McCain Spurns "Reality-Based Community"

In October 2004, the journalist Ron Suskind published a great piece in the New York Times magazine about George W. Bush. In one classic phrase, an unnamed Bush aide frighteningly described the Bush Administration's political and governing modus operandi:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

For quite a long time, John McCain could be considered a member of the "reality-based community." He cared what experts and pundits thought about him, fought extremists within his own party and denounced the smear tactics of groups like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

But before running for president a second time, McCain made a gamble that that McCain couldn't get elected. So he courted the religious powerbrokers he once labeled "agents of intolerance," supported the tax cuts he once said we couldn't afford and embraced Republican policies like offshore drilling that he once described as cockamamie.

Now the McCain campaign sounds and acts eerily similar to the Bush campaigns of 2000 and 2004. The past week, in particular, McCain has been roundly criticized for his lies, stretches and distortions. And here's how McCain aide Brian Rogers responded:

"We recognize it's not going to be 2000 again. But he lost then. We're running a campaign to win. And we're not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it."

The onetime media darling no longer cares what his friends in the press think. The old rules don't apply. Even if the media says McCain is lying, that doesn't mean he'll stop.

Comments (31)

1. "But before running for president a second time, McCain made a gamble that that McCain couldn't get elected. So he courted the religious powerbrokers he once labeled "agents of intolerance," supported the tax cuts he once said we couldn't afford and embraced Republican policies like offshore drilling that he once described as cockamamie."

   "And here's how McCain aide Brian Rogers responded: "We recognize it's not going to be 2000 again. But he lost then. We're running a campaign to win."

   Yep...but I'm betting it's "win the election at all costs...GOVERN to win a favorable place in history."

   McCain wins?...he still keeps lying, but the Right discovers THEY were lied to too.

   Here's a simple way to avoid the problem...

   let's get Obama elected!

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 11:01am

2. McCain sees absolutely no margin in truth.

   If he's to have any chance at all, only lying - outrageously - might earn him victory. What's he got to lose that he hasn't already lost?

   Posted by sloper at 09/15/2008 @ 11:07am

3. "The onetime media darling no longer cares what his friends in the press think. The old rules don't apply. Even if the media says McCain is lying, that doesn't mean he'll stop."

   It doesn't mean they'll stop playing his debunked advertising either. It's interesting to watch the punditoids trash these new ads and then see the ads a few minutes later during the commercial break.

   Posted by HAL9000 at 09/15/2008 @ 11:44am

4. So, the 'reality based community' consists of 'pundits, experts, and friends in the media', consisting, of course, only of Democrats? Are any Republicans part of the 'reality based community', or is that a self-selected clique? Amazing that you folks actually believe this drivel.

   Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 11:46am

5. Pontificus, In opposition to drivel, enlighten us with the facts in McCain's advertising. Getting the names of the candidates right doesn't count.

   Posted by HAL9000 at 09/15/2008 @ 11:54am

6. Ponti:

   Hmmm .. let's compare the statement stats on Politifact.com

   True/Mostly True: McCain 40% [n=113] Obama 55% [n=114]

   False/"pants on fire" lies: McCain 25% Obama 16% (McCain with 6 counts of "pants on fire" to Obama's "zero")

   Posted by leftofcenter at 09/15/2008 @ 12:13pm

7. Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 11:46am

   "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."----Stephen Colbert (in character), PONTIFICUS (not)

   LOL

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 12:16pm

8. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 12:16pm

   I love that quote.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/15/2008 @ 12:33pm

9. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 12:16pm

   Interesting, MASK. So you find nothing odd about the idea that anyone who disagrees with your side of the political spectrum is simply 'not part of the reality-based community'? Talk about insulated.

   "How could Nixon have won? I don't know ANYBODY who voted for him!" Pauline Kael, 1972.

   Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 12:36pm

10. "So, the 'reality based community' consists of 'pundits, experts, and friends in the media', consisting, of course, only of Democrats?"

    Actually, no. The very article you are posting to includes McCain as a former member of the reality-based community. He's a Republican. So the author is obviously open to including Republicans in the category.

