Is John McCain a Neo-Con?

Many names get tossed around in the world of politics, but none with as much force as "neo-con." Usually said with scorn and a wrinkled brow, it's a word Bush-bashers have become comfortable using over the past few years to describe the upper-echelon officials who have made decisions that turned out to be far to the opposite – at least in the end result – of public desire.

As the election draws nearer, and bumper stickers flaunt the date for Inauguration Day as a future Independence Day, many have almost dismissed the current administration as the past and started looking forward to the future.

In our next four years as a country, the U.S. has two options: Barack Obama or John McCain. Obama, whose share of media coverage is surpassed only by his pastor and mongering of economic despair, represents (drum roll, please) a change from the neo-con status quo and hope for a better tomorrow.

On the flip side, there's John McCain. Many McCain detractors fear that putting him in power would be would be an ill-advised continuation of current policy. Last month on The Situation Room, former Presidential candidate and Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) said that electing John McCain would be like electing George W. Bush to a third term, simply continuing the neo-conservative legacy. The word neo-conservative, however, is one thrown around loosely in the media and in public, with the original ideological meaning long forgotten.

So I ask: Is John McCain a neo-conservative?

The topic is open to debate, and has been discussed often. The two major schools of the Republican party--the neo-cons vs. the pragmatists--are fighting over McCain's approval on their positions, especially on issues as hot as the War on Terror.

McCain's alignment with the less-aggressive pragmatists, who have been more critical of the war, goes back to 1983, when he disapproved of sending Marines to Lebanon, before he condemned large operations in Somalia, Kuwait and Haiti. He was not formerly a huge fan of police actions, or situations which could be declared war-like, and have been declared such in the cases of Vietnam, Korea and currently Iraq.

Recently, McCain's foreign policy views have changed. As the election speeches go on, he is trying to establish himself as the most competent potential Commander in Chief, and tries to rally the GOP with exclamations of success in Iraq and polemics against Iran. As an almost anti-war Senator in the 1980s and '90s, John McCain has now planted himself firmly in the faith of the neo-conservative base with his willing continuation of preemptive policy. Given his past actions, it is difficult to tell whether or not a McCain election would be favorable to any one voter's views.

The final verdict on whether McCain is a neo-con won't surface for months, but by then it may be irrelevant. As the focus of the race becomes less about who will be running and more about what they are running for, clarity on what John McCain really believes becomes necessary, more sooner than later. Right now, there are three major views that can be taken on his politics. Some voters have faith in the Straight Talk Express to govern as he did ten or twenty years ago. Others will use his contrasting views as evidence of flip-floppery or indecision, and negate his opinions based on their own confusion. A third group of voters will believe he has turned away from his pragmatist background, and sided with the neo-cons – a position that fares well with some voters and horribly with others.

Overall, John McCain's stances on various issues have changed since his primary run in 2000. His maverick spirit has been forgotten, at least temporarily, as he focuses on the group who is now most loyal to the Republican Party and most defensive of President Bush. Whether he is pandering or has genuinely changed his mind, running on the platform of continued GOP strength is what got him the Republican nomination. But his consistency of his rhetorical angles – and its effectiveness on the populace – remains to be seen.