Over at The Corner, a reader asks Jonah Goldberg about John McCain's banishment of Phil Gramm to Belarus.
Jonah:
I don't mean to single you out, but there isn't a "group" email for the Corner as I'm aware of, so I'm writing you.
Anyway, the Corner's silence on yesterday's Phil Gramm remarks is deafening. Here it is 24 hours into a pretty-decent sized story (I don't know how you sign into AOL mail, but I saw it listed as one of the top news stories when I signed in through the web), and not even one comment on his "whiner" remarks? I expected at least a Larry Kudlow defense or something.
Goldberg's response suggests he isn't pleased by the situation, but indicates a willingness to accept it as a political necessity. "This," he writes, "is just another example of why I've always wanted Phil Gramm to be president of the United States and why that can never, ever, happen."
My sense is that most conservatives are like Jonah Goldberg: they think there is nothing controversial with what Gramm
said and they are proud of him for standing by it. They also understand
that it was impolitic, and seem willing to accept McCain's heave-ho. Still, I can't imagine they were happy about it -- especially coming one day after
he stabbed Larry Kudlow in the back on cap-and-trade.
I think the situation is somewhat analogous to the Clark affair, when those on the right were offended by Clark's comments and those of us on the left saw nothing wrong with them. In retrospect, the biggest difference between the two situations is that our guy ultimately stood by Clark -- and their guy is sending Phil Gramm overseas. (Update: Please note that I am comparing the situations, not the comments. Of course there was nothing wrong with what Clark said -- and I said so at the time.)
Even if they won't admit it publicly, conservatives have to be feeling a bit betrayed today. In the not-so-distant past, they were hoping for Gramm to be nominated as Treasury Secretary. How unlikely is that now?
It's not just that Phil Gramm is a conservative icon, but his early support for McCain was critical in placating traditional conservatives who worry about a McCain presidency (1, 2, 3, and 4). Moreover, conservatives are bound to worry whether McCain's attempt to sellout Gramm would be a hallmark of a McCain presidency.
Keep in mind that I think McCain is the phony one on this. Gramm is being sincere (if misguided). Indeed, McCain has echoed Gramm's thoughts repeatedly in the past. I think that clearly shows that McCain shares Gramm's view.
Given that McCain is actually of like mind, his refusal to defend Gramm's ideas is the worst of all worlds for conservatives -- they've got a candidate who will not defend a set of ideas which can easily be attributed to him. Conservatives are fond of saying that it is ideas that matter -- and McCain is setting up their ideas for defeat, even as he seems to share them. It's quite the paradox.
I suspect they will give McCain a pass on this, as they did with the Kudlow situation. They might even give McCain a pass on his oil austerity program -- that to reduce oil prices, we must turn out the lights earlier and drive less.
At some point, however, the conservatives will say enough is enough. Even though McCain has basically embraced their policy positions, they understand that his refusal defend them -- indeed, his eagerness to be seen as attacking the right -- could do more damage to the conservative movement than a Democratic presidency ever could.
And that's why I suspect that by lashing out at Phil Gramm yesterday, John McCain will eventually get his conservative backlash.
© Jed Lewison