|
Post by robeiae on Aug 30, 2018 16:58:16 GMT -5
I'll add this, too -- he did more than serve. The degree of sacrifice he made, and the degree of what he withstood in the name of principle, when he could have avoided it, was extraordinary, and while I think there's room to debate whether or not he was a great man, I don't actually see how you can debate that. Lot's of people did more than just serve. I noted that McCain did so willingly and with some bravery. Again, that's more than can be said of many others, including many others who served. That's an impressive thing. But McCain is not alone in this regard, not by a long shot. So apart from giving credit where it's due, which I think I am doing, what else is there? That aspect of his life does not--imo--represent some sort of stockpile of credit wherein other things can't be held against him. Duncan Hunter's son--as I noted in another thread--quit his job and volunteered for duty immediately after 9-11. He served in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's impressive too, no? But he still needs to go to jail, imo. As to greatness, I'll just work off you: I think those are all fair and workable, when it comes to evaluating greatness. And in my view, none apply to McCain, except maybe the first, with respect to his time as a POW. But I want to be clear here: this isn't an either/or thing. Just because I don't find someone to be "great," it doesn't mean I therefore think that they're little better than dirt. I'm not a McCain fan. I'm not going to pretend that I am. I think he was a very typical Senator and politician. He did some good stuff along the way, but mostly operated to stay in office (like most of 'em). I think the "maverick" stuff was a load of crap, though. Still, he did the job. And he served the country. And his family seemed to love him. That's enough, imo. Deification is unnecessary and unwarranted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2018 18:31:33 GMT -5
I never said someone had to meet ALL of those measures. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure anyone ever has met ALL of those yardsticks in all of history -- I'm serious about that. Come on, that would be a god. I was only giving different yardsticks one might apply to measure greatness, and I only applied the first to McCain. I think it applies. You don't.
So. What is your measure of a great man/woman, and who DOES measure up? Anyone who has been alive since you reached adulthood? Why don't their flaws (because they surely have them) outweigh what makes them great?
(To note, I distinguish between someone who simply has a great talent (playing baseball, writing) and someone who I would call a great man/woman, period. I think it's a bit of a cop-out to say "Babe Ruth" if all you're going to say is that he was a tremendous ball player. That said, a great ball player could also be a great man, but I'd be looking for more than a home run record.)
ETA:
Also, I asked this before, but I'm especially going to ask it of you, since you feel McCain's war heroism was commonplace. Whereas I think it may have been matched, but by few (I haven't found any yet -- maybe I'll look this weekend).
Give me the list of names of people who endured literally years of repeatedly broken limbs and smashed teeth and starvation and solitary confinement --- when they were repeatedly offered release, and indeed were tortured more because they refused to take it. I submit that takes an extraordinary degree of courage beyond that required in the heat of a battle (which, as I said, I also admire immensely).
Maybe you can find a couple, but I'd bet you can't find more than that, because it's kind of an extraordinary position to be in (McCain was offered it because of who his father was). Generally speaking, your captors aren't trying to force you to go home.
But you think it's commonplace, so bring me forth the lengthy list of people who've done the same.
Hey, you don't have to think he's great -- I get you don't like him -- and you don't have to value that particular brand of heroism as much as I do, but I actually think it's kind of ridiculous to assert that his heroism was less than extraordinary.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 30, 2018 19:25:24 GMT -5
I never said someone had to meet ALL of those measures. Great, because I didn't say you did. In my view, McCain meets NONE of them (with one partial exception). That means that by any single one of those standards, he'd not "great." Follow? Yeah, I didn't say or imply that, either. But again, he's far from alone in his war heroism. That doesn't translate to "commonplace," at all. Many, many soldiers (on every side, in every war) have gone to war and acted with bravery/herosim/etc. Many of them died in doing so. Others suffered terrible wounds, lost limbs, and so forth. Some even endured things like torture. But the point is, there are and have been more than just a handful of such people. If you want to say that makes them all great men, now and forever more, fair enough. As I said, McCain--under that rubric--certainly qualifies. But all of those others would deserve just as much respect and honor as McCain is getting, if that's the standard. And I don't think that's happened in the least.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2018 19:36:24 GMT -5
Yup, you're not going to name any people you think measure up to greatness, nor any standards by which you would measure them, nor are you going to name and make an argument for anyone in circumstances comparable to McCain's.
