Contrary to His Claims, Senator John McCain Is Not a Goldwater Conservative
By JOHN W. DEAN
Friday, May. 02, 2008
Arizona Senator John McCain recently completed a "biographical" tour of the country in an effort to keep his name in the media as the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, given the fact that Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are currently consuming much of the newsroom oxygen. McCain ended that tour in Prescott, Arizona.
A Prescott newspaper [ http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/113106 ] noted the symbolism of McCain's final speech at the historic Yavapai County Courthouse. This was the location where McCain's Republican predecessor, Barry Goldwater, started all his bids for office. McCain likes to refer to himself as a Goldwater Republican. Accordingly, the McCain campaign welcomes and invites editorials like that of the St. Louis Post Dispatch [ http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/NewsReleases/1635b50e-4197-42dc-81a1-ab742e18d96e.htm ], which found him to be "in the mold of Barry Goldwater, a principled conservative, not a kleptocratic opportunist."
In truth, however, "kleptocratic opportunist" is a pretty good description of John McCain, and certainly more accurate than one describing him as fitting into the Goldwater mold. I say this because I knew Senator Goldwater virtually from the time of his arrival in the Senate until his death, and I have just completed a book with his son (and my longtime friend), Barry Jr., which is based on a previously-unpublished private journal kept by Senator Goldwater. We call the book Pure Goldwater [ http://www.amazon.com/Pure-Goldwater-John-W-Dean/dp/1403977410/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204267846&sr=1-1 ].
The Nature of Goldwater's Principled Conservatism
After discovering Senator Goldwater's journal, we decided to assemble it for publication in 2008 because this historic and iconic figure – while not perfect – is a wonderful example of a public servant. As Lee Edwards, a Goldwater biographer now at the Heritage Foundation, said at an event for the book [ http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9358&SectionName=Politics&PlayMedia=No ], the material is important not only because it fills in gaps about the Senator, but also because it fills in information about our political history.
Our book is a collection of Senator Goldwater's thoughts, more a scrapbook than an autobiography, yet it presents a clear picture of his conservatism in development and in action. Goldwater, simply stated, drew on the wisdom of the past and applied it to the present in a fashion that protects individual freedom and liberty. Most importantly, the fundamental principle underlying his conservatism was his unyielding belief that it is the duty of public officials to be honest and truthful.
As history shows, Goldwater did not merely talk the talk, he walked the walk. There are few politicians – and Goldwater was proud to use that term to describe his public service – who left the playing field with the well-deserved reputation for widely-acknowledged integrity of Barry Goldwater.
By calling himself a Goldwater Republican or Goldwater conservative, John McCain invites the comparison, but that is an error on McCain's part, for closer examination shows that he is not in the mold of Goldwater, notwithstanding his claims (or wishes) to the contrary.
John McCain Vis-à-vis Barry Goldwater
While out promoting the Goldwater book, I read Matt Welch's McCain: The Myth of a Maverick [ http://www.amazon.com/McCain-Myth-Maverick-Matt-Welch/dp/0230603963 ]. (Only after I completed this nicely-done analysis did I realize it had been published by Palgrave Macmillan, which also published Pure Goldwater.) In reading Welch's work, I was impressed by the striking differences between these two men, as was Welch. In the following discussion, I have combined my personal knowledge regarding Goldwater with what I have learned from Welch's books to offer an overall assessment.
To begin, Welch reports that McCain seeks to use the federal government to generate greater patriotism and expand the nation's greatness, while Goldwater – knowing the folly of empire and excessively large government – sought to maximize individual liberty and local autonomy.
Welch notes, too, that McCain has no problem whatsoever being a nasty if not a devious s.o.b. when he sees doing so as necessary to serve or accomplish a greater cause. Goldwater, on the other hand, rejected all incivility and dishonesty in public service, and refused to take the low road; for him, the ends never justified any means. McCain, we learn from Welch's book, has wanted to be president since returning from Vietnam, while Goldwater was drafted to be the GOP standard-bearer. Stated a bit differently, McCain's oversized ego provides him strength, while Goldwater curtained his natural strengths by always acting with great humility.
No wonder, then, that when McCain sought to suck up to Goldwater, Goldwater declined to embrace this very different politician. Welch points out that "McCain has spent much ... time puzzling over Goldwater's lack of embrace." Indeed, McCain stated in his memoir Worth the Fighting For when discussing Goldwater, "I admired him to the point of reverence, and I wanted him to like me.... He was usually cordial, just never as affectionate as I would have liked."