    Posted by BlueSpark at 09/15/2008 @ 12:37pm

11. Posted by BlueSpark at 09/15/2008 @ 12:37pm

    "So the author is obviously open to including Republicans in the category."

    Perhaps 'Democrats' is too broad. How about 'Democrats and Republicans we find useful.'

    Tell me, do you think the Reverend Wright is part of the 'reality-based community'?

    Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 12:41pm

12. PONTIFICUS! I issued you a challenge. Have ye the minerals to respond?

    Posted by HAL9000 at 09/15/2008 @ 12:41pm

13. So Ponti, are you admitting that you aren't concerned with "reality"? Might I infer by extension that you then are a believer in BushRovian "surreality"?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/15/2008 @ 12:42pm

14. Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 11:46am

    The idea of a "reality-based community" isn't a particularly new idea, and despite all the teeth nashing, there's some truth to it.

    On Wall Street, they have a standard caveat that goes out with every financial statement that cautions investors about forward looking statements and how the "past performance is no guarantee of future results". These are necessary because it is true that historical circumstances are often quite different and not necessarily analogous.

    The flip side of granting this point is that it's equally stupid - and perhaps more so - to suggest that historical conditions don't apply and that you can create your own reality.

    For example, no matter how powerful, one brigade is not enough to occupy a country. Or that simply removing a dictator is suddenly going to solve problems created by ethnic and social rivalries.

    There is also the problem of unintended effects - which are often best understood by using historical analogies.

    The idea of "reality based community" isn't an issue of right or left. It is more an issue of fundamentalism - irrespective of whether that fundamentalism is neoconservative or revolutionary communist. And unfortunately, it is often a product of wishful thinking and hubris, rather than a rational acceptence of the fact that we can change outcomes by acting or acting differently.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/15/2008 @ 12:42pm

15. Posted by leftofcenter at 09/15/2008 @ 12:42pm Posted by srjenkins at 09/15/2008 @ 12:42pm

    I'm not denying the importance of reality, I'm just disputing that people from the left have any particular claim to it. Considering the track record of the statist philosophy they espouse, I would think it's quite the opposite.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 12:52pm

16. On top of that. I love that even Karl Rove is saying that McCain is taking it too far. Karl Rove for God's sake.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/15/2008 @ 12:57pm

17. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/14/campaign.wrap/index.html

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/15/2008 @ 1:00pm

18. Even Rove is calling McCain out on lies. Saying that he has taken it one step too far.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/15/2008 @ 1:00pm

19. "McCain said last week that he thinks the tone of the campaign would be different had Obama agreed to appear with him in town hall meetings across the country."

    That also, is McCain admitting to the American people that he started this. He is saying that he wouldn't have started launching attacks had things gone the way he wanted. Which kind of reminds me of a wailing child. Who when they can't get what they want, instead kicks and screams.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/15/2008 @ 1:02pm

20. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 12:16pm

    "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."----Stephen Colbert (in character), PONTIFICUS (not)"

    Er, MASK? Colbert is a comedian, and that was a joke. Pretty funny...but accurate? Not.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 1:03pm

21. "Perhaps 'Democrats' is too broad. How about 'Democrats and Republicans we find useful.'"

    Or, more benignly, "people who take the idea of truth seriously even if they disagree about what to do about it." Oh wait, but that rendering doesn't allow you to attack anyone. Never mind.

    "Tell me, do you think the Reverend Wright is part of the 'reality-based community'?"

    No, I don't. And I won't be voting for him come November.

    Posted by BlueSpark at 09/15/2008 @ 1:32pm

22. Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 1:03pm

    Well, PONTI, you're no comedian...but you are a joke....which IS pretty accurate!

    LOL

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 2:03pm

23. "I'm not denying the importance of reality, I'm just disputing that people from the left have any particular claim to it."

    The article doesn't say that they do. It merely points out that McCain used to attempt to follow the truth even if it meant going against his own party, and that now he has given that up.

    It's not the author's fault that right-wing policy has been taking it on the chin from reality for the past eight years.