Just an assertion that McCain wasn't great and a blanket assertion he didn't do anything reams of other soldiers did.
I follow.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 30, 2018 22:50:50 GMT -5
And, once again Cass, your posts in this thread devolve back into Gish Gallop tactics. Why can Rob not respond to what he wants to respond to and ignore the half a dozen other things he doesn't want to? Your extreme fangirling of McCain in this thread, where you get indignant with anyone who doesn't seem to totally agree with you and who doesn't give an answer to every single one of your demands, is truly bizarre. For instance, NT's earlier posts, where he discussed McCain's complex history and gave a thorough list of many of McCain's discriminatory, harmful political actions, while also praising his military accomplishments, was very similar to the points that I've made several times in this thread. Yet, NT seems to have slightly more positive feelings for McCain than I do, so even though we basically made the exact same points, you tell NT that you pretty much agree with everything he said, but you spend pages obsessing and cherry-picking over my posts and demanding that I (and Amadan, and Rob, and basically everyone else) write some sort of exhaustive treatise on who I think is "great" and why. Bizarre...truly, magnificently bizarre is the only way I can characterize your responses throughout this thread. I never answered your barrage of "greatness" questions because I neither care to nor do I have an answer that I feel you wouldn't strawman and then needlessly pick apart (based on the fact that I've counted multiple times here that you've defended yourself against strawmen of things I - and now Rob - never said). I've already said, repeatedly, that I think McCain was a military hero for what he did and went through in Vietnam (even if I do somewhat question the virtue of some of his actions there). But, he was certainly not a great politician. Honestly, I think the totality of his political career did more harm than good overall. And, had he not gone through what he did in Vietnam, he would've likely never become a politician. So, if we agree that he was a war hero, and we somewhat agree that his political accomplishments were, at best, mediocre (you might think it was a little better, though, and that's fine), then by what other standard of accomplishments would we measure his "greatness," given that we don't know him personally? War hero? Check. Highly accomplished politician who fought for and achieved positive social and economic change? Hell no. His voting record proves he was not. Other than that, what else is there that we know about him publicly that would be evidence of his greatness? Nothing that I'm aware of. I say there isn't anything because I don't think that how he acted while a POW is enough to judge his entire life on because it ignores everything else. As I said before, if I'd known him personally and had that personal, emotional connection with him, my view would likely be different. But, all I can go off of is his public record. From what I gather, the main evidence you cite for him being a "great" man is hyperfocused on one area of his life - what he went through in the military. All I can say for my definition of what makes a person "great" is that it doesn't focus on just one part of a person's life while ignoring the other 75%. It's perfectly fine for you to believe about McCain what you want to believe about him. But I really don't understand why you're berating people who disagree with you on that point and why you've spent pages and pages now demanding that we answer a laundry list of questions that will likely never, ever satisfy your need to be right and for us to all be totally wrong about McCain. Why can't you just think what you want to think about him and other people think what they want to think? That's rhetorical. I don't actually want an answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2018 23:05:15 GMT -5
I'm "berating" people? LOL.
I am happy to continue looking up to McCain with the admiration I always have, warts and all. I don't need you guys to do so; even if I needed company, I have plenty.
And I am happy to let you guys look up to...
