|
Post by Optimus on Aug 28, 2018 17:25:42 GMT -5
You seem awfully obsessed with dismissing this one claim while mostly avoiding all of the others that have been made about McCain. Trashing this one claim will not somehow discredit all of the others. Not saying that's the impression you're trying to create, but it sure does seem like it. This odd hyperfocused fixation on one claim from one source ignores better, more thorough sources that I provided (and I provided numerous sources about numerous claims, unrelated to that book). I think this Vanity Fair feature from 2010 gives a good overview of McCain up to that point (including his propensity for being irascible as well as possible insight into the apparently distant relationship with his wife): www.vanityfair.com/news/2010/11/mccain-201011However, I will repeat this in case it is still a question in anyone's mind (i.e., saying it louder for the people in the back): I do not dislike McCain. I'm not hating on or shitting all over McCain. I'm simply pointing out that the hagiography and sanctification going on in a lot of the media (and this thread) right now is more than a bit over the top and maudlin, and I think a balanced perspective would be more intellectually (and factually) honest. This Politico piece also ponders whether or not the press is currently capable of having a critical perspective on McCain: www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/27/are-journalists-allowed-to-criticize-john-mccain-219612I honestly wonder if some of this extreme love-fest sanctifying is coming from an "amazing by comparison" rubric, i.e., people's hatred of Trump and the realization that there really aren't any "good" Republicans left. Again, that's not to say McCain isn't worthy of some of the praise being heaped on him, but I think a lot of people are laying it on extra thick to the point of absurd fantasy. There was good about him. There was bad about him. He was complex. There were skeletons in his closet. Acknowledging that doesn't take away from the good parts of his legacy, but ignoring them is a sign of revisionism and denial.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2018 17:26:58 GMT -5
The timing of that book (and the "cunt" allegation) was impeccable.
The Democratic primaries were pretty vicious. Lots of the left-leaning press were all in for Obama, and there were some really nasty sexist attacks (from the left!) on Clinton. I remember them well, and they pissed me off. In April/May 2008, if memory serves Clinton hadn't dropped out of the race, but the left leaning press was pushing her hard to do so.
So. A lot of women -- I was one -- are steaming at the left-leaning press for sexist attacks on Clinton. Seriously, they were worse than the right-leaning press during the 2008 primary. I learned to despise Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews in the spring of 2008. It didn't make me resent Obama, because it wasn't him. But I think some Hillary supporters DID resent the Obama campaign for a while for that.
Well. McCain wasn't unpalatable to a lot of us Democrats. Many of us were weighing him for one reason or another (mine was experience, and the fact that I admired McCain).
But toss a bombshell like "he called his wife a cunt and a trollop", and yeah...women voters who believe it are pretty likely to reject him.
The documented issues of McCain's temper actually don't hurt him all that much, at least not with people like me. They're often aimed at some pretty unlikable people, or people doing something where you kind of get why McCain lost his temper. They can be chalked up to irascible charm. The cunt comment, not so much.