    Posted by BlueSpark at 09/15/2008 @ 2:50pm

24. Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/15/2008 @ 2:46pm

    I think you missed the point, LVL. "Reality-based" was a quote from a neocon not interested in the deep understanding of issues, a la Bush I, because they think that with power and initiative, these neocons can create their own reality. This kind of thinking lead to the arguments that we would be in and out of Iraq in six months - an argument anyone with any familiarity with history would know as B.S.

    In other words, "reality-based" is the group of people that don't subscribe to this philosophy - which includes practically everyone in...how did Bush describe it, oh yes, the "chattering classes".

    Don't complain when the phrasing the groups you support is turned to reveal just what kind of people they are...

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/15/2008 @ 3:54pm

25. Who is this "reality based community" and who do they report to? Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/15/2008 @ 2:46pm

    Yeah LVL. You need to reread that statement. "Reality-Based Community" came from some one in the Bush group, not from the left. So you should be insulting your own.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/15/2008 @ 4:36pm

26. So, I continue to posit that this is a baseless charge by Ari. No conservative I know would ever refer to the MSM as the "reality based community". That is an oxymoron. Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/15/2008 @ 4:27pm

    Just because YOU don't want to believe it, doesn't make it false LVL.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/15/2008 @ 4:38pm

27. Don't complain when the phrasing the groups you support is turned to reveal just what kind of people they are... Posted by srjenkins at 09/15/2008 @ 3:54pm

    Oh he isn't complaining. Like usual. Any disparaging comment using a source from his own political ideals is automatically a lie, a miquote, taken out of context or if the author uses an unnamed source, for the protection of the source generally, it is all just a fabrication. LVL is of the type to refuse to believe that anyone on "his side" would make such a statement because he seems to believe it is him and his side versus "the enemy". The enemy being anyone to the left of Bush.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/15/2008 @ 4:43pm

28. Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/15/2008 @ 4:27pm

    Granted, it's an unnamed source - easy to understand why. A named source would have been fired immediately.

    It is also described as kind of a slip-of-the-tongue. It would have to be because talking about "reality based" makes you sound like an idiot. If you used the term here - or your conservative brethren elsewhere - you'd be rightly ridiculed. But then again, there's plenty of things you might say to someone that shares your views that you wouldn't say to me, now aren't there?

    With that said, this fits the facts.

    It is well-known that Bush I did try to understand the issues. Perhaps, it's his CIA background.

    It's equally well-known that his son was much more into listening to his "gut" - and was eager to demonstrate he was different from his father. If it wasn't actually said, it certainly does a good job of capturing the mentality of a President that believes that the people he supposedly represents are the "chattering classes" and has something to prove.

    Also, if you had bothered to read the article, you would know that "reality based community" was posited across party lines:

    "Who besides guys like me are part of the reality-based community? Many of the other elected officials in Washington, it would seem. A group of Democratic and Republican members of Congress were called in to discuss Iraq sometime before the October 2002 vote authorizing Bush to move forward. A Republican senator recently told Time Magazine that the president walked in and said: ''Look, I want your vote. I'm not going to debate it with you.''"

    We aren't talking standard Democrat vs. Republican breaks here, so you need to sharpen up your game a little and address those differences.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/15/2008 @ 4:57pm

29. "It's equally well-known that his son was much more into listening to his "gut" - and was eager to demonstrate he was different from his father. If it wasn't actually said, it certainly does a good job of capturing the mentality of a President that believes that the people he supposedly represents are the "chattering classes" and has something to prove."

    "We listen to our gut.... This man believes the same thing on Wednesday that he believed on Monday, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENED ON TUESDAY."

    -Stephen Colbert (White House Press Conference)

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/15/2008 @ 5:16pm

30. Pontificus came on here...literally got spanked...and continued to argue!!!? Ten seconds after hitting submit on your first post would've been a good time to turn on fox news and pretend you were logged off of this website. I am not saying you shouldn't have been in the audience as you were torn up, but continuing in the discussion?... It's not a good look for you

    Posted by ADHD at 09/15/2008 @ 7:35pm

31. Are there any of you in the US relality based community who know how Iraqi men women and innocent children have been killed ? For Oil.

    Posted by shoomuk at 09/15/2008 @ 7:37pm