| Perhaps the best way of illustrating the temperament trap in action is by looking to our friends at National Review, who, quite naturally, try to make the case that it's Obama who has a problem with his temperament. In their article, "It's a Matter of Temperament: A presidential test", Art and Laraine Bennett combine ancient wisdom, modern hucksterism, and the tritest form of "look at me!" punditry--the attention-grabbing argument that everything is the exact opposite of what it appears to be. The ancient wisdom and hucksterism come from the publication of their book, The Temperament God Gave Your Spouse on the same day the column was published---a followup to their earlier book, The Temperament God Gave You.
The problem with ancient wisdom, of course, is that it's often wrong--on heliocentrism, on evolution--or at best, partial. And, yes, on matters of temperament as well. While the West has long been quite big on the four temperaments, based on four different bodily humours, China was quite big on , and was more disposed to think in terms of processes, rather than fixed temperaments. Classically, temperament could be conceived in terms of quickness to respond (slow vs. fast) and length of response (quick vs. longer-lasting), yielding a total of four options. But in modern times, a more clinical approach was employed in the New York Longitudinal study (beginning in infancy, and following subjects over time) which studied nine characteristics: activity, regularity, initial reaction, adaptability, intensity, mood, distractibility, persistence & attention span, and sensitivity. Naturally, this points to a much more varied and nuanced picture.
The four-fold model doubtlessly has a certain utility--it's certainly better than blindly assuming that everyone's born exactly the same. But if it's good for some purposes, it's not so good for others. Above all, it is not a final explanation of anything, but rather a short-hand way of dealing with much a more complicated set of inborn tendencies, and how they interact with ones developmental history. But this, of course, is not how temperament theory is presented by the Bennetts, or by another religious right writer on temperament you may have heard of--Timothy LaHaye, author of the Left Behind series. Such authors understand the world in terms of a limited number of simple and fixed forces, regardless of what modern modern science may reveal about its complexity, ambiguity and mutability.
With all that in mind, let's turn to the article at hand, with all of its pretended authority. They begin thus:
The issue of temperament has played an outsized role in media coverage of this year's presidential election. John McCain has been criticized as hot-headed, volatile, and rash. Barack Obama, meanwhile, has earned praise for never losing his temper, for staying above the fray, and for listening to all sides.
Obama himself suggested that his temperament is more suited to the presidency than McCain's and wishes it to be one of the central issues of the campaign. In his acceptance speech in Denver last month, he said we should have "a debate about who has the temperament and judgment to serve as the next commander in chief."
Not being self-professed experts in judgment, it's only natural that they should ignore the "judgment" part of Obama's statement, but we should not. Obama first gained his place in the national spotlight in large part because of his judgment--opposing the Iraq War, which helped distinguish him in a crowded primary field running for Senate in 2004. It was not his temperament that first drew attention to him. What's more, his opposition to the war remained a significant factor in differentiating him as he entered the presidential primary race in 2007. True, his temperament was always with him, but far fewer voters were swayed by his termperamnt than by this one single act of judgment. Obama's presentation sought to fuse the two--placing them side-by-side. The Barretts sever them.
Next, they turn to talking about the debate:
And, at the first presidential debate, it seemed he wanted to prove just that. He was cool, judicious, and fair-minded. He clearly wanted to appear more presidential than his opponent, and to let McCain come off as ornery or even irascible.
Nonetheless, it was McCain's temperament that showed to advantage. While Obama was parsing words and trying to appear presidential, what shone forth was McCain's passionate love for his country, the soldiers in Iraq, and the veterans. In fact, you got the sense that while McCain suffers political questions, seeing into their true nature and meaning, Obama merely entertains them. After the debate, several commentators expressed puzzlement by the fact that, for a debate, Obama seemed to agree with McCain to a surprising degree.