We can all make up our own minds, but I think the book was a hit job, and that particular story (and I am betting others) invented.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2018 17:28:22 GMT -5
You seem awfully obsessed with dismissing this one claim while mostly avoiding all of the others that have been made about McCain. Trashing this one claim will not somehow discredit all of the others. Not saying that's the impression you're trying to create, but it sure does seem like it. This odd hyperfocused fixation on one claim from one source ignores better, more thorough sources that I provided (and I provided numerous sources about numerous claims, unrelated to that book). I think this Vanity Fair feature from 2010 gives a good overview of McCain up to that point (including his propensity for being irascible as well as possible insight into the apparently distant relationship with his wife): www.vanityfair.com/news/2010/11/mccain-201011However, I will repeat this in case it is still a question in anyone's mind (i.e., saying it louder for the people in the back): I do not dislike McCain. I'm not hating on or shitting all over McCain. I'm simply pointing out that the hagiography and sanctification going on in a lot of the media (and this thread) right now is more than a bit over the top and maudlin, and I think a balanced perspective would be more intellectually (and factually) honest. This Politico piece also ponders whether or not the press is currently capable of having a critical perspective on McCain: www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/27/are-journalists-allowed-to-criticize-john-mccain-219612I honestly wonder if some of this extreme love-fest sanctifying is coming from an "amazing by comparison" rubric, i.e., people's hatred of Trump and the realization that there really aren't any "good" Republicans left. Again, that's not to say McCain isn't worthy of some of the praise being heaped on him, but I think a lot of people are laying it on extra thick to the point of absurd fantasy. There was good about him. There was bad about him. He was complex. There were skeletons in his closet. Acknowledging that doesn't take away from the good parts of his legacy, but ignoring them is a sign of revisionism and denial. A lot of the stories you mentioned came from that same book, for one thing. And I don't think the book is a reliable source. Mostly, though I focus on that one incident because it is the only one (other than the Chelsea comment) that actually bothered me. And I believe it's false, for the reasons I've already noted. I suppose I could spend days hunting down info about the other incidents to see just how well verified they are, but life is short. ETA: "apparently distant relationship with his wife?" I've been following McCain and his wife on twitter for quite some time. The relationship doesn't feel distant at all. I could go on and on -- she retweeted his stuff all the time, talked about how proud she was of him, posted pictures of them in Arizona...and vice versa, he did the same for her, supported her causes, retweeted her accomplishments, expressed love and admiration for her. The whole family seems close. But hey, Vanity Fair says they're distant and unloving, so I guess it must be so. It's all a charade. And since they're distant and unloving, obviously he publicly called her a cunt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2018 19:20:49 GMT -5
I think it comes to this, Opty and Amadan:
Your measures for "greatness" -- what it means to you, what you think defines it -- is not the same as mine. I daresay mine is more lenient, and yet most people fall woefully short, even some very fine people.
Here's the thing, Opty -- I don't for one minute dispute that the man had a temper, so all of your "but look at his temper!" cites, even if we assume that they are totally 100% true, do not affect my assessment. That's baked into my "great man with flaws" evaluation. As I noted, the only ones that even bothered me were the ones relating to the Chelsea joke (which he apologized for and felt terrible about and for which the Clintons forgave him), and the thing about his wife (which I think is bullshit).
I actually do really admire a calm temperament and unfailing civility in the face of insult -- I give the unflappable Obama full marks for those traits, for example. I think that grace and calmness under all kinds of pressure is its own kind of greatness. But see, I think there's more than one kind of greatness. I also think a great person can have some glaring flaws -- in fact, I think greatness usually DOES come with some glaring flaws. (e.g., MLK Jr. apparently cheated constantly on his wife. That's not good. But it doesn't make him not a great man. He was, IMO, unquestionably a great man.) And finally, I do not need to agree with someone's stances to find them "great" by my definition.
Here's why I think John McCain was great (going back up to the dictionary definition of great, meaning standing far above the average). You don't have to agree -- I'm sure you have your own list. And to note, other people can be "great" in my book for having some very different traits. Gandhi was unquestionably a great man in my book. He's nothing like John McCain.
But qualities in McCain I find "great", remarkable in degree, rarely found --
(1) his valor in Vietnam, IMO, was alone enough to qualify him as a great man. He'd have to do something really heinous later to disqualify himself in my book. FFS, it's not just that he endured unimaginable torture -- it's that he could have fucking gone home and declined that opportunity (resulting in his already shattered arm being rebroken, along with his ribs and having his teeth knocked out). And he KEPT declining it. Out of sheer fucking principle. Maybe you guys think that isn't far beyond the average. Well, I disagree.
(2) IMO, his willingness to buck his own party, in the face of all of them being angry with him, something that very much reduced his standing among Republicans, when he thought it was the right thing to do, is far beyond the average. You think it's not? Go find me some other reps who do it. Does he always buck his party? No. But he's a goddamn conservative. His priorities aren't the same as Democrats' or as mine. So I don't expect that. When he thinks he's right, he stands his ground in the face of whatever anyone wants to throw at him. I love that.
