up, mccain
by Ari Holtz
Published: September 29, 2008
On September 12, 2008, David Foster Wallace was found dead of an apparent suicide in his California home. On that day, America lost one of its greatest authors, one of its greatest minds. Wallace was known for his intimidating intellect, superior mastery of all things linguistic, and a style that mixed high-level analysis with a warm, feeling humanity to a degree that is nothing short of humbling. Author of one of the greatest novels of the 20th century, Infinite Jest, along with short fiction and captivating essays on everything from pornography awards to English language usage to the humor of Kafka to tennis, Wallace inspired many a young writer while producing work of a quality that is once in a generation.
One of Wallace’s most notable essays was published in Rolling Stone magazine in 2000. The essay was written while on the campaign trail with then upstart presidential candidate John McCain. An unedited version of the essay can be found in the collection Consider the Lobster.
The crux of the essay, titled Up, Simba, was a question regarding the true nature of McCain. At the time of the essay’s writing, McCain had just shocked anointed son George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary and was a national sensation. His candidacy was built on the notion that he was an anti-candidate - an iconoclast who spoke unpopular truths, told it like it was, railed against his own party and even against his own political interests. Wallace’s question: was this McCain’s true nature or, rather, was being an anti-candidate simply more political spin, just another faux identity put on because it was politically advantageous? Was McCain so rare because he was a different kind of politician or because he was just so good at pretending to be shockingly genuine?
If only Wallace was not so haunted by demons and mental illness too awful to comprehend (imagine the agony of such a powerful mind torturing itself), his devoted readers may have been treated to his impressions of the present-day McCain, McCain 2.0. Apart from a twinkle-eyed sparkle of enjoyment at the surreal post-modern theater of it all, what would Wallace say about McCain’s genuineness, his supposed straight-talk appeal, while witnessing the 2008 campaign? So much has occured to give Wallace grist for his mill. There was the gimmick of “suspending” his campaign, while making great hay in the press of it, of course, to go to Washington to “help solve” the current financial mess. There was the peace-making with the religious right with whom he famously battled in 2000. There was the cynical and overtly political choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate, a move not based on what is best for America but rather on what would energize his campaign and the Republican base. There are the horrid and embarrassingly disingenuous commercials; some suggest Barack Obama wants to teach kindergartners about sex, others use subtext to stir racist associations.
Is this really the honor that McCain gives such lip service to? Is this truly a campaign that America can be proud of?
Why has McCain abandoned his tactics of 2000 for those of Karl Rove and Lee Atwater?
The easy answer is that McCain is not honor, honesty and straight-talk incarnate but just a typical politician with a good shtick. He was that way in 2000, just as he is in 2008. He just hid it better during that first go round.
There’s a more complex answer, though, and I submit that it holds more weight. In 2008, McCain is not up against an establishment figure like the Bush of 2000. Instead, he is up against the young, fresh, new, inspiring Obama. Obama’s candidacy is built on the hope and promise of a new politics of unity, honesty and positivity. This more than co-opts McCain’s old persona and does so in a more attractive package than that of a 72-year-old Republican.
McCain, therefore, can’t be himself. Obama has the media celebrity, the adulation of the young and new voters, and the mantle of change that were all McCain’s eight years ago.
McCain might be a war hero with a natural pull toward integrity, but the man wants to win. So, if his own personal playbook has been taken and improved upon, all that’s left is the standard political one. Play hard, low and dirty.
McCain may once have been an anti-candidate, a different kind of politician, but that man is clearly gone in 2008. This is a loss for America because that man, if he ever existed, was a great one.
This column is dedicated to the memory of David Foster Wallace - RIP. I wish you way more than luck.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
September 30th, 2008 at 11:41 am
thanks for pointing out the liberal media bias. Their goal is to promote the more liberal candidate: mccain over bush in 2000 and obama over mccain in 2008.
Save the “mccain was the media’s sweetheart in 2000″ talk. Thats obvious, he was a maverick compared to bush. He still is a maverick, but running against the most liberal nominee in the history of the US. You do the math.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:18 am
Come on! Politics is always about winning. There’s no substance. I don’t sweat him for the McCain 2.0.