Throwing rocks is easy and it doesn't cost much. Have a good night.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 31, 2018 8:18:44 GMT -5
Yup, you're not going to name any people you think measure up to greatness, nor any standards by which you would measure them, nor are you going to name and make an argument for anyone in circumstances comparable to McCain's. Just an assertion that McCain wasn't great and a blanket assertion he didn't do anything reams of other soldiers did. I follow. No, you really don't. I specifically said the different standards you offered were both fair and workable. They're good enough. I don't need to give any other standards. As to what "reams of other soldiers did," you're not following that angle, either. At all. What McCain went through--in war--is of course horrible. How he apparently handled it was courageous, to say the least. As was the fact that he served willingly. You can laud him all day for those things. He deserves it, imo. So does John Kerry, by the way. But if that's where you're going to hang your hat when it comes to greatness, you're going to have to allow that they have a lot of company. Because I'm betting that you don't want to say that the guy down the street, who volunteered for duty, served multiple tours in Iraq, then lost a limb to an IED, is somehow not a hero, right? And if you don't think there are a lot of such people, across multiple wars, you're fooling yourself.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 31, 2018 8:34:07 GMT -5
In the realm of great Senators, I might offer up another guy, somewhat recently departed: Ted Kennedy.
I can't stand him, either. But I think it's much easier for people who do like him to defend his greatness. He certainly left a stamp on the world and he certainly stood on principle on many, many occasions.
On the opposite side of the coin, there's Strom Thurmond. I'd have a hard time accepting any arguments re his greatness and I think I'd roll my eyes pretty hard at people offering such arguments.
And let me throw up one more guy, because I'm interested in perceptions in this regard: Paul Wellstone (who died in 2002). If there was ever a person who stood on principle in the Senate, it was him. If there was ever a Senator who worked tirelessly for the benefit of others, it was him. I disagreed with his positions in many, many things, but I sure as hell respected him as a person. I'd call him a great man without hesitation.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 31, 2018 8:36:42 GMT -5
Okay, here is my simple yardstick for "great": Did something both significant and positive for the world. By which I mean their accomplishment(s) actually had a global (or, at the very least, a national) impact. That would include all the people I mentioned (at least, if you narrow it down to "national" in scope), and exclude Hitler and Stalin. Whether or not it would include Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great and Napoleon I guess depends on what you think history's verdict is. They were, to their enemies, the Stalins and Hitlers of their time, but the world is certainly shaped differently today, for better or for worse, because of their actions. My "out on a limb" suggestion of JK Rowling and Oprah Winfrey is because I think their works and/or accomplishments have had a major impact on popular culture. But again, I am not prepared to get into a legalistic debate about how I would precisely define "positive" and "significant" and "global" and "national." I think it depends a lot on whether either of them are still remembered in a hundred years. But - using that simple yardstick, I feel comfortable saying that McCain falls short of "greatness." He didn't really have any more impact than any other national politician. In a hundred years, he'll be remembered only in Wikipedia articles (or whatever equivalent we're using then) as a Presidential candidate. Calling him great would be like calling whoever was the Governor of Arizona in 1918 "great." ( This guy, by the way.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2018 10:13:28 GMT -5
As I said, I'm not inclined to quibble with the people any of you have put up as great (well, except Strom Thurmond, as discussed below). Though, as I'll get to in a minute, I actually could throw rocks all day if that's what I wanted to do. (As it happens, I agree with many of the choices named here, though not all.)
First -- to Amadan's "he didn't have more impact than other politicians, and will be remembered only as a presidential candidate." Well, none of us know how Wikipedia will be treating anyone in a hundred years. But I must point out that a pile of people are remembered and revered as downright legends who weren't presidents or presidential candidates, who weren't senators, who didn't discover any miraculous invention, who didn't "have a major impact on popular culture" but simply because something about them was remarkable and unforgettable in some way, stood above the herd, and captured the public imagination. Because of certain characteristics and or actions, and perhaps because they stood at a particular moment of history, they came to be a symbol for something beyond themselves. Daniel Boone. Davy Crockett. Helen Keller, Anne Frank. [That's off the top of my head, by the way, without any thought. If you want a list of such people, I am sure I can provide one. I name them only to say one often ends up as a household name echoing down the ages for reasons beyond one's legislative record, conquest of the world, or best-selling novels. I should also add that fame and success are not required in my measure for greatness. You can perform a great action that goes largely unrecognized, at least for a long time. You can fail spectacularly, but be honored for the stand you took -- the Spartans at Thermopylae were great men, IMO, and they lost.]
