Confidence, Faith and Hope
The Senator sat down this past January with RD's Washington Bureau Chief William Beaman and Contributing Editor Carl Cannon.
RD: Robert Timberg, a former U.S. Marine, wrote in The Nightingale's Song that at the time of your first campaign in 1982, Ronald Reagan changed the way America looked at veterans, including those who served in Vietnam. Timberg thought this shift helped you. Do you think that's true?McCain: When I was in prison, I heard all the antiwar statements being made by prominent Americans. But then newer guys started getting captured and they began to tell us about this guy Reagan and his wife and their commitment to the POWs. California had so many of the bases and ships, and when American soldiers came home, he'd have parties for the POWs. At the party I went to upon my homecoming in San Francisco, John Wayne was there -- I think it's one of the great thrills of my life.
I got to know the Reagans quite well. He asked me to speak at his last National Prayer Day Breakfast as governor of the state of California, which was in 1974. He literally was responsible for my career change. I wanted him to be President, and I wanted to be a foot soldier in what became widely known as the Reagan Revolution. But what he did was take a country that was basically broken and restore its confidence, faith and hope for the future. We had riots. We had assassinations. We had schools and universities beset by the worst kind of discord. We had a military where drug abuse and insubordination were rampant. And so here he came with this unshakable and unquenchable optimism and belief that America's greatest days were ahead of it. That was Ronald Reagan's message. And he brought life and vigor -- he turned America around. That really was one of the major motives of my wanting to serve in Congress.
Security Is Paramount
RD: Some people thought Reagan would have made a better Presidential candidate in '68 when he ran the first time, or even in 1976. Do you think people someday will say, "Oh, too bad McCain didn't get elected in 2000. He was too old by 2008."McCain: One of the aspects of Presidential politics is that a lot of times, the second time around people succeed. I think that has something to do with the learning experience of a Presidential campaign. We took off in 2000 -- if I may use the old term -- on a wing and a prayer. "Everybody on the bus, and let's go!" And we didn't have the political and financial base to absorb any losses.
The reason I lost to President Bush was because he had a better organization, better financial base, better political support and he ran a better campaign. Those usually win. But I learned a great deal from that experience: The importance of having a very persuasive agenda, and the importance of having a political and a financial base. And certainly things have changed since 2000. In 2000, like most elections in peacetime, the election was basically about the economy. You can look at previous elections in peacetime and you can tell whether the incumbent party was going to win or not based on economic data. That's all changed since 9/11. Now the primary and very appropriately overriding issue is national security, for which I may pay a high price because of my support and belief that we have to prevail in Iraq.
I harbor ambitions to be President of the United States. Those ambitions pale in comparison to my view that America's national security is paramount, and I have to do what I think is right when it comes to that, even if it costs me my entire political career.
RD: A hypothetical question: You have said it's critical we win in Iraq, but also that we aren't structured to win and that it's immoral to have kids over there dying. Could you foresee the possibility of saying, a year from now, "Well, we're either there to win it or get the rest of them out?"
McCain: You could say that, but there's one huge caveat -- I know we would be dooming Iraq to chaos. I feel we are at a critical time, and this is perhaps our last chance to get the situation under control: to go in with proper force and stabilize the situation so that political and economic development can take place. There can be no economic and political process if there is no security.
There can't be a time limit! Now I would hope that in a relatively brief period of time we would be showing progress and that would lead to more confidence on the part of the American people. But to say we're gonna do this for six months and then we're going home -- the bad guys would just lay back for six months. There's no incident in history where a nation has committed itself to a conflict and said after a certain calendar date we're not going to be involved anymore.
Why We Need to Be in Iraq
RD: But it seems that in the last few weeks, ordinary Americans are starting to wonder if it's not just the bad guys causing us problems, it's the Iraqis themselves. That scene of Saddam Hussein being executed while all these guys in leather jackets with hoods over their heads were taunting him -- apparently people from the Shiite militias were in the room -- it makes Americans say, "These people can't be helped. ..."McCain: It's very disappointing. But remember that we are there not just for Iraqi national interests, but for American national interests as well. It's a weak government [in Iraq]. And they also have to understand that we're nearing the end of the line unless there's improvement. But again, I don't see political stability without security.
RD: Many people think the bigger long-term problem is, of course, Iran. President Bush has said that America would not tolerate Iran having a nuclear weapon. Would you say the same thing, that we wouldn't tolerate it? Is this practical?
McCain: The famous center for the Boston Celtics, Bill Russell, the great philosopher Bill Russell, once said, "When things go bad, things go bad." After the initial success in Iraq, the Iranians and the Syrians were being as nice and cooperative as they can be, the situation in Lebanon was very stable, things were very good. We started downhill in Iraq, and that affects not only that region but every part of the world. That's why this situation is so critical. I believe that we must exercise every possible non-military option before we consider using a military option. Admittedly, these are very weak sanctions that were just enacted by the UN. Now we're going to have to have a coalition of countries, and try to impose greater restrictions on the Iranians. And we're going to have to explore other areas, including support for the forces of democracy in Iran.
