wounded lion at fais do do
cell phone pictures by rachel detroit

What the Bullet Sang

O joy of creation

To be!
O rapture to fly
And be free!
Be the battle lost or won,
Though its smoke shall hide the sun,
I shall find my love, - the one
Born for me!

I shall know him where he stands,
All alone,
With the power in his hands
Not o'erthrown;
I shall know him by his face,
By his godlike front and grace;
I shall hold him for a space,
All my own!

Is it he - O my love!
So bold!
It is I all - thy love
Foretold!
It is I. O love! what bliss!
Dost thou answer to my kiss?
O sweetheart! what is this
Lieth there so cold?

-Bret Harte

Darin Klein, editor
Box of Books
Los Angeles, CA: D. Klein. 2008

Synopsis: Darin Klein’s Box of Books collects the efforts of 20 artists who created 20 small books with the same fold-out format but with widely differing content. Advertising, memory, love, language, identity, the archive, and sex are explored through photography, appropriation, poetry, painting and collage. Participating artists include Micah Ballard, Robert Becraft, Noel Black, bodega vendetta & prvtdncr, Timothy Cummings, Chantale Doyle, Zackary Drucker, Julia Dzwonkoski & Kye Potter, Marina Eckler, Edie Fake, Darin Klein, Nate Luce, Lucas Michael, Christopher Russell, Jim Schatz, Kelly Sears, Paul Mpagi Sepuya, Ami Tallman, Sunnylyn Thibodeaux, and Jim Winters.

(this description is from)

“Against the Grain” @ LACE

By Rohin Guha

September 15, 2008: BlackBook Magazine online

http://www.blackbookmag.com/article/against-the-grain-lace

Yeah, it's a bit pot-kettle-black. But art would be predictable if it didn't contradict itself once in a while. That's why there's a little poetry in the lush work on display as part of Los Angeles Contemporary Exhibitions' "Against the Grain" (closing September 21). Curated by Christopher Russell, artists John Knuth, Anna Sew Hoy, and Ami Tallman round out an impressive set of 14 contributors whose work is just as overwrought as the decadence they pick apart. And while there are kernels of Gothic-ness peppering this exhibition (primarily through its dissection of decadence), the vision is strictly modern.

www.bbook.com

Wounded Lion Carol Cloud 7" (S-S)
Los Angeles gets a bad rap. Through our TV sets, we know it as a city of shallow glitter, brutal cops, and urban unrest…and, sure, there is that, but there are also lots of everyday folks, living unpretentious everyday lives. We also forget that Los Angeles has had a very healthy underground music scene, as it does today. Take the everyday folks and drop them into an underground scene and you get something like Wounded Lion, a great no-frills pop band who sounds fresh, even when they remind one of classic American power pop of the 70s. Inspired by The Amps, The Cramps, The Clean, and The Vaselines (as well as Credence Clearwater Revival and Kleenex), Wounded Lion can regularly be scene in LA haunts such as Mr T’s Bowl, The Smell, The Scene, and Spaceland. And now you get to hear them here, on their recording debut. The songs “Carol Cloud” and “Pony People” are two great poppers, hum-inducing, toe-tapping tunes which will wiggle their way into your brain and have you singing their choruses while at the grocery store or waiting in line at the DMV. This is perfect pop for the dying days of summer and the start of a new school year. Wounded Lion! 600 pressed. Here is a bit of "Carol Cloud." Check out the video for "Pony People."

http://207.228.243.82/ss/cat.html

History Versus Nostalgia

Two shows offer differing takes on the swingin’ ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s.

BY RICHARD SPEER

Our endless fascination with celebrity and nostalgia takes center stage in two very different shows this month. First, at Augen’s DeSoto location, Bande à part: New York Underground time-warps back to the Pop era, which sowed the seeds of our current TMZ/Last Night’s Party/Brangelina/Britney madness. Eight photographers who documented the rock-’n’-roll and punk revolutions headline this traveling show, which made stops in Paris, Hong Kong, London, Los Angeles and Tokyo before arriving in Portland. Highlights include Roberta Bayley’s shots of Blondie’s Debbie Harry, the Clash’s Joe Strummer, and an androgyny-chic Iggy Pop circa 1976, looking a little bit like Portland’s Eva Lake circa 2008 (although Lake is oodles more stylish). Anton Perich’s Mick Jagger at Max’s captures the Stones frontman in dewy, pre-shriveled 1972 form, while his 1973 portrait of Yoko Ono, radiant in long hair and furry stole, is the perfect female complement.

Pulliam Deffenbaugh’s Free Love Gods addresses nostalgia from the same general era, but from the perspective of Gen-X and –Y artists looking back with a mixture of longing and campy condescension. Erik Bluhm’s collage of dashiki-clad flower children blurs the line between a smile and a smirk, as does Benjamin Lord’s psychedelic sunburst of a print. Longing for kindergarten in the shag-carpeted ’70s, Ami Tallman scrawls amateurish interiors and architectural details, Rebekah Miles creates ersatz dust jackets for pre-existing books, and Chris Jahncke gives credence to the age-old put-down of contemporary art: “My third-grader could do that!” This show was curated by Anna Fidler, a brilliant artist in her own right, whose felt, crayon and Magic Marker fantasias have made her a standout in Pulliam Deffenbaugh’s stable. Fidler did not curate herself into Free Love Gods, but if she had, none of these artists could have held a candle to her own work, with the possible exception of Brooklyn, N.Y.-based Reed Anderson. His Minorly Happy is a miracle of intricate cutouts, stencil-like pixels, and every color group known to man, woman or beast: earth tones abutting pastels alongside fluorescents in jarring, jubilant coexistence. This show and Augen’s rock reverie prove that nostalgia is the opposite of history: The former is the province of fantasy, the latter of context. In art, fantasy always wins. .

SEE IT:Bande à part at Augen DeSoto, 716 NW Davis St., 546-5056. Closes Aug. 27. Free Love Gods at Pulliam Deffenbaugh, 929 NW Flanders St., 228-6665. Closes Aug. 30.

Originally Published in

Willamette Week

www.wweek.com/editorial/3440/11359

CHILD'S PLAY - THE ART OF AMI TALLMAN written by Karim Khan

From the Hope issue of Don't Panic.

When I first got sent Ami’s work, I thought ‘what the fuck is this? Is she like, eight years old?’ That’s just how cute she is. She draws so cute that it’s a pity she doesn’t draw cute things like flowers and bunnies. Oh wait, she does draw dead bunnies, and bears and power-mad dictators and brainwashed groupies and religious hippie Kabbalah- loving crazies. She’s born in Camarillo, California, and is about to have her first solo exhibition at the See Line Gallery in Santa Monica. Yay for dead, authoritarian, brainwashed cute!