IMO, McCain, taking aside his legislative record (but including it as well, as I discuss below), is a character of that ilk. The particular brand of valor he showed in Vietnam is exactly the kind of thing that goes down in American legend. It is sticking to a principle at tremendous personal cost, steadfastness in the face of extreme opposition. And damn, it's rare these days (any days, really, but especially just now).
Second -- Yes, I do find what McCain did in Vietnam far more extraordinary and unusual than what Kerry did. That's not at all to denigrate Kerry. I am impressed to all hell with Kerry and revere his courage. The swift-boating shit people did with his war record infuriated me. So don't go saying I'm bashing war vets. I'm not; my fangirlism extends to them, even if I put McCain's brand on a special plane. It's just that I think courage in the heat of battle is more common than sustained courage in the face of torture. Yes, fighting and risking your life for your country takes tremendous courage and deserves homage. (McCain did that, too.) But holding out in the face of years of torture and isolation is another thing entirely, in my book. Few are tested the way McCain was. We can't say for sure what we'd do if tested in that way. But McCain was tested, we do know what he did, and it is the stuff legends are made of.
Third, as I said, I'm not inclined to throw rocks at people's choices. But speaking of being tested... I'm fond of ol' Teddy Kennedy myself. I might be inclined to call him a great man, or at least listen to arguments for it -- no question he was a lion of the Senate. But it's hard to walk away from the fact that when his courage was put to the test, he left a girl to die at Chappaquiddick--he didn't even have the courage to report the incident to authorities until the next day, after the body had been discovered. Maybe you're inclined to forgive that flaw in your accounting for greatness (just like I'm willing to forgive McCain's Chelsea Clinton joke). Many do. But many wouldn't. Whatever Kennedy's legislative accomplishments, I don't see the kind of extraordinary courage John McCain showed embodied in Teddy Kennedy -- not even close. And Strom Thurmond -- well, his sustained opposition to the civil rights act strikes me as being more prominent than anything else in his career, and he never fully renounced his segregationist views. That's a pretty serious and unforgivable blot, IMO--and since his only claim to greatness, as far as I know, would rest on his legislative career, that pretty much kills it for me. YMMV.
Fourth -- As I've indicated, my fangirlism (I shall embrace the term) rests more on McCain's character than anything else. But with regard to his Senate career -- while I have yuuuge political disagreements with McCain, I also am impressed with many of his political accomplishments and stands. You don't have to agree, obviously. To note, when you're in the Senate, by and large your accomplishments are shared by others and are not yours alone. So sure, point out that others were involved in his accomplishments, but then I can do the same with any other person you want to name in the Senate, including Kennedy. One thing about McCain, though -- often he took the stances he took in opposition to his own party. And that, IMO, that makes them especially stand out. I'm with J.K.Rowling (yes, I'm a fan, though I wouldn't put her on a pedestal of greatness) -- it's harder to stand up to your friends than to your adversaries. Again, his senate stances, whether I agree with them or not, illustrate the character traits I admire so much.
He was instrumental in reestablishing diplomatic relations with Vietnam. Because of what he endured at the hands of the Vietnamese during the war, he had a standing few others did and he used it. Given what he suffered, that was extraordinary. He was a champion for veterans-- e.g., the Agent Orange Act. His powerful stand on torture cost him bigly politically, but he made it firmly and consistently and he did not back down. I'm a big fan of the Campaign Finance Reform Act he and Feingold introduced. He and Kennedy joined hands to push for immigration reform that would allow a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. His thumbs down on the ACA was the crucial determination of whether that yuuuuge Act affecting the daily lives of millions remained. You may not like how he voted there (I do, because the GOP had and have jack shit to replace it), but it's the kind of gesture that endures and that took some guts. And like so many of McCain's acts in his political career, it was done in defiance of his party. Add to that his consistent strong voice in opposition to the current President, who I submit is uniquely horrible and presents a huge threat to our values and the world order as we've known it since 1945. And alas, it's the kind of voice that is otherwise pretty much missing entirely in the GOP.
