Scott Lemieux is normally one of my favorite writers, but on this issue I have to say that he’s not just wrong, but is dreadfully misreading a pretty reasonable (dare I say, important) point made by Jonathan Chait.
First, he quotes only the conclusion to the piece in an effort to paint Chait as a “McCain lover” – completely failing to mention that the first four pages of the article are a strident attack on McCain, his lies, and his entire campaign.
Second, and far more importantly, the section he quotes as proof that Chait is bolstering the image of McCain as honorable, in fact does precisely the opposite. Even more, it takes the whole notion of “honor” as a legitimate measure for a presidential candidate and turns it on its head:
The pattern here is perfectly clear. McCain has contempt for anybody who stands between him and the presidency. McCain views himself as the ultimate patriot. He loves his country so much that he cannot let it fall into the hands of an unworthy rival. (They all turn out to be unworthy.) Viewed in this way, doing whatever it takes to win is not an act of selfishness but an act of patriotism. McCain tells lies every day and authorizes lying on his behalf, and he probably knows it. But I would guess–and, again, guessing is all we can do–that in his mind he is acting honorably. As he might put it, there is a bigger truth out there.
Lemiuex unfairly suggests that this means the definition of honor simply means “a subjective belief that it would be really bad for the country if your opponent won” and then suggests that this “could plausibly result in Karl Rove and Lee Atwater being numbered among the most honorable men in American political history.” But this completely, and willfully, misses the point.
Chait’s argument is that the crucial difference between McCain and (say) Karl Rove is that Rove has no illusions. He believes that his side is right, but ultimately knows it’s just about power and politics. McCain, on the other hand, is a True Believer. He thinks that he is the embodiment of truth, justice, and honor. His naked pursuit of power (at least in his own mind) is completely justified because he sees himself a servant of a higher purpose. And (once again, in his own mind) that frees him from the constraints that would normally lock in an “honorable” man.
And thus the problem. Normal people have an elaborate set of checks and balances, learned over the years, about where to draw lines. The occasions when it’s okay to stretch the truth, when it’s okay to mislead, when the consequences of something as so huge that they might consider something they find immoral in principle. In short, they have developed a strong sense of the gray area implicit in all political and moral decisions. As Zygmunt Bauman observes: “One can recognize moral persons by their never quenched dissatisfaction with their moral performance.”
McCain, on the other hand, appears to live in a black and white world. So when he decides that (in the name of the country) he absolutely must win, he sets aside all constraints. No action is now outside the bounds. And this is the problem with an absolute sense of honor. As Chait says “McCain’s deep investment in his own honor can drive him to do honorable things, but it can also allow him to believe that anything he does must be honorable.” When you can convince yourself that everything you do is by definition honorable, your moral compass goes completely haywire.
And that is the most terrifying thing. All who strive for power are driven by ambition. In the face of this, perhaps the only realistic check on this being perverted is a realistic sense of self-limitation. In Chait’s conception, McCain completely lacks that safety valve.
In the end, when Chait says “All this dishonesty can be understood not as a betrayal of McCain’s sense of honor but, in an odd way, as a fulfillment of it” it does not valorize or excuse McCain. To the contrary, it reveals a fundamental and devastating criticism of his entire worldview. It debunks the entire premise of “honor first,” revealing it to be a recipe for disastrous moral crusades. When your sole motivating force becomes a belief that all actions are justified insofar as they are undertaken on behalf of a higher principle, we are in the midst of Foucault’s warning: “Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defended; they are waged on behalf of the existence of everyone; entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity: massacres have become vital.”
In short, one of the best cases you can make against McCain is that he truly believes that he remains honorable in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. Because it tells us what McCain’s sense of honor will enable him to do, the catastrophes it will allow him to unleash.