Your paintings look kind of like how a ten-year-old would draw, do you get that a lot?

I teach drawing to children, and all the ten year olds I know are much too uptight to draw like I do. The idea that children’s drawings are loose and free of inhibition is complete bullshit, and they’re generally extremely conservative about colour. If you mean they look sloppy and are very colourful, yes I get that all the time, though sometimes, rather than those of children, they are compared to the drawings of the mentally ill, the poorly educated, or the intellectually slow.

What or who would you say your inspirations were?

Inspiration is too changeable a thing to account for in a comprehensive list at the moment, but it would be a list which included Klaus Theweleit, Henry White Warren, Virginia Woolf, Mike Kelley, David Bowie, Laura Owens, film noir, Robert Musil, Tony Labat, Vladimir Nabokov, Dorothy L. Sayers, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and a good cup of coffee.

Awe and devotion are central themes in your current exhibition, spanning from the political to the spiritual - what makes them so interesting to you?

As a person who's always been interested in politics, and idolized hippies as a child, I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out where things went wrong between the 60s and the world I grew up in (that being the 80s). Obviously, a whole lot went wrong, but when I saw that Rennie Davis, a hugely important 60s political activist, had gone off to run a cult for a guru named the Majaraji Ji in the 70s, claiming that people needed to fix their spiritual insides before they could change the world, I saw a part of my answer. Here's this Indian teenager saying he's going to use the force of his will alone to bring peace on Earth, and thousands of people who used to be actively engaged with the real world (as wild and crazy as that engagement itself may have been, granted) decide to give up and bliss out and leave it all to him. That blew my mind, especially seeing how much this guru's spectacles looked like stuff straight out of The Triumph of the Will or a Chairman Mao propaganda poster. I had to see what the appeal was, and became increasingly convinced as I studied the recruiting materials that it was largely really good aesthetics.

I know how important set decoration is to the production of awe and devotion from firsthand experience: most of my own most ecstatic moments can largely be attributed to lighting and timing, but I think of such moments as largely fleeting and serendipitous, and I was struck by how dangerous it could be to actively pursue such a thing as a permanent state. The rush of being part of a crowd, of being surrounded by flying banners and people who seem to accept you simply for being nearby, these things might convert someone to just about anything—I mean, it's obvious given some of the political parties that have come to power from time to time that this is the case, and yet I wanted to understand it better, so I drew it. Drawing things helps me think about them, it helps me study them in a sort of half-conscious way that lends itself to flashes of inspiration that mere contemplating never does. I'm not a spiritual or religious person, but I know the feeling that acolytes are chasing, I think it's similar to what junkies are chasing, but I guess someone said that before.

We heard that you lasted one semester doing philosophy at the New School in New York. Funnily enough, we just did an interview with Faisal Devji who’s the Assistant Professor of History there. Do you know him? Should we study there?

I don’t know Faisal Devji. I was a research assistant for a very nice history professor there named Eli Zaretsky. I would only recommend you study there if you like wearing turtlenecks with leather jackets and smoking pipes.

So how did you get your big break on the arts scene?

I’ll let you know when I get it.

Who’s catching your attention on the American art circuit at the moment?

Lindsay Brant, Kelly Sears, Brad Eberhard, Paul Chan, Will Rogan.

David Shrigley or Quentin Blake?

I’d rather be named Quentin Blake than David Shrigley. I don’t understand what you’re asking me about them.

When you were little you wanted to be a writer: do you think you can express yourself as much with art as you can with literature? Does it seem as effective or communicative as a medium?

I think writing and art are suited to the expression of very different aspects of oneself. Art can be an endless associative chain, and can be facile, in the way that one’s idle musings on a series of seeming random things are facile. Writing is often expected to make a point, or to make something happen, like a plot. Art is allowed to refuse to do either of these things without becoming nonsensical and tiresome in the way writing tends to when it tries to do that. Art can be an experience of itself, without feeling obliged to answer the questions it poses, and it lets its audience choose its own pace and order. I don’t think art’s effectiveness necessarily corresponds to its communicativeness, whereas with writing, there is generally a more important relationship between the two. Drawing and writing employ very different parts of my brain, just like reading and looking do. I couldn’t do without either. I’m far more influenced by the writers I’ve read and known than artists, but my interests, and the way they’re shaped as intellectual objects, have tended to be more consistently suited to visual art. Or to put it another way: drawing is for brooding, writing is for figuring things out, and I brood more often.

How has the public response been to this exhibition? Do you have further plans with See Line?

I don’t feel like answering this question.

Okaay. It’s the hope issue. What hopes do you have for the future?

Open borders, Big Sur not being burnt to a crisp, war becoming boring to those who would make it, the art market not crashing.

http://www.dontpaniconline.com/magazine/hope/childs-play--the-art-of-ami-tallman

From Artforum.com

"Against the Grain"

LOS ANGELES CONTEMPORARY EXHIBITIONS
6522 Hollywood Boulevard
June 12–September 21

Responding in 1988 to the deep loss, widespread fear, oppressive sociopolitical conservatism, and aggressive culture of activism that characterized the AIDS crisis of the 1980s, writer Dennis Cooper and artist Richard Hawkins curated “Against Nature: A Group Show of Works by Homosexual Men” at Los Angeles Contemporary Exhibitions (LACE). As a controversial gesture of defiance, it posited a model of individual agency based on an irreverence for societal norms and moral standards, paired with a decadent embodiment of sexual desires, addictions, anxieties, and illness. Provoking much criticism and anger at the time, especially from the activist community, the show became somewhat legendary and deeply influential in the local art world, cultivating cult status among supporters who admired its radical subversion.

