jrh72582
Well-Known Member
I thought McCain was a man of principle and like him when he was butting heads with the neo-con republicans. However, as he got more popular and held more sway, he certainly abandoned his principles. Even throughout his career, he abandoned his core beliefs.I find faith hucksters to be an afflicting thorn in my side, but McCain didn't kick his Pastor to the curb when he hit a bump in the road.... a man of principles.
I don't agree with some of what McCain stands for, but I will always choose a person of principle over one who merely changes spots when the going gets rough.
As an early example, he felt that MLK should NOT have a public holiday and openly spoke out against it. So he is on camera denying that MLK was an important enough public figure to deserve a holiday. Then, when the media pressured him for his perceived racist sentiment, he backed off and then supported the holiday.
As a later example, he really did a 180 with the first two bailout bills, which he fully supported. I thought of all people, McCain would certainly put a fight on the bailouts, but he signed off on the first two TARP bailouts. Bush designed the bailout and McCain pushed for it. Even Joe the Plumber called McCain out for that departure.
So ultimately, for me, it was a case of a principled man (and one who I admired) turning into a no-good politician. Now, I am not against politicians changing their minds - I think it's healthy to change your mind after much reflection and thought, but only if you change your stance for the right reasons. For example, Ronald Reagan was anti-stem cells his whole life (and political career). Then, when he becomes afflicted with Alzheimer's, he's suddenly a proponent of stem cell research because he realized that it may help him and his disease. So, he changed his mind because of an egocentric and ultimately, selfish reason. For this, he's viewed as a hypocrite. But if he changed his mind for other reasons, he may have been viewed as thoughtful and altruistic instead of selfish. This dilemma (aptly named "the Reagan dilemma) is in the newest edition of Pojman's Introduction to Philosophy textbook, in the chapter on fallacies of reason. It's an interesting example.
Thoughts?