Before looking more closely at what the Barretts are saying here, first note that they are portraying Obama as calculating his performance to prove something, while McCain is presented as just being himself. It's yet another manifestation of Brooksie's old warmed-over Red State/Blue State schtick. Next, note the imbalance in what the Barretts are saying. Being "cool, judicious, and fair-minded" are attributes rooted in temperament, their ostensible subject. But when they talk about McCain, the focus shifts from the nature of McCain's rational/emotional display to the content of it. Content, however, has nothing to do with temperament. That's just the point: temperament is supposed to be about our basic nature, whatever the circumstances, whatever the content of what we're dealing with.
If temperament is your concern, it doesn't matter whether McCain is talking about US soldiers in Iraq, or Mafia soldiers in New Jersey. But, of course, temperament is not their concern. Obfuscation is. And who better to obfuscate a subject than purported experts?
If we pull back from the tight issue framing of "temperament" to the larger issue of character, then it becomes germane to ask how credible McCain's claims actually are. This goes to the issue of his integrity. Toward the end of their piece, the Barretts write:
The real difference between McCain and Obama was captured in a small, but significant moment during the first debate, when Obama said that he "sits on the Veterans Affairs Committee." McCain's reply was heartfelt: "I know the veterans...And I love them. And I'll take care of them. And they know that I'll take care of them. And that's going to be my job. But, also, I have the ability, and the knowledge, and the background to make the right judgments, to keep this country safe and secure."
How genuine is McCain's professed love for veterans? Well, consider his record. Consider Brandon Friedman's Oct 1 article at Huffington Post, "McCain's Non-Support for Troops and Veterans: The Master List".
This is just the section dealing with "support" for veterans:
Veterans Groups Give McCain Failing Grades. In its most recent legislative ratings, the non-partisan Disabled American Veterans gave Sen. McCain a 20 percent rating for his voting record on veterans' issues. Similarly, the non-partisan Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America gave McCain a "D" grade for his poor voting record on veterans' issues, including McCain's votes against additional body armor for troops in combat and additional funding for PTSD and TBI screening and treatment.
McCain Voted Against Increased Funding for Veterans' Health Care. Although McCain told voters at a campaign rally that improving veterans' health care was his top domestic priority, he voted against increasing funding for veterans' health care in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. (Greenville News, 12/12/2007; S.Amdt. 2745 to S.C.R. 95, Vote 40, 3/10/04; Senate S.C.R. 18, Vote 55, 3/16/05; S.Amdt. 3007 to S.C.R. 83, Vote 41, 3/14/06; H.R. 1591, Vote 126, 3/29/07)
McCain Voted At Least 28 Times Against Veterans' Benefits, Including Healthcare. Since arriving in the U.S. Senate in 1987, McCain has voted at least 28 times against ensuring important benefits for America's veterans, including providing adequate healthcare. (2006 Senate Vote # 7, 41, 63, 67, 98, 222; 2005 Senate Votes # 55, 89, 90, 251, 343; 2004 Senate Votes # 40, 48, 145; 2003 Senate Votes # 74, 81, 83; 1999 Senate Vote # 328; 1998 Senate Vote # 175; 1997 Senate Vote # 168; 1996 Senate Votes # 115, 275; 1995 Senate Votes # 76, 226, 466; 1994 Senate Vote # 306; 1992 Senate Vote # 194; 1991 Senate Vote # 259)
McCain Voted Against Providing Automatic Cost-of-Living Adjustments to Veterans. McCain voted against providing automatic annual cost-of-living adjustments for certain veterans' benefits. (S. 869, Vote 259, 11/20/91)
McCain Voted to Underfund Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain voted for an appropriations bill that underfunded the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development by $8.9 billion. (H.R. 2099, Vote 470, 9/27/95)
McCain Voted Against a $13 Billion Increase in Funding for Veterans Programs. McCain voted against an amendment to increase spending on veterans programs by $13 billion. (S.C.R. 57, Vote 115, 5/16/96)
McCain Voted Against $44.3 Billion for Veterans Programs. McCain was one of five senators to vote against a bill providing $44.3 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, plus funding for other federal agencies. (H.R. 2684, Vote 328, 10/15/99)