Twenty years later, “Against the Grain,” curated by Christopher Russell for LACE, revisits “Against Nature” and plays off its name as the alternative translation of J. K. Huysmans’s classic tale of solitary sensual indulgence, À Rebours. Tracing lines of historical continuity between the two shows, specifically through pedagogical inheritances, Russell selects fourteen young local artists to establish an artistic lineage that stems from Cooper and Hawkins’s transgressive polemic and arrives at a contemporary gothic sensibility, retaining an affinity with the grotesque, the macabre, and the erotic. To this end, “Against the Grain” includes a ruinous model city by John Knuth. In the corner behind a cluster of aged and decaying cardboard skyscrapers lie the mummified remains of several rats buried in a pile of salt. Elsewhere, Ami Tallman’s watercolors of dead birds and lifeless rabbits insidiously dress morbidity in lurid and beguiling hues. Amy Sarkisian’s menacing Godzilla, 2008—a circle of blackened bat homes mounted on wooden posts and studded threateningly with spikes—looks like a medieval instrument of torture, while Robert Fontenot molds bread dough into humanoid figurines enacting diminutive tragicomic scenes of brutal decapitation, cannibalism, patricide, and anarchy. Though the exhibition’s desired radicality congeals at instances into mere stylization (Wendell Gladstone’s paintings come to mind), “Against the Grain” provocatively excites an undead moment in Los Angeles’s recent past and argues convincingly for the timely resuscitation of a gothic approach to the political.

— Sarah Lehrer-Graiwer

http://artforum.com/picks/section=la#picks20787

What dim Arcadian pastures
Have I known
That suddenly, out of nothing,
A wind is blown,
Lifting a veil and a darkness,
Showing a purple sea —
And under your hair the faun's eyes
Look out on me?

Alice Corbin

Say, is there Beauty yet to find?
And Certainty? and Quiet kind?
Deep meadows yet, for to forget
The lies, and truths, and pain?... oh! yet
Stands the Church clock at ten to three?
And is there honey still for tea?


Excerpt from:
"The Old Vicarage, Grantchester"
Rupert Brooke, 1912

the boys i mean are not refined
they go with girls who buck and bite
they do not give a fuck for luck
they hump them thirteen times a night

one hangs a hat upon her tit
one carves a cross on her behind
they do not give a shit for wit
the boys i mean are not refined

they come with girls who bite and buck
who cannot read and cannot write
who laugh like they would fall apart
and masturbate with dynamite

the boys i mean are not refined
they cannot chat of that and this
they do not give a fart for art
they kill like you would take a piss

they speak whatever's on their mind
they do whatever's in their pants
the boys i mean are not refined
they shake the mountains when they dance

e.e. cummings

since feeling is first
who pays any attention
to the syntax of things
will never wholly kiss you;

wholly to be a fool
while Spring is in the world

my blood approves,
and kisses are a far better fate
than wisdom
lady i swear by all flowers. Don't cry
--the best gesture of my brain is less than
your eyelids' flutter which says

we are for eachother: then
laugh, leaning back in my arms
for life's not a paragraph

And death i think is no parenthesis

e.e. cummings

i have found what you are like
the rain,

(Who feathers frightened fields
with the superior dust-of-sleep. wields

easily the pale club of the wind
and swirled justly souls of flower strike

the air in utterable coolness

deeds of green thrilling light
with thinned

newfragile yellows

lurch and.press

-in the woods
which
stutter
and

sing

And the coolness of your smile is
stirringofbirds between my arms;but
i should rather than anything
have(almost when hugeness will shut
quietly)almost,
your kiss

e.e. cummings

it is at moments after i have dreamed
of the rare entertainment of your eyes,
when (being fool to fancy) i have deemed

with your peculiar mouth my heart made wise;
at moments when the glassy darkness holds

the genuine apparition of your smile
(it was through tears always)and silence moulds
such strangeness as was mine a little while;

moments when my once more illustrious arms
are filled with fascination, when my breast
wears the intolerant brightness of your charms:

one pierced moment whiter than the rest

-turning from the tremendous lie of sleep
i watch the roses of the day grow deep.

e.e. cummings

(preview of my solo show from flavorpill)

Ami Tallman: When the Sun Shines, It Does not Need Proof

Ami Tallman's Fauvist palette, her love of extreme decor, and her penchant for historical research each feed into her interiors and still lifes. Tallman's compositions — rendered in an urgent hand, with the exuberant embrace of carved railings, ornate frames, tapestries, hunting trophies, and classical art — are shaped by particular historical events and eras. Her previous series depicted country estates in advanced states of disuse. The current suite looks at the society of spectacle that spiritual and political leaders surround themselves with, as part of their charismatic polemic and power structure — a topic well-suited to the quirky majesty of Tallman's style.

– Shana Nys Dambrot

*preview for against the grain in flavorpill. (christopher took up painting and didn't tell me?)

Against the Grain

Known for its progressive, boundary-pushing performances and interdisciplinary bravado, LACE's lofty space transforms into a clean, white gallery for Against the Grain, perhaps this summer's most anticipated group show. Curated by painter and LA art-world impresario Christopher Russell, this exhibition responds to the trangressive 1988 show Against Nature: A Group Show of Work by Homosexual Men, which upped the ante on engagement in a restrictive political climate. Invited artists include DIY anti-monumental sculptor Anna Sew Hoy, urgent magic marker-wielding pictorial historian Ami Tallman, and the meticulous, cross-cultural allegorical painter Wendell Gladstone. It's not a bid to re-stage the original show, but rather to examine what words like "bohemian," "subversive," and "decadent" mean in the here and now.
– Shana Nys Dambrot

Masked Protest in Hyde Park 1973 - 03 003a
Originally uploaded by normko

Speakers' Corner 1972 02

Speakers' Corner 1972 03 024a
Originally uploaded by normko

Speakers' Corner 1972

Speakers' Corner 1972 03 041a
Originally uploaded by normko

perhaps the coolest man on earth.

(i didn't take this picture)

a spectacle involving neither gurus nor dictators, but one i managed to photograph a couple years back nontheless

almost like a battlefield

Sterling Ruby, artist of the century

A 1999 empirical analysis in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention described six motivational factors associated with bioterrorism, including: charismatic leadership; no outside constituency; apocalyptic ideology; loner or splinter group; sense of paranoia and grandiosity; and defensive aggression.

 

"Daniel Inouye, Hawaii's senior senator, has apologized for remarks he made about Barack Obama's schooling ahead of the state's primary election last week. Mr. Inouye, a strong supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, implied that the Honolulu-born Mr. Obama attended a ritzy, out-of-touch Hawaiian high school."
New York Times | Ariel Alexovich

From Reason Magazine:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/118937.html

Be Afraid of President McCain

The frightening mind of an authoritarian maverick

Matt Welch | April 2007 Print Edition

The John McCain presidency effectively began on January 10, 2007, when George W. Bush announced the deployment of five more combat brigades to Iraq. This escalation of an unpopular war ran counter to the advice of Bush’s senior military leadership, ignored the recommendations made by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and sidestepped the objections of the Iraqi government it was ostensibly intended to assist. But the plan was nearly identical to what the Republican senior senator from Arizona, nearly alone among his Capitol Hill colleagues, had been advocating for months: boost troop levels by at least 20,000, give coalition forces the authority to impose security in every corner of Baghdad, and increase the size of America’s overburdened standing military by around 100,000 during the next five years.

