Now that the primary presidential campaigns are shifting into high gear, a clear difference emerges between Democrats and Republicans. On one side, beta Tweedledee and rumpled Tweedledum argue about a monthly $10.00 payment difference for medical insurance and try to show how they can beat each other at squandering The People's money in the name of compassion. On the other side, the candidates seem to know that they are not running for Accountant in Chief of the United States. They address larger questions about the role of government in what they consider important problems of the time. They widely agree that the ethics and principles at the core of the U.S. constitution would guide their presidencies. Each of them can be identified with a major theme that transcends the minutiae of day-to-day politics. Well, each of them but one.

John McCain is the different candidate. Coming from the senate, he can claim government experience. His military record indicates that he is a courageous man who survived communist imprisonment and torture with as much dignity as humanly possible. As a politician, he has earned the flattering title of "maverick" from pundits, journalists, and television newsreaders for his many assaults on "special interests" that keep honest senators like him from being honest. Even better, in a show of spectacular statesmanship, he and Democrat Sen. Feingold authored a bill of campaign finance reform, the kind of bipartisan move that the media establishment holds in the highest esteem. Of course, this was a safe, symbolic, and phony gesture because the bill did not have a chance to become law. On the stump, campaign finance reform is Sen. McCain's major issue, which he promises to pursue vigorously in a crusade against "special interests."

On the surface, this "maverick" image looks pure and good, but quickly dissolves under closer examination. Sen. McCain's main theme rests on the premise that the contributions of "special interests" to a candidate's campaign inevitably corrupt the candidate and make him an agent of these "special interests" against the good of the nation and the welfare of the electorate. Therefore, as he goes on to say, all politicians are corrupt, including himself. Of course, this rhetoric provides a good excuse to people who are too lazy to take an interest in politics and claim to be disfranchised by "the system." It also give an escape to the blatant violators of campaign finance laws---including Messrs. Clinton and Gore---who can conveniently decline responsibility for their shenanigans and divert attention with calls for reform. Journalists, who overwhelmingly vote Democrat, of course support such calls, and find in McCain their dream poster boy. Meanwhile, the maverick raises "corrupting" money, uses "corrupting" corporate aircraft for his campaign, and so finds himself in the back pocket of the "special interests." But all is well because "the system" makes him do it against his own will. Willie Sutton, when asked why he robbed banks, is said to have answered "because that's where the money is." If we agree with the McCain logic about the corrupting effect of money and "special interests," we should accept that it is "the system," with its money and its banks, which made Sutton a bank robber, and that the blame should be apportioned accordingly. Moreover, the same logic would prescribe that we forget about arresting the robber, and that we reform "the system." I am sure that Sutton himself could have made interesting suggestions about that.

If we lived in a world where good sense prevailed, the silliness of this position would not escape anyone. Unfortunately, good sense has long left the realm of politics. Sen. McCain, who claims to be a conservative, is not loath to using leftist clichés when he thinks it expedient. For example, he stands against tax cuts that could return more money to "millionaires" than to people of lesser means. Given the tax rates applied to millionaires and concomitant government revenues, such a position smacks of the politics of envy and class warfare dear to Dick Gephardt and the left. More recently, Sen. McCain flip-flopped on the spurious question of the Confederate battle flag flying atop the South Carolina capitol, and asserted his belief that the War between the States was fought over the issue of slavery. Uttered by a recent high-school graduate, this distortion of historical fact would be forgivable, as we know the sort of revisionism that currently pervades education. But Sen. McCain is about my age and is no recent high-school graduate. He is an Annapolis graduate, was a career officer in the Navy, a US representative, and has been a senator for fourteen years. He must know that the Emancipation Proclamation was enacted in September 1862, almost a week after the battle of Antietam and well into the war. So, is his misrepresentation of history a sincere mistake, or a bow to political correctness? Circumstances would have any sensible person opt for the latter, which makes Sen. McCain look like a slick politician and not a principled, albeit maverick, conservative.

Similarly, candidate McCain dances around the question of gun control. Although he presents himself as a protector of the right to own guns, he wants to ban "cheap handguns," which seems to restrict Second Amendment protection to rich folks. But what is a cheap gun? Is it a weapon declared "cheap" by legislators, the same way that semi-automatic firearms became "assault weapons" overnight? Sturm-Ruger, a reputable American company, makes a quality 9mm pistol that sells for about half the price of its Heckler & Koch competitor. Is this a "cheap gun" to be banned, even though it passed grueling army tests with flying colors? Sen. McCain's position on the issue is meaningless and just looks like an overture to the gun control zealots. Then, he says that he is "intrigued" by electronic identification devices that prevent operation by anyone other than a gun's owner. He should not be intrigued. He should just think of what would happen if Mrs. Mudgeon had to protect herself with my gun.

Now, why do "special interests" give money to political campaigns, and very often to candidates of both parties? This simple question has a simple answer. Government wields too much power, power to wreck businesses and lives through legislation and useless but costly regulations enforced by bureaucracies run amok. Even the logic of our laws, as deconstructed by activist judges, has become quasi-unpredictable. In such an environment, campaign contributions by "special interests" are just attempts at mollifying a bully government. If Sen. McCain were so worried about special interests, he should endeavor to reduce the power accrued in Washington. Since money is power, tax cuts would be a step in the right direction, but Mr. McCain is too afraid that "the rich" could benefit from such a move. In truth, he wants to keep the power where it is, so that the flow of protection money can continue feeding the politicians' kitties.

As Mr. Clinton would put it, it all depends on what "maverick" means. Here, we must take it to represent a run-of-the-mill, sly politician, the kind to which the phrase "they're all the same" befittingly applies. But again, it all depends on what "same" means, and "are" is.