(3) I admire his opposition to Trump for reasons that go beyond the fact that I heartily share his feelings. It's because the easy thing to do -- the politically expedient thing to do -- was to bend the knee as pretty much all the rest of the GOP has done. Not Johnny Mac. He didn't give a shit if the whole Republican base reviled him -- he thinks Trump is a shitty man who is bad for the country, and he didn't hesitate to say so. That's tremendous. Yeah, lots of Democrats spoke against Trump. But again, it takes more courage and principle to buck your own side, to swim against the tide.
(4) He put country over party. Hey, I didn't always agree with his view of what was best for the country, but I don't for one minute question that he was doing what HE thought was best. People who put country over party always have my admiration, and I think he did.
(5) He put country over himself. Vietnam is enough to prove that. But to the very end, as long as he physically could, he was still coming into the Senate. That's why his death feels so sudden -- most people wouldn't have kept working as long as he did. His very last tweet, by the way, was a salute to a fallen soldier in Iraq just a couple of days before he died.
(7) He was self-deprecating of his own accomplishments (including his valor in Vietnam--read his firsthand account of it). He took blame when he thought he made mistakes. The way he talked of himself was humble.
(6) He crossed that aisle and befriended people who completely disagreed with him. GENUINELY befriended them. If you think the outpouring of grief and praise from his friends among the Democrats is just a bunch of revisionist hooey, I think you just haven't been paying attention.
Basically, the man was willing to face a world of hell for the pure sake of principle, and he illustrated it again and again throughout his life. I find it remarkable. I could disagree with every damn stance he ever took and still find that remarkable.
None of that may mark "greatness" for you, but it does for me. And I don't give a flying fuck if he, e.g., called a fellow senator an asshole -- especially if that fellow senator actually is an asshole. I don't give a fuck if he got into fisticuffs with one. It doesn't change my opinion.
Your mileage may vary, and apparently it does.
ETA:
Now I'm totally curious. Name some people you think are great -- ideally, people who have lived within the last fifty years, or more recently if any exist. Currently alive or recently deceased people, ideally. I say that partly because history has a way of either smoothing out the rough passages in people's lives -- or else exaggerating them and diminishing their virtues. History, after all, is written by the winners. If Lincoln had a Twitter account and TV cameras followed him around, many might revere him less than they do. A lot of things were kept under wraps about FDR, Kennedy, etc., for that matter. That doesn't necessarily mean they weren't great -- it's just that we likely don't scrutinize them the same way we do people in front of us right now, when we can see pretty much every action and enshrine it forever on the internet.
So. Get naming. Who in your book is "great" and why?
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Aug 28, 2018 21:05:11 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I may or may not have had a drunken meltdown after the election. On the other hand, nobody called me the "C-word." So I guess it all worked out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2018 21:09:17 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I may or may not have had a drunken meltdown after the election. On the other hand, nobody called me the "C-word." So I guess it all worked out. Pfft. I totally called you a chihuahua. But then, I was having a drunken meltdown myself.