By enthusiastically endorsing McCain’s approach, the lame duck president all but finished the job of anointing the senator his political successor. McCain had already spent the previous three years lining up Bush’s campaign team, making nice with the social conservatives he railed against in the 2000 primaries, and positioning himself as the most hawkish of all the nomination-chasing Republican hawks. For the purposes of the 2008 campaign, Bush’s surge announcement was almost the perfect gift: McCain got to solidify his case with primary voters even while giving himself operational deniability. (“We’ve made many, many mistakes since 2003, and these will not be easily reversed,” he said on January 11, while reiterating his call for even more troops.) The sheer unpopularity of Bush’s move did knock the previously front-running McCain a notch or two behind Rudy Giuliani in the polls. (Both men have consistently finished ahead of Democratic contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in head-to-head competition.) But it also allowed McCain to recapture some of his lost reputation as a straight-talking independent. “I would much rather lose a campaign than lose a war,” he said with a grin on Larry King Live right after Bush’s speech. The press, which had been souring on the candidate during his noisy lurch to the right, breathed an audible sigh of relief. “Defiant McCain back as maverick,” declared the Chicago Tribune.

The significance of the McCain Plan transcended horse-race politics. It was a microcosm of the Arizona senator’s largely unexamined philosophy about the proper role of the U.S. government. Like almost every past McCain crusade, from fining Big Tobacco to drug-testing athletes to restricting political speech in the name of campaign finance reform, the surge involved an increase in the power of the federal government, particularly in the executive branch. Like many of his reform measures—identifying weapons pork, eliminating congressional airport perks, even banning torture—the escalation had as much to do with appearances (in this case, the appearance of continuing to project U.S. military strength rather than accept “defeat”) as it did with reality. And like the reputation-making actions of his heroes, including his father, his grandfather, and his political idol Teddy Roosevelt, the new Iraq strategy required yet another expansion of American military power to address what is, at least in part, a nonmilitary problem.

McCain’s dazzling résumé—war hero, campaign finance Quixote, chauffeur of the Straight Talk Express, reassuring National Uncle—tends to distract people from his philosophy of government, and his chumminess with national journalists doesn’t help. There is a more useful key to decode how he might behave as president. McCain’s singular goal in public life is to restore citizens’ faith in their government, to give us the same object of belief—national greatness—that helped save his life after he gave up hope as a POW in Vietnam.

Although Bill Kristol and David Brooks coined the phrase “national-greatness conservatism” in a 1997 Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, the sentiments they expressed and the movement forefathers they chose would have been right at home in one of the Chamber of Commerce speeches about the virtues of patriotism that McCain gave in the 1970s. Kristol and Brooks wrote that “wishing to be left alone isn’t a governing doctrine” and “what’s missing from today’s American conservatism is America.” McCain, then an ambitious pol-to-be working the rubber chicken circuit as a famous ex-POW, would deliver inspiring sermonettes about the value of public service and restoring America as an international beacon. All three men would eventually come together on such National Greatness projects as the “forward strategy of freedom” in the Middle East, trying to drive money out of politics, and, not least or last, getting John McCain elected president.

Like Kristol and Brooks, McCain regards Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln as political idols; like them, he never hesitates in asserting that government power should be used to rekindle American (and Republican) pride in government. Unlike most neoconservative intellectuals, however, McCain is intimately familiar with the bluntest edge of state-sponsored force. A McCain presidency would put legislative flesh on David Brooks’ fuzzy pre-9/11 notions of “grand aspiration,” deploying a virtuous federal bureaucracy to purify unclean private transactions from the boardroom to the bedroom. And it would prosecute the nation’s post-9/11 wars with a militaristic zeal this country hasn’t seen in generations.

Military Son

To say John McCain comes from a military family is a little like pointing out that Prince Charles is a scion of the upper class. Born in 1936, McCain is the Navy captain son of a four-star admiral who was the son of another four-star admiral, all named John Sidney McCain. And that just scratches the surface.

John McCain and his ancestors have served in every major U.S. war from the Revolution to Vietnam, and the line won’t stop there: 20-year-old John Sidney McCain IV (you can call him Jack) is learning the family trade at the Naval Academy, and 18-year-old Jimmy is in the Marines, waiting to deploy to Iraq. McCain’s father headed up the military’s Pacific command from 1968 to 1972, convincing President Nixon to illegally attack Cambodia and famously ordering the bombing of Hanoi even though he knew his son was still imprisoned there. He also led the controversial 1965 invasion of the Dominican Republic, which he defended by saying, “People may not love you for being strong when you have to be, but they respect you for it and learn to behave themselves when you are.” He warned early and often that Soviet naval power would soon eclipse America’s, and he palled around with the likes of the Indonesian dictator Haji Mohammad Suharto. His favorite book was Alfred Thayer Mahan’s The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, and his favorite poem was Oscar Wilde’s “Ave Imperatrix,” which he doubtless read as an unironic meditation on the righteous use of imperial power: “England! what shall men say of thee,/Before whose feet the worlds divide?/The earth, a brittle globe of glass,/Lies in the hollow of thy hand.”

McCain’s grandfather commanded all naval air power during World War II and started a three-generation tradition of schmoozing in Washington by heading the Bureau of Naval Aeronautics, where he ordered up weapons systems. McCain’s major-general granduncle was the father of the modern military draft. And his paternal great-grandmother’s side of the family, he says, has an even stronger military tradition, including a militia captain on George Washington’s Revolutionary War staff, an Army captain in the War of 1812, even royalist brawlers in England’s mid-17th-century Civil War.

The McCain men switched from Army to Navy right when Teddy Roosevelt dramatically expanded the country’s naval force—the “big stick” he waved whenever a rival colonial power got uppity in the Americas or the Pacific. McCain’s grandfather was on the flagship of the famous Great White Fleet when it finished its demonstrative 14-month world tour in 1908. “For the McCains of the United States Navy, as well as for many of our brother officers, presidents just didn’t get much better than Teddy Roosevelt,” McCain wrote in his 2002 book Worth the Fighting For. “He transformed the American navy from a small coastal defense force to an instrument for the global projection of power.”

