The left-wing success of a McCain administration?

 It is hard to see how John McCain could have won the 2008 election. Unlike 2000 or 2004, it was not a close-run event. But still, what if he had? (And with, say, Vice-president Pawlenty, not Palin.)

If the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare, then it is a no-brainer. Similarly, if you believe that President McCain would have let the auto industry go hang, then it is a no-brainer. But if the Supreme Court throws out the first and you do not believe (as I do not) that McCain would have done the second, then it is worth asking. Would a McCain administration have been better or worse?

The is one giant gain from a McCain administration: we would probably have a carbon ceiling and a carbon price. Assuming that the ACA does not survive, and that Detroit would have, what Obama administration accomplishments would have fallen by the wayside under a President McCain?

1. Passed the stimulus ... but McCain would have passed one as well. It would be more weighted towards tax cuts, but similar in size;
2. Passed Wall Street reform ... but some sort of bill was inevitable, what with a Democratic congress, and McCain was not a particular friend of Wall Street;
3. Killed Osama bin Laden ... but honestly, if the opportunity arose, a McCain administration would have handled that as well as President Obama. McCain was not George Bush;
4. Ended the war in Iraq ... thing is, I am not convinced that the Iraqis would not have kicked us out in 2011 anyway, given the political realities in Baghdad;
5. Abolished “Don't Ask, Don't Tell”;
6. Stopped torture ... oh, come on! Of course McCain would have done that;
7. Kicked the banks out of the federal student loans;
8. Boosted fuel efficiency standards ... but with a climate bill it would not matter that much. Plus, I think this is the kind of policy where the old pre-2004 McCain might have resurfaced, a safe way to be mavericky;
9. Passed mini stimuli in 2010 and 2011 ... they would have been bigger under McCain. The Democratic Party is structurally less-disciplined than the GOP, and I know that McCain’s advisors are foxhole Keynesians. Put his election at risk, and we get them;
10. Halted the construction of new coal plants ... but again, not necessary with a climate bill;
11. Signed the New START treaty.

Monetary policy would have been about the same. And both Souter and Stevens would still be on the Supreme Court. No difference there, at least as of early 2012.

So what have we got? No equal rights for gay Americans to serve their country; the vampire squid continuing to suck blood from federal student loans; and no START treaty. Plus some greater risk of a catastrophic economic mistake.

On the other side, a market for carbon! And, ironically enough, possibly more stimulus. But a market for carbon! A weak market, with big caps, and no permit auctions ... but a market.

The difference seems not huge once you take the ACA and auto bailout off the table. (I am assuming that Libya would have gone similarly and that when confronted with the military and diplomatic reality, President McCain would have stayed out of Syria.)

I must be missing something. Can somebody help me out and tell me what?

Comments

[Richard Gadsden]

Coattails - unless your POD is a personal Obama scandal, McCain wins by the Republicans being more popular, which means a lot more Republicans in Congress in 2010-2012.

[Noel Maurer]

In theory, I'd agree, but for that to happen the entire previous two years (at least) would have had to have been entirely different. That's not useful asba starting point for an evaluation.

Democrats likely pick up seats in 2010, regardless.

[Will Baird]

Y'know, I have to wonder if we might not have seen a shake up in the Defense Department. McCain might be pro military, but he loves not the defense contractors. Some sort of attempt at procurement reform might have happened.

I'd have adored him as president for that alone.

Pentagon procurements are a fscking mess these days.

[Noel Maurer]

I strongly doubt that, Will. Too many other priorities, for a small problem with much push back and no easy solutions. As we've discovered, Mr. McCain is remarkably craven.

[Will Baird]

Small problem? *raised eyebrows* Duuuuude. Its actually a serious problem. Followed the JSF program lately?

He's actually been willing to throw around his weight there. Re his involvement in the tanker fiasco. The Pentagon and military is something that is close to what passes for a heart.

[pc]

What does the Tea Party look like under a McCain presidency? Just a nameless, somewhat disillusioned but less vehement mass of Republican voters?

[Noel Maurer]

Sorry about the delay. You guys still listening?

Will: it is a small problem in political terms. High cost to tackle, small gains. By 2008, Senator McCain was not a brave politician. By that calculus, I stand by my initial assessment. Please lower your eyebrows. He would not have tackled the problem, serious as it is by non-political standards.

Patrick: good question. Judging from Theda Skocpol's work, I don't think we would have seen them. They seem to be doctrinnaire Republicans, worked up by Obama's presence in the White House. And not because he is black --- no, it's far more worrisome than that --- because he is a Democrat.

I say in all seriousness that the Tea Party would be far less worrisome for the future of America if the problem were that the President were black. That is a stupid-ass idiocy that will die out soon enough. But if any Democrat with centrist Democratic priorities is seen as un-American, well, that is a problem for the Republic.

Thing is, it doesn't seem to be policy-driven either. A liberal Republican who is a "member of the tribe" could get their votes. President Jindal would make them feel good about themselves and America. It is strange, but very American. A tribalism based not on your genetic inheritance, nor on your policy positions (although those do matter), but on your acceptance of particular tribal markers.

I think a McCain Administration could have driven the debt as high as it liked, and imposed a carbon price, with no popular reaction.