christian right.”

“Senator A and Senator B are the only major Republicans of the post-Reagan era who have taken on the Christian Right.”

“Senator A is one of the only major Republicans of the post-Reagan era who have taken on the Christian Right” (in a case where only(!) two major Republicans of the post-Reagan era have taken on the Christian right).

And here’s one from the other end of the political spectrum:

“[Sarah Palin) is one of the only people that I can see that can possibly lead us out of where we are”

(Yes, “only” in some of these examples is an adverb, not an adjective, but that really isn’t the basis of your critique, is it?).

By all means, start a Society for the Preservation of the Word “Few.” But please don’t use political labels for discussions of English grammar, because it really makes my job more difficult.

  • 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037
subscribe today

Get the insight you need for success in academe.