The senator, his father, and his grandfather all took as a given that the U.S. Navy should control the world’s shipping lanes, guarantee the political stability of far-flung continents, and use overwhelming force at the hint of a threat to national interests. When John Sidney McCain III was growing up, every male around the dinner table could cite the exploits of British Admiral Lord Nelson, recite verse from Rudyard Kipling, and sing ribald songs about drunken misbehavior in ports of call. It’s the character trait reflected by that last fact, more than any highfalutin’ stirrings of National Greatness, that initially gave young John the fighting will to survive five years of brutal captivity during the Vietnam War.

John McCains I, II, and III shared more than just a name and profession. Each was short for a sailor, quick to violent temper (especially when accused of dishonesty or of benefiting from privilege), and lousy in the classroom. (The future senator graduated 894th out of a Naval Academy class of 899, but that was only marginally worse than his father, who was 423rd out of 441.) One reason for the poor academic performance was that each McCain was a five-star binge drinker and carouser. Grandpa “smoked, swore, drank, and gambled at every opportunity he had,” Sen. McCain wrote in his 1999 memoir Faith of My Fathers. Dad, while more discreet, was an out-and-out alcoholic. John spent his teens and 20s constantly flirting with disciplinary disaster by breaking every drinking and curfew rule on the books, concentrating more on Brazilian heiresses and Florida strippers than on his aviating skills. This wide streak of good-time rebelliousness—and his unusual frankness in discussing it—is one of many endearing things about the senator, along with his active and self-deprecating sense of humor, his still-salty tongue, and his convincing passion when confronting some types of injustice and government waste.

Any young McCain worth his salt could convert a grudge into motivational sustenance and torment his tormentors with defiant lip. So after being shot out of the sky during a risky raid over Hanoi in 1967, then pummeled by a mob of local Vietnamese and detained at the notorious prison nicknamed the Hanoi Hilton, McCain comported himself heroically despite two broken arms, a mangled knee, and innards wracked by dysentery and other maladies. Every morning for two years a guard the prisoners called The Prick would demand that McCain bow to him. Every morning McCain would refuse, then brace for his beating. Herded into a made-for-propaganda Christmas Eve service in the prison yard, McCain punctured the enforced silence with repeated shouts of “Fuck you!” while raising his middle finger to the camera. Beat senseless for days on end for refusing to divulge information or accept early release (which would have given the North Vietnamese a propaganda victory and violated the Navy’s honor code), he would reveal only the names of every player he could remember from the Green Bay Packers. “Resisting, being uncooperative and a general pain in the ass,” he wrote, “proved, as it had in the past, to be a morale booster for me.”

But it wasn’t enough to prevent him from finally cracking. After two weeks of particularly severe beatings in 1968, he recorded a forced confession—though not before half-heartedly attempting suicide—and then plunged into inconsolable, shame-wracked despair. “They were the worst two weeks of my life,” he recalled. What pulled him back from the brink was not the stubborn individuality that had sustained him through the years but the selfless encouragement of his fellow prisoners, who told him he did the best he could even while giving him strength to do better next time. “I discovered in prison that faith in myself alone, separate from other, more important allegiances, was ultimately no match for the cruelty that human beings could devise,” he wrote. “It is, perhaps, the most important lesson I have ever learned.”

Submerging and channeling his individuality into the “greater cause” of American patriotism became McCain’s reason for living. “I resolved that when I regained my freedom,” he wrote in Faith of My Fathers, “I would seize opportunities to spend what remained of my life in more important pursuits.” Upon his return to America he rehabilitated his injuries, studied the Vietnam War for a year at the National War College (cashing in on his father’s connections to gain a privilege for which his rank of lieutenant commander did not qualify him), commanded an air squadron for two years (again attaining a position for which he wasn’t technically qualified), and then rode out the 1970s as the Navy’s liaison officer to the U.S. Senate, where he built the political relationships that made possible his second career. After divorcing his first wife, retiring from the Navy, and marrying the young Arizona-based daughter of one of the country’s largest Anheuser-Busch distributors, McCain hunted around for an available Arizona congressional seat, bought a house in the district of 30-year GOP incumbent Jim Rhodes on the day the congressman announced his retirement, and served two terms in Congress before graduating to the Senate, where he succeeded a retiring Barry Goldwater in 1986.

Starting off as a Reagan conservative, McCain soon got caught up in the 1989 “Keating Five” scandal, in which he and four other senators were raked over the coals for pressuring regulators to go easy on the savings and loan magnate (and generous campaign donor) Charles Keating. Because the scandal called his honor and integrity into question, he counted it as an even worse experience than Vietnam. After enduring the scandal and his wife’s messy addiction to pills, McCain locked in on a lifelong political goal: to give all Americans the same opportunity to transform their lives that he had, by focusing their belief on the Land of the Free.

The 12-Step Guide to Expanding Government

Reading McCain’s four best-selling books is a revelatory experience. Not since Teddy Roosevelt has a leading presidential contender committed so many words to print about his philosophies of life and governance before seeking the Oval Office. All of McCain’s charming strengths and alarming foibles are there, hiding in plain sight, often unintentionally.

McCain on the page is reflexively self-effacing (“I have spent much of my life choosing my own attitude, often carelessly, often for no better reason than to indulge a conceit,” he writes in the second paragraph of Faith of My Fathers), consciously reverent of his heroes (Why Courage Matters and Character Is Destiny are basically collections of hagiographic mini-profiles threaded with a few self-help bromides), and refreshingly authentic-sounding (for a politician, anyway). He has a tendency to write passages that would fit perfectly in a 12-step recovery guide, especially Steps 1 (admitting the problem) and 2 (investing faith in a “Power greater than ourselves”). There isn’t any evidence that McCain himself has gone through the 12 steps, but his father was a member of Alcoholics Anonymous, his second wife received treatment in 1994 for her five-year addiction to pain medication, and he has spent a life surrounded by substance abusers. “I have learned the truth,” he writes in Faith of My Fathers. “There are greater pursuits than self-seeking.…Glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself.”

That “something” is the “last, best hope of humanity,” the “advocate for all who believed in the Rights of Man,” the “city on a hill” once dreamed by Puritan pilgrim John Winthrop (whom McCain celebrates in Character Is Destiny). Any thing or person perceived as tarnishing that city’s luster has a sworn enemy in the Arizona senator. “Our greatness,” he writes in Worth the Fighting For, “depends upon our patriotism, and our patriotism is hardly encouraged when we cannot take pride in the highest public institutions, institutions that should transcend all sectarian, regional, and commercial conflicts to fortify the public’s allegiance to the national community.”

