Saturday, March 15, 2008

John McCain: The Perquisites of Power

I yam what I yam

I yam what I yam
The straight talk express runs on cash.



What to think of John McCain? Before beginning, may I say, I have never voted for a Republican, so if I were to do so now it would be more a sign of senescence than a reasoned choice.

I read a recent editorial that described him as an "antinomian." I think it was in the Nation. The reference then was to medieval clerics who thought they had license to live any way they wanted because their virtue had already been established. Hence, riches, wine, women and song.

This sent me to the Oxford English Dictionary. Even though I have the twenty volume version, I can hardly read the small print. I can make out that Milton used to talk about antinomians, but whether he liked them or not, I don't know.

One usage of "Antinomianism" seems to be a doctrinal position. Another looks like an insult. The Nation (if that is who it was) apparently intends it as an insult that sounds more erudite than "hypocrite."

I doubt McCain has considered whether he is a doctrinal antinomian or anti-antinomian. (The opposite of antinomian you would think would be nomian, but this does not appear to be the case. Just like the opposite of agnostic is not gnostic. Neither is antidisestablishmentarian more simply called establishmentarianism, although it appears it could be. Tristram asks you pardon the digression, Uncle Toby.)

In essence, an antinomian believes grace replaces the law. An antinomian dispute is recorded in Acts 15 regarding whether circumcision is mandated. As excited as Republicans get about gay marriage, I don't know how we have avoided a national debate about circumcision.

If you have seen law applied up close and personal, the temptation to throw it all out for a little grace makes a great deal of sense. Somehow I doubt this describes McCain, either.

McCain rose like a Phoenix from the ashes of the Keating Five. Part of the McCain much-vaunted bipartsanship may stem from these days when he joined with four Democratic Senators to take money and favors from Lincoln Savings and Loan before it collapsed and cost the public purse $3.4 billion. All the Democrats fell into ruin, retirement and disgrace. Democrats are supposed to get caught with women, not lobbyist money. Republicans get caught with boys and money, but they can be forgiven for the money. (This Spitzer guy seems to be a Republican who likes women, but New York Republicans have always been different.)

The problem is that McCain seems to need to dip into the ashes again from time to time when the cash runs short. I can understand that; sometimes when a guy wants to get somewhere in the world, he does what he has to do.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

You know, that part you labeled a digression was by far the most focused. It's everything else that seemed disorganized.

I do have to ask, when you say:

This Spitzer guy seems to be a Republican who likes women, but New York Republicans have always been different.

Is that humor or ignorance? Spitzer is a Democrat.

Patricia A.

StapletonAndStapleton said...

Dear Ms. A,

Just ignorance. I should have known he was a Democrat when the scandal involved female prostitutes.

In the future I'll try to limit my discussions to digressions and leave out everything else.

Ed

BobbyWC said...

Because I take no shame in learning I have to admit I had to look up the meaning of senescence.

"A late stage in the development of multicellular organisms, during which irreversible loss of function and degradation of biological components ..."
www.biobasics.gc.ca/english/View.asp

The shorter definition of getting old just seemed so boring.

Ed, I find your writing refreshing. Unlike mine it has structure and grammar - years of TIA's and senescence has taken its toll on my grammar and structure.

Anonymous said...

The entire diatribe was digression. Freudian slip?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, Republicans have scandals with young male pages. Still some have non-minor intersexual (new word) relations. Louisiana U.S. Senator Vitter had a prostitution scandal recently.

But don't Democrats have scandals with homosexuals too (i.e. Barney Frank and former NJ Governor whose name escapes me)?

Or is it really Democratics? Wasn't there a bruhaha over this a couple of years ago?

I am an equal opportunity grouch!

StapletonAndStapleton said...

With Democrats, if gays of majority age are involved, it is not a scandal, just gossip.

I enjoy the critiques. My wife is much too harsh if I ask her to read anything I have written.

Freud, yes. Freud, Marx and Darwin. It is hard to beat the 19th Century. I also have Marxian and Darwinian slips.

Anonymous said...

Frankly, I find the statements to be of a banal nature and rift with prejudice. Were I gay, I would be highly insulted that one would infer from that that I am also a Democrat.

BobbyWC said...

VISCOUNT - LOL

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Anonymous said...

Mr. Stapleton,

I beg to differ on your definition of scandal. Mr. Frank's gay prostitution in the 1980s was not gossip. It was scandal and probably criminal. Mr. McGreevy's homosexual relationship was not gossip it was scandal because it forced his resignation from office.

By your logic then all Republican and Democrat "scandals" are "gossip".

Gossip is when neighbors cheat on their spouses and people talk. Scandals are when it involves political leaders and public officials and taints their public image or worse removes them from office.

RGV