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Aug 28, 2018 21:16:10 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I may or may not have had a drunken meltdown after the election. On the other hand, nobody called me the "C-word." So I guess it all worked out. Pfft. I totally called you a chihuahua. But then, I was having a drunken meltdown myself. You really need to learn to capitalize "Chihuahua."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2018 21:17:25 GMT -5
I thought it was like "cray."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2018 8:50:04 GMT -5
Now I'm totally curious. Name some people you think are great -- ideally, people who have lived within the last fifty years, or more recently if any exist. Currently alive or recently deceased people, ideally. I say that partly because history has a way of either smoothing out the rough passages in people's lives -- or else exaggerating them and diminishing their virtues. History, after all, is written by the winners. If Lincoln had a Twitter account and TV cameras followed him around, many might revere him less than they do. A lot of things were kept under wraps about FDR, Kennedy, etc., for that matter. That doesn't necessarily mean they weren't great -- it's just that we likely don't scrutinize them the same way we do people in front of us right now, when we can see pretty much every action and enshrine it forever on the internet. So. Get naming. Who in your book is "great" and why? Great but flawed is fine (in fact, I think it's the only choice). And yeah, I know, history also gives a different perspective, as viewpoints change. It's not that I'm not interested in people's historical heroes -- I am, since I think it's quite revealing to see what people admire. But I think sometimes people name some distant historical figure because they are to some extent cleansed of the day-to-day flaws we carp at in more current figures. Everyone and their brother admires Lincoln. I'm more interested in recent people, especially ones that not everyone might agree with. I'd also like to know the standard for "greatness" you are applying. If you think no one is great -- that no one stands outside the pack as extraordinary -- that in itself is revealing. And I'm interested in everyone's take, not just Amadan and Opty -- though I am especially interested in hearing from them, given this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 29, 2018 9:11:04 GMT -5
You make a convincing case for doubting the "cunt" allegation, so I'll put that back in the "unverified" column. Notwithstanding that accusation, however, as I said earlier, it isn't his temper or his political positions (entirely) or even allegedly calling his wife a cunt that makes me think McCain wasn't great. It's that I just don't think he passed any great legislation or did anything that really helped the country (and a lot that hurt it). Being a "maverick" with his own opinions who will stand up to his professional peers isn't enough for greatness, or I'd be great. Being willing to usually/sometimes do the right thing at some political cost isn't enough or... ditto. And no, being a war hero isn't enough either. Great is a superlative to me. It's reserved for Lincolns and Churchills and maybe JFKs. All of those men, of course, were also deeply flawed men about whom you could say many negative things, but what they accomplished was truly great. What did McCain accomplish? Now I'm totally curious. Name some people you think are great -- ideally, people who have lived within the last fifty years, or more recently if any exist. Currently alive or recently deceased people, ideally. I say that partly because history has a way of either smoothing out the rough passages in people's lives -- or else exaggerating them and diminishing their virtues. History, after all, is written by the winners. If Lincoln had a Twitter account and TV cameras followed him around, many might revere him less than they do. A lot of things were kept under wraps about FDR, Kennedy, etc., for that matter. That doesn't necessarily mean they weren't great -- it's just that we likely don't scrutinize them the same way we do people in front of us right now, when we can see pretty much every action and enshrine it forever on the internet. So. Get naming. Who in your book is "great" and why? Politicians? Damn few. No US politicians in the last 50 years, save maybe JFK, come immediately to mind, though if I start reviewing events and names some more might come to mind. I am tempted to say Lyndon Johnson (who was a real bastard in many ways) because he accomplished so many things with such noble intent, but he also fucked up so many things (not least of which is Vietnam) that it's pretty much a wash. This seems to really bother you, though, and it's not that important to me, so if you really need a list of names you can shoot down to justify why I'm "wrong" in not considering McCain great, I'll see if I can come up with a few more, but I don't get the emotional investment you have in him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2018 9:21:35 GMT -5
They can be non-politicians. But I'm not looking for "was a great singer/ basketball player/ chess champion" -- I'm not looking for great at a particular activity. I'm looking for people you think have some character trait, or yes, some yuuuge societal accomplishment, you think justifies it. Religious or civil rights leaders certainly qualify, for example.
Here's the thing with political accomplishments, by the way -- they rarely belong to one person. Same is true of failures. My own yardstick takes character into account at least as much as legislative accomplishments. Yours need not, of course.
I don't need a list. I'm just interested in the yardstick you're applying.
What I suspect is that it's pretty much impossible for a person who didn't die before you were old enough to remember them to come up to your yardstick. I stand ready to be proved wrong, and am genuinely interested in the answer.
I'm also interested in seeing choices that go out on a bit of a limb -- that not everyone will nod and agree with. Certainly true for McCain. Got one? (Just one? Especially one who didn't die before you were an adult?)
ETA:
For me, a yardstick (not my only one, but an important one, and the one by which I measure McCain) is the demonstrated willingness to put some principle --- country, comrades, civil rights, God (yes, that might surprise you, since I'm an atheist, but as I've said, the principle need not be mine) -- above one's own interest.