So it was that McCain fought in 1994 to abolish a minor congressional privilege—use of the parking lot closest to the main terminal at National Airport. He readily acknowledged this was “merely a symbol” of corruption, not an actual abuse of power. “I meant only to recognize that people mistook such things for self-aggrandizement,” he explained in Worth the Fighting For. “Every appearance that inadvertently exacerbates their distrust is a far more serious injury than it would be had we made other, more serious attempts to rekindle Americans’ pride in their government.”

So many ways for Americans to lose their pride in government, so little time for reform! Everything from the trivial to the sublime became a “transcendent issue” requiring urgent federal attention. McCain has used the “transcendent” tag not just for campaign finance reform, the War on Terror, and Iraq, but for expanding Medicare, cracking down on Hollywood marketers, even banning ultimate fighting on Indian reservations. “National pride will not survive the people’s contempt for government,” he wrote in Worth the Fighting For. “And national pride should be as indispensable to the happiness of Americans as is our self-respect.”

Occasionally this impulse translates into a libertarian stance, as with the senator’s long-running rhetorical war on pork-barrel spending. More often it results in more government, even at the expense of the First Amendment.

Such has been the case with McCain’s favorite domestic issue: campaign finance reform. To restore Americans’ faith in their political system, McCain and Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) sponsored a 2002 law that prohibits advocacy groups such as the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club from paying for any radio or TV ad that mentions a federal candidate within two months of an election. As a result, active political participants (candidates and parties) and deep-pocketed media organizations can continue to attack and praise contenders, but independent groups may not (unless they form separate political action committees subject to federal contribution limits). Meanwhile, the McCain-Feingold bill tasked the Federal Election Commission with constantly re-interpreting the rules to close off new sources of financial support for political speech.

McCain’s fondness for government power doesn’t stop there. He pushed for the huge airline industry bailouts after September 11. He recently proposed legislation requiring every registered sex offender in the country to report all their active email accounts to law enforcement or face prison. He wants to federalize the oversight of professional boxing. He wants yet more vigor in fighting the War on Meth. He has been active in trying to shut down the “gun show loophole,” which allows private citizens to sell each other guns without conducting background checks. He has lauded Teddy Roosevelt’s fight against the “unrestricted individualism” of the businessman who “injures the future of all of us for his own temporary and immediate profit.”

If you’re beginning to detect a rigid sense of citizenship and a skeptical attitude toward individual choice, you are beginning to understand what kind of president John McCain actually would make, in contrast with the straight-talking maverick that journalists love to quote but rarely examine in depth. For years McCain has warned that a draft will be necessary if we don’t boost military pay, and he has long agitated for mandatory national service. “Those who claim their liberty but not their duty to the civilization that ensures it live a half-life, indulging their self-interest at the cost of their self-respect,” he wrote in The Washington Monthly in 2001. “Sacrifice for a cause greater than self-interest, however, and you invest your life with the eminence of that cause. Americans did not fight and win World War II as discrete individuals.”

McCain’s attitude toward individuals who choose paths he deems inappropriate is somewhere between inflexible and hostile. Nowhere is that more evident than when he writes about his hero Teddy Roosevelt, a man whose racism (he was a Darwin-inspired eugenicist who believed “race purity must be maintained”) and megalomania (he declared before the 1916 presidential campaign that “it would be a mistake to nominate me unless the country has in its mood something of the heroic”) do not merit more than a couple paragraphs’ pause in McCain’s adulation of his expansionist accomplishments. “In the Roosevelt code, the authentic meaning of freedom gave equal respect to self-interest and common purpose, to rights and duties,” McCain writes. “And it absolutely required that every loyal citizen take risks for the country’s sake.…His insistence that every citizen owed primary allegiance to American ideals, and to the symbols, habits, and consciousness of American citizenship, was as right then as it is now.” McCain, always disarmingly transparent in projecting his own ambitions onto the objects of his hagiography, describes Roosevelt as an “Eastern swell” who traveled West and fought wars to become “a man of the people.” He admires in equal measure the former president’s trust busting, his prolific writing, and his boyish, bull-headed vigor, but somewhere down deep he will always see Roosevelt as the commander of the Great White Fleet.

All War, All the Time

McCain’s lack of respect for individual choice, coupled with his slow-motion suck-up to social conservatives, has led to several reversals of social policy positions, most conspicuously regarding gay rights. McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, has repeatedly chastised his fellow Republicans for trying to win votes by marginalizing gay Americans, and gave a stirring eulogy in San Francisco for the United Flight 93 hero Mark Bingham, who was gay. But in the 2006 elections he made a fool of himself campaigning for an Arizona ballot initiative banning gay marriage. Perhaps because of the libertarian strain in Arizona’s political tradition, the proposition lost. McCain has been a pretty consistent opponent of abortion, but he went from saying he wouldn’t seek to reverse Roe v. Wade in 1999 to saying he would in 2006.

Such flip-flops have cooled McCain’s longstanding, mutually satisfying love affair with journalists. The senator had a natural affinity for writers long before his political career—befriending, for example, the legendary New York Times scribe R. W. “Johnny” Apple before his imprisonment in Vietnam. During the Keating Five scandal, he made a decision to start answering all media inquiries promptly and exhaustively. If there’s one thing journalists love, it’s access. (The New Republic’s John Judis opened a 2006 analysis of McCain by gushing about how he has liked him ever since a one-on-one interview a decade ago.)

And if there’s one thing reporters love more than access, it’s politicians who buck the orthodoxy of their own party, especially when the party is Republican. McCain made some lifelong media allies when he called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance” in 2000 and when he spoke out against ethanol subsidies despite the strategic importance of the Iowa caucuses. Throw in his war hero status, which plays well in the eyes of a distinctly nonmartial profession, and you’ve got the most favorable press notices of any U.S. senator.

Until now. Besides the damage done by his sudden turn to social conservatism, McCain’s stubborn and distinctly glum support of Bush’s widely despised troop surge in Iraq has brought into sharp focus the candidate’s concepts of when and how Washington should use the strongest military ever assembled, and whether the president should recognize any constraints from the co-equal branches of government. On these questions, the most militaristic presidential candidate since Ulysses S. Grant has provided a clear answer: If you think George W. Bush had an itchy trigger finger, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

In addition to calling for tens of thousands more troops in Iraq than Bush has committed, McCain has pushed to keep military options against Iran “open,” criticized the “repeated failure to back…rhetoric with action” against North Korea, supported a general policy of “rogue state rollback,” and lamented the Pentagon’s failure to intervene in Darfur. On his short list of senatorial regrets is voting to cut off funds for the botched invasion of Somalia and failing to push for sending troops to Rwanda. Like the neoconservatives with whom he has increasingly aligned himself, he sees Iraq and Iran as integral to a new twilight struggle against Islamic radicalism, while holding onto the belief that too much multilateralism can screw up a perfectly good war.