There are many other steps we have to take. But to say that we're taking the military option off the table, I think would be incredibly unwise. Suppose we were faced with the situation where the Iranians were about to launch a nuclear missile at Israel? We've already told the world that we will not stand by and watch Israel be exterminated. So we want to be very clear we have many options to pursue, and we will pursue those and we must pursue those. But there's only one thing worse than exercising the military option -- and that is a nuclear-armed Iran. Their president has come to the United Nations and said that the state of Israel must be eradicated from the face of the earth.
More Scars Than Frankenstein
RD: Back to this question that I asked before: You made a persuasive case for why you're a better candidate in 2008 than you were in 2000, but how are you going to answer the question when people say, "I just think he's too old?"McCain: I think I would say that I'm older than dirt. That I have more scars than Frankenstein. That I've learned a few things along the way. Anyone who has accompanied me in the two months before the last election, or while I was hiking in the Grand Canyon or doing many of the things that I do regularly, can attest to the fact that I'm capable of keeping a very rigorous schedule.
RD: Another thing being analyzed is whether Senator McCain can stay true to his compass -- and still appeal to the base support that he needs to get the nomination. The suggestion that he'd shift his position on ...
McCain: I have shifted no position. I've always said I believe in a "big tent" Republican Party and that we have to allow people of different views on specific issues to be in our party. But my 24-year voting record is a consistent, conservative voting record. Socially, fiscally and militarily, I am a conservative. As I said, whether it's concerns on national security, social issues or fiscal and economic issues, I have a clear record. I have not deviated.
If there's one issue that I think I'm open to some criticism on it is ethanol. When oil was $10 a barrel or less, I didn't support ethanol. And I still don't support the subsidies. But with the increase in climate change, and oil staying at $50, $60, $70 a barrel or more, then ethanol makes a lot of sense, in my mind. But I still don't support the subsidies. I think it can exist without 'em. So could you view that as a change in position? Yeah, but I think it's a justified change.
RD: How about the Bush Administration tax cuts?
McCain: The reason I opposed the tax cuts is that I saw no restraint on spending. Unfortunately, my concerns turned out to be legitimate: Spending lurched completely out of control. By the way, I think one of the reasons why Republicans lost the last election is because our fiscally conservative base became disenchanted. But then when the tax cuts came up for renewal, obviously I was not going to vote for what would be tantamount to a tax increase. So, that was my reason.
A Capacity for Outrage
RD: You remind me of something else I wanted to ask you. George W. Bush comes in after 9/11 and has Eisenhower-level job approval ratings, longer than Ike ever did. But now this war is stalled, [Rep.] Nancy Pelosi [D., CA)] is being sworn in today as Speaker of the House, the deficit is out of control. Can the Reagan Revolution that attracted you to politics in the first place survive the Bush Presidency?McCain: Yes. I'm sure it can because I think we learned the lesson of the 2006 election. That lesson is that in 1994 we became the majority in both houses of Congress in order to change government -- and, instead, government changed us. We began to value power over principle. So voters in our base punished us because we lost our way.
I think America is still fundamentally a right-of-center nation. And not to the left of center. I think our Republican Party, and our principles and our basic tenets, are to the right of center. So I think we still have a great opportunity to clean up our act and reclaim the support of the majority of the American people. But that message has to be -- going back to Ronald Reagan -- that our best days are ahead of us, not behind us. That America's role on the world stage is going to be paramount for a long time to come, and we are just getting a little taste of what happens in the world when America is weak.
RD: I want to have a little fun with this one: Do questions about your temper, well, do they make you mad as hell?
McCain: [Laughs] There have been a lot of comments about my "temper," and I'm sure that there have been times in the past when I have made remarks that are intemperate. But I hope I will never lose my capacity to become outraged by abuses of power and misuse of the trust of the American people. When I see $233 million for a bridge to an island in Alaska with 50 people on it, I'm angry. When I see us with earmarks that go from 152 in 1984, when Ronald Reagan vetoed the highway bill, to 6,140 on a highway bill the President signed, I'm outraged. And of course I'm angry. Because we have begun to believe that it's our money. Honest to God, we believe it's our money, not theirs!
So of course I get angry, and I hope I get angry. When I see [Russian President Vladimir] Putin consolidating the old Russian empire, I get angry at what's happened in Russia. When I see [Venezuelan President] Hugo Chavez call the President of the United States all kinds of names, I get angry. So the question is, do you act just out of control or do you maintain your capacity to anger, which then makes you even more motivated to carry out the responsibilities of your oath of office?
RD: What is your response to the question that will be forthcoming: Exactly why do you want to be President?
McCain: Well, I think that with my life, and my experience, and my knowledge, it qualifies me to lead the country in very perilous times. I think that my principles and beliefs, and proven record on national security, social, and economic issues, qualify me to receive the nomination of my party and lead the American people. Again, I believe that, like Ronald Reagan, I have a core set of principles and beliefs that qualify me to make the tough decisions that are associated with the leadership of this greatest nation in the world. And I might add, as a footnote, that I am also the luckiest guy that ever, ever served this nation.