And I think McCain is going to stand out and be remembered not just because of his acts, but because of where he happens to stand in history. We're unfortunately in an era of party before country, self-interest before all. He stands for the opposite, especially his remarkable service in Vietnam, but also his legislative career. Never have we more sorely needed an icon for that particular quality more than we need it now -- and such men are in woefully short supply. For that reason as well as his actions themselves, I think he goes down in American legend. Of course, on that, only time can say for sure.
I don't think you can say all that about the Governor of Arizona in 1918.
ETA:
I'll add this: with regard to McCain's recent career, it matters a lot that he's a Republican. Sure, we have Democrats speaking out against Trump. But here's where I'm a cynic: I'm wondering how many of those voices would sputter out if Trump had run and won as a Democrat. (And again, he used to be one.) That would really be the test for them. It's extremely easy to oppose Trump as a Democrat or liberal. We hate his policies as well as the man himself and his flagrant violations of norms, threats to the free press, democracy, etc. But if you liked a lot of his policies... Well, there's the test. McCain passed that test. It would be interesting to see who on the Democratic side would pass that test, who would stand up to all of his colleagues and condemn the president of his own party in the way McCain has. (That said, I hope we are never tested like this as a country again, at least in my lifetime, so I have to hope I never see it.)
That's one reason why, IMO, McCain is a critical symbol at a time we sorely need one. It's yet another reason I think he'll endure and go down as more than just a senator and presidential candidate in Wikipedia. You can pooh-pooh "oh, he's only getting so much attention because of the Trump thing." I actually don't think it's the only reason (he's been revered as a hero and a lion of the senate for decades), but to the extent it is a reason, I don't think it's any small thing. To the contrary, I think it's an extraordinarily important thing.
I suppose if you think Trump is just another Republican president, politics as usual, and Things Aren't Really That Bad, you will scoff at this. That's not the way I see it. As always, mileage will vary.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 31, 2018 10:50:17 GMT -5
Actually, reading about George W.P. Hunt, he was pretty interesting, and if I were posthumously crushing on him the way you are on McCain, I could probably write a lot of convincing blocks of text about all the great things he did (like being elected seven times, working his way up from a runaway who became a dishwasher to Governor, being sent to Siam as ambassador because Woodrow Wilson wanted him out of the way and the coming back to be elected as Governor of Arizona again, etc.)
But the fact is, no one but a historian cares about that anymore. And no one is going to care about McCain in a hundred years. It's not about whether his moral character outweighs his flaws. If Ted Kennedy is "great" then it's despite his Chappaquidick performance, just like Churchill was great despite being a great big colonial-imperialist bigot and Lincoln was great despite being a racist (yeah, even for his time, there were people more enlightened than him - and violating civil liberties nearly as badly as FDR did with the Japanese internments).
McCain could have been great despite having feet of clay on occasion, but really, nothing makes him great in the first place other than his war record and not being a complete tool. That's not sufficient, in my book, but apparently it is in yours. And you're really aggrieved about this because we think he was okay but not great. I don't know why, but coming back at it a dozen different ways to refine and redefine "greatness" isn't likely to change my mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2018 11:02:34 GMT -5
We'll have to disagree. And again, only time will tell what the verdict of history will be. I have my belief, and you have yours.
My strong feelings stem from my fervent, long-standing admiration of him. I happen to particularly revere certain qualities he has.
One reason I asked the question I did about heroes and great men was because I suspected that several of you don't feel that way about anyone, really -- that pretty much nothing is That Good or That Bad, That Extraordinary one way or the other. The whole notion of my fangirling is contemptible, taking McCain aside.
Beyond that, I just find it interesting and revealing who people revere and why, what flaws they are willing to overlook or forgive (or at least, regard as less important than whatever they revere) and which they aren't.
ETA:
As I often am on this board, I am reminded of my first trip to Spain. I fell in love immediately with the place. My companions kept bitching about how things were dingy and how X monument elsewhere was more magnificent and Y river was wider and Z mountain was higher and why did they have to put ham in everything and they liked the food better in France, etc.