McCain Voted Against $47 Billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain was one of eight senators to vote against a bill that provided $47 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs. (H.R. 4635, Vote 272, 10/12/00)
McCain Voted Against $51 Billion in Veterans Funding. McCain was one of five senators to vote against the bill and seven to vote against the conference report that provided $51.1 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as funding for the federal housing, environmental and emergency management agencies and NASA. (H.R. 2620, Vote 334, 11/8/01; Vote 269, 8/2/01)
McCain Voted Against $122.7 Billion for Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain voted against an appropriations bill that included $122.7 billion in fiscal 2004 for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and other related agencies. (H.R. 2861, Vote 449, 11/12/03)
McCain Opposed $500 Million for Counseling Services for Veterans with Mental Disorders. McCain voted against an amendment to appropriate $500 million annually from 2006-2010 for counseling, mental health and rehabilitation services for veterans diagnosed with mental illness, posttraumatic stress disorder or substance abuse. (S. 2020, S.Amdt. 2634, Vote 343, 11/17/05)
McCain opposed an Assured Funding Stream for Veterans' Health Care. McCain opposed providing an assured funding stream for veterans' health care, taking into account annual changes in veterans' population and inflation. (S.Amdt. 3141 to S.C.R. 83, Vote 63, 3/16/06)
McCain Voted Against Adding More Than $400 Million for Veterans' Care. McCain was one of 13 Republicans to vote against providing an additional $430 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs for outpatient care and treatment for veterans. (S.Amdt. 3642 to H.R. 4939, Vote 98, 4/26/06)
McCain Supported Outsourcing VA Jobs. McCain opposed an amendment that would have prevented the Department of Veterans Affairs from outsourcing jobs, many held by blue-collar veterans, without first giving the workers a chance to compete. (S.Amdt. 2673 to H.R. 2642, Vote 315, 9/6/07)
McCain Opposed the 21st Century GI Bill Because It Was Too Generous. McCain did not vote on the GI Bill that will provide better educational opportunities to veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, paying full tuition at in-state schools and living expenses for those who have served at least three years since the 9/11 attacks. McCain said he opposes the bill because he thinks the generous benefits would "encourage more people to leave the military." (S.Amdt. 4803 to H.R. 2642, Vote 137, 5/22/08; Chattanooga Times Free Press, 6/2/08; Boston Globe, 5/23/08; ABCNews.com, 5/26/08)
Disabled American Veterans Legislative Director Said That McCain's Proposal Would Increase Costs For Veterans Because His Plan Relies On Private Hospitals Which Are More Expensive and Which Could Also Lead To Further Rationing Of Care. "To help veterans who live far from VA hospitals or need specialized care the VA can't provide, McCain proposed giving low-income veterans and those who incurred injury during their service a card they could use at private hospitals. The proposal is not an attempt to privatize the VA, as critics have alleged, but rather, an effort to improve care and access to it, he said. Joe Violanti, legislative director of the Disabled American Veterans, a nonpartisan organization, said the proposal would increase costs because private hospitals are more expensive. The increased cost could lead to further rationing of care, he said." (Las Vegas Sun, 8/10/08)
Given what McCain said in the first debate, all of this should be front and center before us--not just because it's the utterly damning actual record of what McCain has done, but also because it impeaches the testimony he gave to the American people in that debate, and shows him to be a man who will, quite literally, say anything to get elected President. It shows him to be both utterly devoid of loyalty to the troops he pretends to care for, and utterly devoid of integrity, when it comes to talking to the American people.
This is what it looks like when you begin to consider the full scope of character issues regarding John McCain, and not just the artificially constrained issue of "temperament." Of course the Barretts are lying and spinning about McCain's temperament issues. That goes without saying. But narrow scope of the "temperament" frame makes their job soooo much easier, and makes the job of getting at the truth so much harder at the same time.