To qualify in my book, it cannot be a selfish interest (I submit that sacrificing yourself for your kids is a biological imperative, to some extent). And it can't be standing up when you're getting praise for it, or are reasonably confident of success.
To meet this particular measure, you need to stick to your guns and sacrifice your self interest even if you know it might be futile, because you feel the cause or principle is greater than yourself.
The cause itself need not succeed for you to be deemed "great" in my book.
Again, not my only yardstick. But it's one. I think Vietnam alone qualifies McCain. ETA:
I will add that my yardstick excludes those who deliberately sacrifice innocents to their cause. A religious martyr can qualify in my book -- but not one who seeks to hurt people. A military figure can qualify if what he fought was other combatants, not innocent civilians.
The cause itself matters. I don't need to agree with it, but if involves despicable methods or deliberate harming of innocents, you ain't great. Ends do not justify despicable means, not in my book.
But again, that's my yardstick. What is yours?
ETA:
To note, it is by this yardstick, among others, that I measure Donald Trump and find him utterly lacking -- beyond lacking. Never in his life, as far as I can see, has the man put anything or anyone above himself, his wallet, and his ego. It isn't just that he doesn't meet McCain's mark or the mark of past presidents -- I don't think he comes close to meeting the mark lots of average Joes do.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 29, 2018 9:40:03 GMT -5
Hmm. Off the top of my head, and this really is off the top of my head so I'm not prepared to defend them without more thought, maybe Anwar Sadat, Corazon Aquino, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi (her "greatness" is now, sadly, very much in doubt), Neil Armstrong, Benazir Bhutto (very questionable, but I have to give props to a female Prime Minister of a country as misogynistic and messed up as Pakistan) and for some "out on a limb" choices... Oprah Winfrey and JK Rowling. Also I'd probably be able to curate a list of tech influencers/developers who were instrumental in creating Silicon Valley and the modern computer industry (names more obscure than Steve Jobs and Bill Gates), but I'd have to research who actually built what.
You are probably right that it's going to be hard for a politician in my lifetime to make the list, because for many politicians, the jury is out until some time has passed and historians have had an opportunity to evaluate the long-term consequences of their actions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2018 9:45:56 GMT -5
See, now that's a really interesting answer! Thank you. ETA: So basically, Amadan , your yardstick is a large accomplishment that stands the test of time. I won't argue with that yardstick. But, as I said, I measure some other factors as highly, or perhaps more so. Mere stubborness won't qualify you on what I'll call my McCain yardstick. The factor that clinches it, for me, is demonstrated willingness to sacrifice self-interest (not just money, mind you, but life, liberty, reputation or something similarly fundamental) to a higher, non-personal cause, even if success is uncertain or unlikely, and your return might be nothing but pain. Just suffering isn't enough - to qualify, you need to have had a choice, some easier road, that you could have taken--that most WOULD have taken in your shoes-- but rejected for the sake of your principle.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 29, 2018 10:10:50 GMT -5
I also consider character a significant factor, but not the only one. A genuine hero will make my list, but those are rare, exceedingly rare, and all too often turn out not be so heroic once their moment of glory is past.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2018 10:40:44 GMT -5
True -- which is why it needs to be more than a moment. I think some acts of knee-jerk bravery are indeed heroic, but don't necessarily qualify you as great. E.g., someone is pushed off the subway platform onto the tracks. Without thinking, you jump onto the tracks and risk your own life to save the person. That's heroic for sure, but it's an heroic impulse, one you might not take if you stopped to think about it. Also, you know you will get praise and credit for such an action, if you succeed. That doesn't make it a selfish choice. It's heroic. But it doesn't necessarily demonstrate greatness of character beyond the kind one sees often enough. To be "great", the heroism has to be very uncommon and sustained.
The reason McCain's Vietnam stint qualified him on my yardstick is because it was not a momentary impulse -- it was a choice he steadfastly and deliberately exercised over the course of years in the face of great pain and huge personal sacrifice. And it is critical that he HAD the choice -- that he could have gone home instead and he deliberately rejected that choice. (As an admiral's son, he knew this was a real choice -- that it wasn't just his captors gaslighting him.) Finally, it is critical that at the time he had no way of knowing that he would someday go home to a hero's welcome, or even ever be lauded as a hero posthumously -- that he might well have died an obscure, horribly painful, squalid death, have his captors advertise him as a traitor, and have the American public believe it.