This is no surprise to anyone who knew Goldwater. Welch sums it up accurately: "[T]he biggest differences between McCain and Goldwater were so obvious, [and] so destined to keep the two men out of each other's arms, that McCain's inability to identify them borders on self-denial and political tone-deafness." The gulf is wide, and the difference fundamental: Goldwater loved America and its people; McCain loves power, and what it can do for McCain.
Goldwater, While Initially a Supporter, Soon Soured On McCain
Although Goldwater initially supported McCain's run for the Senate, Goldwater knew an opportunist when he saw one, and did not like any of them. We chose not to dwell on the McCain/Goldwater relationship in Pure Goldwater, but we did report how, after assisting McCain win his Senate seat, Goldwater was forced to pull McCain up short for using his good name for fundraising, when McCain had tarnished his own name because of his involvement with the Keating Five. We also included correspondence to shows that McCain is not very good at keeping his word.
To know Goldwater – as we believe those who read his unpublished private journal will – is to understand how different these men are, and to see that McCain is cut from very different cloth than Goldwater. Goldwater considered public service a high calling, not an ego trip or power play. McCain was fortunate that Goldwater never publicly exposed him, but Goldwater was too good a Republican to do that and he thought too highly of McCain's father to sink his successor in the Senate.
Had Goldwater publicized what I believe to be his true feelings about John McCain, I doubt McCain would be the presumptive nominee of the GOP in 2008. Goldwater's political perceptions of others have proven extraordinarily prescient, so his reaction toward McCain is telling.
In assembling Pure Goldwater we deliberately looked at Goldwater's fascinating life in its broadest context, providing countless historical details that might otherwise have been lost (like Gerald Ford's offering Goldwater the vice presidency, but Goldwater's turning it down because he felt he could be more effective in the Senate.) But within this broader context, the book makes quite clear that John McCain and Barry Goldwater are as different as night (McCain) and day (Goldwater).
John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.
The Evidence Establishes, without Question, that Republican Rule Is Dangerous: Why It Is High Time to Fix This Situation, For the Good of the Nation
By JOHN W. DEAN Friday, Oct. 31, 2008
Occasionally, during the past eight years of writing this column, I have addressed the remarkably dangerous manner in which Republican Party officials rule the nation when they control one or more of the three branches of the federal government. Over the same period, I've also made this argument, even more directly and loudly, in three books on the subject.
In this column, I will be more pointed on this subject than I have ever been, while also repeating a few key facts that I have raised earlier - because Election Day 2008 now provides the only clear remedy for the ills of Republican rule.
The Republican Approach to Government: Authoritarian Rule
Republicans rule, rather than govern, when they are in power by imposing their authoritarian conservative philosophy on everyone, as their answer for everything. This works for them because their interest is in power, and in what it can do for those who think as they do. Ruling, of course, must be distinguished from governing, which is a more nuanced process that entails give-and-take and the kind of compromises that are often necessary to find a consensus and solutions that will best serve the interests of all Americans.
Republicans' authoritarian rule can also be characterized by its striking incivility and intolerance toward those who do not view the world as Republicans do. Their insufferable attitude is not dangerous in itself, but it is employed to accomplish what they want, which is to take care of themselves and those who work to keep them in power.
Authoritarian conservatives are primarily anti-government, except where they believe the government can be useful to impose moral or social order (for example, with respect to matters like abortion, prayer in schools, or prohibiting sexually-explicit information from public view). Similarly, Republicans' limited-government attitude does not apply regarding national security, where they feel there can never be too much government activity - nor are the rights and liberties of individuals respected when national security is involved. Authoritarian Republicans do oppose the government interfering with markets and the economy, however - and generally oppose the government's doing anything to help anyone they feel should be able to help themselves.
In my book Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches [ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0143114212/findlaw-20 ], I set forth the facts regarding the consequences of the Republicans' controlling government for too many years. No Republican - nor anyone else, for that matter - has refuted these facts, and for good reason: They are irrefutable.
The McCain/Palin Ticket Perfectly Fits the Authoritarian Conservative Mold
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin, the Republican candidates, have shown themselves to be unapologetic and archetypical authoritarian conservatives. Indeed, their campaign has warmed the hearts of fellow authoritarians, who applaud them for their negativity, nastiness, and dishonest ploys and only criticize them for not offering more of the same.
The McCain/Palin campaign has assumed a typical authoritarian posture: The candidates provide no true, specific proposals to address America's needs. Rather, they simply ask voters to "trust us" and suggest that their opponents - Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden - are not "real Americans" like McCain, Palin, and the voters they are seeking to court. Accordingly, McCain and Plain have called Obama "a socialist," "a redistributionist," "a Marxist," and "a communist" - without a shred of evidence to support their name-calling, for these terms are pejorative, rather than in any manner descriptive. This is the way authoritarian leaders operate.