Right now, the McCain campaign is shifting totally into attack mode against Barack Obama, and they're about to get intensely focuses on character smears.
The Politico reports that Obama is ready, "Exclusive: Obama to call McCain 'erratic in crisis'":
Branding his opponent as "erratic in a crisis," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is preempting plans by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to portray him as having sinister connections to controversial Chicagoans.
Obama officials call it political jujitsu - turning the attacks back on the attacker.
McCain officials had said early in the weekend that they plan to begin advertising after Tuesday's debate that will tie Obama to convicted money launderer Tony Rezko and former Weathermen radical William Ayers.
But Obama isn't waiting to respond. His campaign is going up Monday on national cable stations with a scathing ad saying: "Three quarters of a million jobs lost this year. Our financial system in turmoil. And John McCain? Erratic in a crisis. Out of touch on the economy. No wonder his campaign wants to change the subject.
"Turn the page on the financial crisis by launching dishonorable, dishonest 'assaults' against Barack Obama. Struggling families can't turn the page on this economy, and we can't afford another president who is this out of touch."
Then Obama says: "I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message."
This is a powerful anticipatory move, no doubt. And I suspect it will be very effective. But how much more effective would it be if McCain's whole range of character issues, including his integrity and his lack of loyalty to veterans were on the table as well? Because that's the way it ought to be. And if the blogosphere truly wants to have Obama's back in the week ahead, it's what we should be talking about, above and beyond the issues Obama himself raises.
To help do so, here's a tip, in case you haven't seen it already: Rolling Stone's new article, "Make-Believe Maverick: A closer look at the life and career of John McCain reveals a disturbing record of recklessness and dishonesty" by Tim Dickinson. Here's how it begins:
At Fort McNair, an army base located along the Potomac River in the nation's capital, a chance reunion takes place one day between two former POWs. It's the spring of 1974, and Navy commander John Sidney McCain III has returned home from the experience in Hanoi that, according to legend, transformed him from a callow and reckless youth into a serious man of patriotism and purpose. Walking along the grounds at Fort McNair, McCain runs into John Dramesi, an Air Force lieutenant colonel who was also imprisoned and tortured in Vietnam.
McCain is studying at the National War College, a prestigious graduate program he had to pull strings with the Secretary of the Navy to get into. Dramesi is enrolled, on his own merit, at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces in the building next door.
There's a distance between the two men that belies their shared experience in North Vietnam -- call it an honor gap. Like many American POWs, McCain broke down under torture and offered a "confession" to his North Vietnamese captors. Dramesi, in contrast, attempted two daring escapes. For the second he was brutalized for a month with daily torture sessions that nearly killed him. His partner in the escape, Lt. Col. Ed Atterberry, didn't survive the mistreatment. But Dramesi never said a disloyal word, and for his heroism was awarded two Air Force Crosses, one of the service's highest distinctions. McCain would later hail him as "one of the toughest guys I've ever met."
On the grounds between the two brick colleges, the chitchat between the scion of four-star admirals and the son of a prizefighter turns to their academic travels; both colleges sponsor a trip abroad for young officers to network with military and political leaders in a distant corner of the globe.
"I'm going to the Middle East," Dramesi says. "Turkey, Kuwait, Lebanon, Iran."
"Why are you going to the Middle East?" McCain asks, dismissively.
"It's a place we're probably going to have some problems," Dramesi says.
"Why? Where are you going to, John?"
"Oh, I'm going to Rio."
"What the hell are you going to Rio for?"
McCain, a married father of three, shrugs.
"I got a better chance of getting laid."
Dramesi, who went on to serve as chief war planner for U.S. Air Forces in Europe and commander of a wing of the Strategic Air Command, was not surprised. "McCain says his life changed while he was in Vietnam, and he is now a different man," Dramesi says today. "But he's still the undisciplined, spoiled brat that he was when he went in."
John McCain: All Myth, All The Time. There's just no "there" there. |
