I have been completely obsessed of late with the bizarre and depressing turn of events in the Republican presidential campaign.  The more I consider Sarah Palin, the worse John McCain looks.  What does his choice of her tell us about him?

      Before Palin, it was still possible to believe, perhaps, that McCain has some core principles that animated his political life.  Now that assumption is untenable.  What had been his main point about the gravity and centrality of the war on terror, how "being at war" required that we "put country first," has been jettisoned by the Palin pick.  To be blunt: if the war on terror is the most important thing in American political life, how on earth does Sarah Palin as Vice President contribute to the cause?  Quite simply, she does not.  Her candidacy is simply a political calculation: fire up the evangelical, anti-choice base and maybe attract some independent Hillary Clinton supporters (this last calculation seems to have failed).  As conservative columnist George Will put it today, she is "…a person of negligible experience."

       Of course, Will and other conservatives will argue that Obama is also short on experience, and there is some truth in that.  But the experience that Obama has had, and the judgment he has demonstrated (in being right on Iraq, in running his campaign, in the legislation he has been involved with), not to mention his intellect and engagement (which Republicans devalue), make him a strong candidate.  That's why he is where he is today.  He has been tested by a competitive, democratic process.

      Palin, by contrast, is a cipher.  She is where is is now because of an impulsive and erratic decision by McCain. 

      What is behind that impulse?  A desire for power.  And that is why, when I think which strand of Chinese philosophy best captures McCain, Legalism comes to mind.  (I have already noted how McCain does not live up to Confucian standards)

      Legalism does not perfectly capture it, but one of its central elements comes close.

      When I read Han Fei Tzu, which I do regularly with my students here, I always ask them if there is some higher purpose in the text that might justify the ruthless deployment of power and punishment.  "Order" and "stability" are most often adduced.  But even if these may play some role in legitimizing Legalist authoritarianism, I am always brought back to the near-paranoid obsession with holding on to power.  No one is to be trusted by the leader, not his closest ministers, not his family.  And it follows, then, that no principle, beyond the necessity of maintaining power, should get in the way of the ruler.  The ruler is above the law and he should not, Han Fei Tzu tells us, pay any account to broader ideals like "benevolence:"

So, it is obvious that benevolence, righteousness, eloquence, and wisdom are not the means by which to maintain the state. (100).

    Again, the application of Legalism here is imperfect.  There are various ways in which it does not fit into a contemporary American context.  But John McCain, in his abandonment of principle, is repeating an ancient pattern: he is casting aside ideals in pursuit of power.