Machine Gun Johnny
George Will has a devastating column today on John McCain in RCP:
Presidents swear to “protect and defend the Constitution.” The Constitution says: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” On April 28, on Don Imus’ radio program, discussing the charge that the McCain-Feingold law abridges freedom of speech by regulating the quantity, content and timing of political speech, John McCain did not really reject the charge:
“I work in Washington and I know that money corrupts. And I and a lot of other people were trying to stop that corruption. Obviously, from what we’ve been seeing lately, we didn’t complete the job. But I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I’d rather have the clean government.”
Question: Were McCain to take the presidential oath, what would he mean? In his words to Imus, note the obvious disparagement he communicates by putting verbal quotation marks around “First Amendment rights.” Those nuisances.
Then ponder his implicit promise to “complete the job” of cleansing Washington of corruption, as McCain understands that. Unfortunately, although McCain is loquacious about corruption, he is too busy deploring it to define it. Mister Straight Talk is rarely reticent about anything, but is remarkably so about specifics: He says corruption is pandemic among incumbent politicians, yet he has never identified any corrupt fellow senator. Anyway, he vows to “complete the job” of extirpating corruption, regardless of the cost to freedom of speech.
Well, we thought the column was devastating, but then again we thought that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional. So these days, who knows? McCain has an easy rejoinder to Will’s questions, which is to take refuge behind court decisions upholding that law.
Back in 2002 we thought that President Bush’s decision to sign the BCRA into law was a clever idea electorally, if offensive constitutionally, and it certainly is true that it took away an issue from the Democratic media in that year. In 2004, we argued that the BCRA helped the SwiftBoatVets, probably helped campaign spending reached $3.9 billion that year — a third higher than the previous record, moved power from the DNC to left fringe groups, and made the Democratic Party financially dependent upon a small group of rich Leftists.
One unintended consequence of McCain-Feingold, moving power away from the parties to the 527’s, has been so far devastating to the Democratic Party. But that’s not an excuse for bad law. Back in 2002, we were willing to cut President Bush some slack on the issue, given the circumstances of the times. He has, however, forfeited a good portion of that trust through his (a) refusal to effectively enforce the United States’ borders, and (b) refusal to lead or engage in the ideological debate over sharia and militant Islam. We have no doubt that if Machine Gun Johnny McCain became president and enacted more “reforms,” the most entertaining thing about them would be the opportunities they would create for political, legal, and financial entrepreneurs in the electoral arena, given the unintended consequences of McCain’s previous forays. But we have come to the view that politicians — no matter who they are — deserve less, not more power.