That's why I think it so extraordinary, and why (absent some horrible later crime) it qualifies McCain in my book. All of those factors are necessary, not just the suffering.
I believe his later career, though it wasn't perfect, demonstrated this same character trait. Of course it didn't measure up to his heroism in Vietnam, because really, what could? And yes, he doesn't hit the all checkmarks for "oh, this was a good thing" for either conservatives or liberals. But that's part of the point for me -- though, yes, sometimes he bowed to ambition (Palin! Gaah!), by and large he stuck his neck out when his principles said he should, rather than doing the easy thing and currying favor with either side. His diehard opposition to the Bush regime's torture policy was at a time when even a lot of Democrats, let alone Republicans, were saying that hmmm, maybe torture of terrorists could be justified. (I was team McCain/anti-torture -- I firmly believe it is one of the things Americans Should Never Do -- but I had countless dinner party arguments with people on both sides who argued the other way. Of course, eventually, most folks came over to the anti-torture team, but for a while there, even many of my liberal friends were arguing with me about it.) Ditto on the ACA vote -- Republicans were furious at his thumbs down, Democrats were furious he let the vote go forward in the first place. No one was totally happy with him. Heck, neither was I. But I actually do get why he made the choices there that he did -- and it wasn't to make people like him.
Again, I don't like all his choices by any means. But the fundamental "damn it, this principle matters and I will torch my career, reputation, and my very life rather than give in" characteristic was, IMO, very much there. And, as I have said, unless some really yuuuuge later bad events occurred, his Vietnam sacrifice alone would qualify him by my yardstick.
But, yeah, I do agree that a mere moment of heroism does not qualify you as great. For my yardstick to apply, it must be a conscious choice when other paths are available, it must be a sustained choice, it must be for the sake of a non-personal cause, it must involve great personal sacrifice (minor sacrifices do not qualify), and it must not be done in the expectation of reward or success. (The hope of success is something else. But you must be willing to do it in the face of the fact that your sacrifice might be for nothing, and yet you will do it anyway because in your book it is the right thing to do.)
To note, I think I am capable of jumping onto the tracks to save someone. Long story, but I have impulsively interceded in a street theft (ran after the thief and caught him by his hoodie!-- got knocked flat on my ass, too) and a street incident where some youthful thugs were harassing a homeless person. That was impulse -- I am passionate, as you may have noticed, and when I'm pissed I'm capable of jumping in with some danger to myself. I'm reasonably brave and I have some principles, but I'm not out of the common way. But I don't think I could have done what McCain did. In fact, I'm pretty damn confident I couldn't have done so, and that the overwhelming majority of people could not have done so.
Again, you don't have to agree with my yardstick, but it's the one I'm using (and why allegations about his temper, flaws, etc., don't affect my view).
ETA:
And I will add: in my book, you can achieve yuuuuge things and not be "great". Getting elected to the presidency does not make you "great." Winning a battle does not make you "great." For your huge achievement to alone qualify you for greatness in my book, it has to (1) be entirely or largely attributable to you, (2) has to be the result of your dedication, hard work and genius, not just a stroke of luck, (3) has to benefit people and have been intended to do so (otherwise, you're just someone who accomplished something yuuuge), and (4) cannot have been intended to harm any group of people (e.g., if your intention was to oppress some group of people, you don't qualify). Sure, there's a lot of subjectivity there (what benefits people? what harms people? what was the intention vs. the ultimate results 20 years out? etc.), but so there is in any yardstick of "greatness."
I actually don't disagree that the achievement yardstick generally requires some historical perspective to measure the achievement. Also, fwiw, I personally rate standing firm for a principle more highly than I do achievement. YMMV.
I'll also note that in my book, you can die a failure, and still be great. People do not always recognize greatness when it is before them. Sometimes greatness doesn't get the recognition it deserves.
|
|