Which is why ultimately I ditched them and continued the trip on my own so I could simply enjoy what I loved about the place, which didn't rely on the widest river or the highest mountain and which the dinginess of streets or buildings couldn't begin to touch. Also, I really like ham.
That might be what I have to do on McCain.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 31, 2018 13:40:08 GMT -5
I don't know how you can say we don't feel that way about anyone when several of us have given examples of people we do consider great.
I also don't think "Doesn't agree with you about how great one guy is" is equivalent to "Whines and complains bitterly about everything and is never happy while on vacation," but whatever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2018 14:12:12 GMT -5
Perhaps I am wrong, but my impression, here and in other threads, is that you (and Rob and Opty) find what Opty called "fangirlism" off-putting regardless of its object. Ditto powerful, emotional condemnation of something. My feelings on the family separation policy, for example.
You put forth some names, yes, though you definitely stepped around the issue of defending them as great people if it came right down to it. In fact, you got just a touch defensive about it. Again, I see that as a reluctance to embrace anything as particularly great. But yes, at least you nominated some contenders.
As for Rob, I submit that he didn't. I doubt very much he would defend Teddy Kennedy or anyone else he named in his post as a great man. In fact, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that's what Rob intended to do in putting forth Kennedy, Thurmond, and Kerry -- I think he was just putting forth people he thought were better or equal to McCain, to show why he disagreed with my choice of McCain.
(The only other person I saw naming someone is nighttimer, and I didn't mean him anyway -- I think he'd defend MLK Jr. (and I'm sure others) to the wall as great, despite flaws. I also felt that through all his criticisms of McCain, though he might not necessarily agree with my assessment of him, he also didn't pooh-pooh it and say it was just plain wrong -- my impression is that he acknowledged it as a supportable opinion, whether he agreed with it or not. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the vibe I get out of the rest of you is that my "fangirlism" is just plain risible. Fine. Whatever. I don't agree.)
ETA:
It reminds me of my traveling companions because it wasn't that they hated Spain or were having a terrible time -- it's just that they couldn't enjoy anything with picking it to pieces in some way -- in fact, I think that was their mode of enjoyment. They couldn't just take it for what it was, warts and all, without comparing it to something else, always to the disfavor of whatever was in front of them. I liked them fine, they are fine people, but this is why we weren't good traveling companions. In fact, this is why I like to travel alone -- I am one who immerses myself completely in the moment before me and am often annoyingly rapt in admiration, even at things that aren't the Grand Canyon--they're wonderful in their own way. I don't actually need anyone to share it with me. Their comments on the rivers being wider or the street being dingy weren't wrong -- it's just that I found something special there that in my view transcended that, and they didn't. My enthusiasm annoyed them, and their need to pick it all to pieces annoyed me.
The thing is, I'm pretty confident that they'd have done the same thing were we in Greece or Rome or Thailand. They found enjoyment in their way, and I in mine. Hence, I went my own way. No hard feelings.
It's not just that we didn't agree. It's not even that we would never agree. It's just that at some point I found the relentless pecking about something I really liked depressing, even though it didn't change my mind one iota.
And I am kind of feeling that way here. It makes me sad, and I was sad already.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 31, 2018 14:28:11 GMT -5
I can't speak for Opty.
As for myself, yes, I find emotional overinvestment off-putting.
I am not, in actual fact, a Cylon, so obviously I have emotions and I do get worked up about some things, but I try to avoid it.
You have been reacting as if we're pissing on McCain's grave. You obviously feel very strongly not just about McCain, but about the fact that we don't feel the same way you do about him. When I offer rather tepid criticism of someone, not hatred or disdain or contempt, just a general somewhat negative-leaning indifference, and end up being offered multiple walls of text, lawyerly arguments, and demands to rigorously explain what I mean by "great" and who does and does not qualify in return, I find it off-putting.
I get that you are a lawyer and you like rigorous, lawyerly arguments, and sometimes I can play, but when it's about something that I don't actually care about that much, combined with the fact that you are getting visibly upset at the lack of concurrence, I find it off-putting.
|
|