“A world where our ideals had a realistic chance of becoming a universal creed was our principal object in the last century,” he wrote in Worth the Fighting For. “In the process, we became inextricably involved in the destiny of other nations. That is not a cause for concern. It is a cause for hope.” As for the current mess in Iraq, McCain defends Bush’s doubling down by arguing that the alternatives are too horrible to contemplate. “We should make no mistake: Potentially catastrophic consequences of failure demand that we do all we can to prevail in Iraq,” he said in the Senate on January 11. “We were able to walk away from Vietnam. If we walk away from Iraq, we’ll be back, possibly in the context of a wider war in the world’s most volatile region.”

Regarding the U.S. president’s war-related prerogatives, McCain has a nearly unbroken record of deferring to them, from the moment he volunteered to testify against The New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case (even though his only expertise was in being a prisoner of war) to his rollover when Bush insisted that his ballyhooed anti-torture bill deny habeas corpus rights to War on Terror detainees and give the White House authority “to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions.” McCain once wrote that Teddy Roosevelt “invented the modern presidency by liberally interpreting the constitutional authority of the office to redress the imbalance of power between the executive and legislative branches that had tilted decisively toward Congress.” This is the kind of president John McCain is aching to be.

McCain is at his most unintentionally revealing when writing about his Republican predecessor in the Senate, Barry Goldwater. “I really don’t think he liked me much,” he wrote in Worth the Fighting For. “I don’t know why that was.…He was usually cordial, just never as affectionate as I would have liked.”

That it never occurred to McCain why a libertarian Westerner might keep a “national greatness” conservative and D.C.-bred carpetbagger at arm’s length is both touching and deeply worrisome. Does he not understand that there are at least some people in American life who take liberty as seriously as McCain takes his notions of national duty? Judging by a comment he made recently on the Don Imus radio show, the answer seems to be no. Defending campaign finance reform, McCain said, “I would rather have a clean government than one…where ‘First Amendment rights’ are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice I’d rather have a clean government.”

He may have his choice soon enough.

Matt Welch is assistant editorial page editor of the Los Angeles Times.

from Reason Magazine

http://www.reason.com/news/show/125184.html

American Idols

Will the "cult of Obama" hurt his chances? Get real.

David Weigel | February 26, 2008

Maybe it started with the fainting. After a while you couldn't ignore video and reports of Barack Obama supporters, sardine-tin-packed into his monster rallies, blacking out and dropping to the floor as the candidate hit his applause lines. Or maybe it started with the music video "Yes We Can," a black-and-white, celebrity-studded mash-up of Obama's soaring South Carolina primary victory speech.

Somewhere on the Illinois senator's improbable march toward the Democratic nomination—and his remarkable steamrolling of the heretofore invincible Clinton family—the American commentariat tried to shake it off. Los Angeles Times columnist Joel Stein fretted about a "cult of Obama." New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, whose anti-Obama tirades have been reprinted in Hillary Clinton campaign mail, saw the campaign becoming "a cult of personality". Neoconservative Washington Post scold Charles Krauthammer, whose ideology has the most to lose from an Obama triumph, warned Americans that history was repeating: "As a teenager growing up in Canada, I witnessed a charismatic law professor go from obscurity to justice minister to prime minister, carried on a wave of what was called Trudeaumania." (Not as spine-chilling as Krauthammer's usual warning of this or that third-worlder becoming the next Hitler, but scary enough.)

However it started, Obama opponents are hoping that this taint—that his campaign has taken on a cultish air—will do what 26 primaries haven't done and sink his White House bid. In his February 19 victory speech after the Wisconsin primary, all-but-sure GOP nominee John McCain promised to save Americans from an "empty but eloquent call for change". Hillary Clinton has been hitting that note in almost every campaign speech, trying to make a virtue of her dullness. The more she has lost, the harder she's banged the drum. At a campaign stop this weekend in Rhode Island, she accused Obama of ... well, of summoning divine powers. "I could stand up here and say, let's just get everybody together," Clinton said. "Let's get unified. The sky will open, the light will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know that we should do the right thing, and the world will be perfect."

The problem for Clinton isn't just that 79% of her fellow Americans actually believe in celestial choirs. The problem for both of Obama's opponents is that being a "cult leader" is not a demerit in the quest for the presidency. Americans don't want a down-to-earth executive. They want Jesus Christ. They'll settle for Sun Myung Moon.

This is a fairly recent American problem. The presidency was designed as a limited office to be filled by smart-enough placeholders who wouldn't upset the other two branches of government too much. His authority was below the Constitution, above the Army, equal to the Congress and the supreme court. That started to change with the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, who, in order to win a war, swallowed up ever more power to arrest, to detain and to send men into battle. As the witty libertarian scholar Gene Healy shows in his book The Cult of the Presidency, Lincoln was a trend-setter: Subsequent presidents have been imbued with more and more power, especially in times of war and crisis. Americans have coped with this—and even egged it on—by expecting their president to be a towering, heroic figure.

For a long time the Democrats were part of the trend. Pictures of John F Kennedy hang side-by-side with pictures of God's only son in countless stateside Latino homes and Irish bars. But the Vietnam war and the Watergate scandal sparked an identity crisis. In 1976 and 1980 the party gave its nomination to Jimmy Carter, the antithesis of an imperial president, a man who ditched the traditional inaugural limo ride for a plebeian walk down Pennsylvania Avenue and who responded to one of a plenitude of crises by telling the nation: "I realise more than ever that as president I need your help."

The Republicans nominated Ronald Reagan and dispatched Carter with ease. For 12 long years the Democrats grimaced as the Republicans mastered the presidency and made the job look far too big for the likes of Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis. The Democrats took back power with Bill Clinton and watched him fritter it away with scandals and political compromises. Sure, the Clinton years were prosperous. But in 2000 the GOP convinced voters that Clinton had failed to make them proud. "So many talents," Governor George W. Bush said at the 2000 Republican convention. "So much charm. Such great skill. But, in the end, to what end? So much promise, to no great purpose."