In my book Conservatives Without Conscience [ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0670037745/findlaw-20 ], I set forth the traits of authoritarian leaders and followers, which have been distilled from a half-century of empirical research, during which thousands of people have voluntarily been interviewed by social scientists. The touch points in these somewhat-overlapping lists of character traits provide a clear picture of the characters of both John McCain and Sarah Palin.
McCain, especially, fits perfectly as an authoritarian leader. Such leaders possess most, if not all, of these traits:
-- dominating
-- opposes equality
-- desirous of personal power
-- amoral
-- intimidating and bullying
-- faintly hedonistic
-- vengeful
-- pitiless
-- exploitive
-- manipulative
-- dishonest
-- cheats to win
-- highly prejudiced (racist, sexist, homophobic)
-- mean-spirited
-- militant
-- nationalistic
-- tells others what they want to hear
-- takes advantage of "suckers"
-- specializes in creating false images to sell self
-- may or may not be religious
-- usually politically and economically conservative/Republican
Incidentally, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney also can be described by these well-defined and typical traits - which is why a McCain presidency is likely to be nearly identical to a Bush presidency.
Clearly, Sarah Palin also has some qualities typical of authoritarian leaders, not to mention almost all of the traits found among authoritarian followers. Specifically, such followers can be described as follows:
-- submissive to authority
-- aggressive on behalf of authority
-- highly conventional in their behavior
-- highly religious
-- possessing moderate to little education
-- trusting of untrustworthy authorities
-- prejudiced (particularly against homosexuals and followers of religions other than their own)
-- mean-spirited
-- narrow-minded
-- intolerant
-- bullying
-- zealous
-- dogmatic
-- uncritical toward chosen authority
-- hypocritical
-- inconsistent and contradictory
-- prone to panic easily
-- highly self-righteous
-- moralistic
-- strict disciplinarians
-- severely punitive
-- demanding loyalty and returning it
-- possessing little self-awareness
-- usually politically and economically conservative/Republican
The leading authority on right-wing authoritarianism, a man who devoted his career to developing hard empirical data about these people and their beliefs, is Robert Altemeyer. Altemeyer, a social scientist based in Canada, flushed out these typical character traits in decades of testing.
Altemeyer believes about 25 percent of the adult population in the United States is solidly authoritarian (with that group mostly composed of followers, and a small percentage of potential leaders). It is in these ranks of some 70 million that we find the core of the McCain/Palin supporters. They are people who are, in Altemeyer's words, are "so self-righteous, so ill-informed, and so dogmatic that nothing you can say or do will change their minds."
The Problem with Electing Authoritarian Conservatives
What is wrong with being an authoritarian conservative? Well, if you want to take the country where they do, nothing. "They would march America into a dictatorship and probably feel that things had improved as a result," Altemeyer told me. "The problem is that these authoritarian followers are much more active than the rest of the country. They have the mentality of 'old-time religion' on a crusade, and they generously give money, time and effort to the cause. They proselytize; they lick stamps; they put pressure on loved ones; and they revel in being loyal to a cohesive group of like thinkers. And they are so submissive to their leaders that they will believe and do virtually anything they are told. They are not going to let up and they are not going to go away."
I would nominate McCain's "Joe the Plumber" as a new poster-boy of the authoritarian followers. He is a believer, and he has signed on. On November 4, 2008, we will learn how many more Americans will join the ranks of the authoritarians.
Frankly, the fact that the pre-election polls are close - after eight years of authoritarian leadership from Bush and Cheney, and given its disastrous results - shows that many Americans either do not realize where a McCain/Palin presidency might take us, or they are happy to go there. Frankly, it scares the hell out of me, for there is only one way to deal with these conservative zealots: Keep them out of power.
This election should be a slam dunk for Barack Obama, who has run a masterful campaign. It was no small undertaking winning the nomination from Hillary Clinton, and in doing so, he has shown without any doubt (in my mind anyway) that he is not only qualified to be president, but that he might be a once-in-a-lifetime leader who can forever change the nation and the world for the better.
If Obama is rejected on November 4th for another authoritarian conservative like McCain, I must ask if Americans are sufficiently intelligent to competently govern themselves. I can understand authoritarian conservatives voting for McCain, for they know no better. It is well-understood that most everyone votes with his or her heart, not his or her head. Polls show that 81 percent of Americans "feel" (in their hearts and their heads) that our country is going the wrong way. How could anyone with such thoughts and feelings vote for more authoritarian conservatism, which has done so much to take the nation in the wrong direction?
We will all find out on (or about) November 5th.
John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