It's hard to remember in the reflected glow of Al Gore's Academy Award and Nobel Prize, but that year, Bush was the candidate of the cult. His middle initial was emblazoned on bumper stickers and rally signs. Supporters would hold up three fingers and he'd flash the symbol back to them. And after September 11 the cult reached L Ron Hubbard proportions. A man not favoured to win re-election became an epochal leader, an heir of Churchill and Lincoln. He was, in the words of some of his biographers, the Right Man and the Rebel-in-Chief.

Democrats didn't know quite what to do with this, and neither did a population of pundits that spent the years between a 9/11 and the Iraq war venerating the president. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" flight onto the USS Lincoln, in retrospect a blunder that started his unravelling, was seen at the time as an act of transcendent power, a leader alighting to earth and letting his people tap his halo. "I want to see him debate somebody like John Kerry or Lieberman or somebody wearing that jumpsuit," said MSNBC's Hardball host Chris Matthews. "I thought most of our guys were looking up like they were looking at Bob Hope and John Wayne combined on that ship."

The media jumped ship soon after that, but Bush's aura gilded his re-election. One of the most successful ads of the 2004 campaign, Ashley's Story, told of the day when Bush appeared at an Ohio campaign rally and learned a 9/11 victim's daughter was in the audience. He gave Ashley Faulkner a hug. She wept in full view of the cameras. "He's the most powerful man in the world," Faulkner said in the commercial, "and all he wants to do is make sure is that I'm safe, that I'm OK." The ad was run in nine states for a total of $14.2m. Bush carried all but three of those states, and sent John Kerry packing.

No Democrat would argue that this was a healthy development for the country. I wouldn't argue that, either. Even in eclipse, the power and cultish appeal of this president has hobbled civil libertarians who argue that the executive branch shouldn't, for example, have the power to spy on conversations between Americans, or that declarations of war imbue the president with extra-constitutional powers.

Credit Barack Obama. He's said that his view of the presidency doesn't allow for those powers. But credit him, too, for building a far more powerful cult that Bush was able to manage without a catastrophe. In his speeches Obama jokes about just how much people love him after they hear him speak. "A light bulb will go off," he says, "a beam of light will shine down, and you will say to yourself, 'I need to vote for Barack.'" You can see why this sends steam shooting out of John and Hillary's ears. You can see why Republican-leaning pundits are finally starting to turn their guns away from the Clintons and onto this pied piper.

But if anyone thinks Obama's cultish appeal will turn voters away from him, they don't understand how much voters have come to expect from their candidates, how much they want them to be figures worth adoring. Secular as the Democrats are accused as being, they're not about to tone down the messiah.

David Weigel is an associate editor of Reason. This article originally appeared in The Guardian online.

From the LA Times

McCain's doves

He's a hawk on the war, yet independent-minded voters who are sick of Iraq are voting for him anyway.

By Matt Welch
February 1, 2008

John McCain will likely go down in history as the first GOP presidential nominee who vaulted to the front of the pack despite failing to win a plurality among self-identified Republicans in any of the early state primaries.

According to Florida exit polls, the Arizona senator tied Mitt Romney among voters who described themselves as Republican but pulled away to victory with a nearly 2-1 advantage among independents. That formula -- battle to a draw for Republicans, stomp all comers among independents -- powered McCain's wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina and has made him the front-runner heading into Super Tuesday.

It's no mystery why independents gravitate toward McCain. He's a country-first, party-second kind of guy who speaks bluntly and delights in poking fellow Republicans in the eye on issues such as campaign finance reform and global warming.

But there's a bizarre disconnect in the warm embrace between McCain and the electorate's mavericks. They hate the Iraq war, while he's willing to fight it for another century. The most pro-war presidential candidate in a decade is winning the 2008 GOP nomination thanks to the antiwar vote.

A full 66% of independents think that the U.S. should completely withdraw from Iraq no later than 12 months from now, according to a Jan. 18-22 L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll. McCain, meanwhile, said last month that the U.S. might stay in Baghdad for another 100 years. He continually expresses bafflement at the idea that that might not be such a good thing. "It's not the point! It's not the point!" he snarled at reporters recently. "How long are we going to be in Korea?"

And yet he dominated the antiwar vote in New Hampshire, with 44% to Romney's 19%, according to CNN exit polls. Ron Paul, the only actual antiwar Republican running, drew just 16% of voters who said they were against the war. The three finished in the same order among antiwar voters in Michigan, even though Romney won the state overall.

The same pattern holds true in the case of voters who despise George W. Bush. In Florida, for example, McCain clobbered Romney 48% to 18% among those who described themselves as "angry" at the president, according to MSNBC exit polls.

So the voters most hostile to the war are backing a potential commander in chief who makes Bush look gun-shy. More than three years before the Bush administration elucidated the radical doctrine of preemptive war, McCain unveiled a plan during his first run at the presidency called "rogue-state rollback," in which "we politically and materially support indigenous forces within and outside of rogue states" -- including Iraq, North Korea and Serbia -- "to overthrow regimes that threaten our interests and values." And if the "odious regimes" crack down on freedom fighters, the U.S. should respond with force. In that campaign, McCain was the neocons' choice against the more internationally "humble" George Bush.

McCain has advocated threatening North Korea with "extinction," and memorably sung about how we should "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." He agitated for military intervention in Darfur, regrets that we didn't send troops to Rwanda and is fond of rattling sabers in the general direction of Moscow and Beijing. During the U.S. bombing of Kosovo in 1999 -- when McCain showily suspended his presidential campaign because he'd rather lose a campaign than lose a war -- the senator drew media raves for managing to support the intervention while simultaneously slamming the president for not threatening more overwhelming force.

This easily discoverable uber-hawkishness runs in the family. His four-star Navy admiral father helped prosecute the war in Vietnam and delivered famous lectures about the role of U.S. sea power in making the world safe for democracy. His four-star Navy admiral grandfather worshiped at the altar of interventionist extraordinaire Teddy Roosevelt. If the U.S. has an imperialist class, as historian (and informal McCain advisor) Niall Ferguson has advocated, then John McCain sits at its head.

Still, too many people, wowed by the candidate's considerable charm, have convinced themselves that launching wars is for icky people like that Bush fellow, not Our John. "He knows war," the Des Moines Register wrote, in one of roughly 17,000 newspaper endorsements of McCain over the last two months, "something we believe would make him reluctant to start one." For Californians tempted by such delusions, it's wise to recall the famous words of the last septuagenarian to successfully seek the presidency: Trust, but verify.

Matt Welch is editor of Reason magazine and author of "McCain: The Myth of a Maverick."