Summit Daily letters: Honoring the memory of John McCain
This past weekend’s passing of Senator John McCain was surprising but anticipated. I expected his demise would occur within the next several weeks or months. I didn’t think it would transpire less than a week after ending his cancer treatments.
Senator McCain epitomized the motto of the U.S. Naval Academy’s (McCain’s Alma Mater’s) rival, West Point — Duty, Honor, Country. The late Senator incorporated those words into his ethos militarily and politically. He was not above pragmatism or bipartisanship. He voted against President Trump’s efforts at curtailing the Affordable Care Act. The Senator befriended various Democrats on key issues. He co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold Bill addressing campaign financing. McCain also worked with the late Senator Edward Kennedy on various immigration matters (McCain died eight-years to the day that the late Massachusetts Senator succumbed to the same type of brain cancer, ironically). A key attribute of McCain’s was his willingness to speak his mind regardless of consequences — an attribute not uncommon to Arizona’s senatorial delegation as witnessed by the late Barry Goldwater; McCain fine-tuned the approach.
A key unknown about the Senator is what a McCain Administration would have looked like. I had the opportunity to volunteer for the Senator’s first Presidential campaign when I lived in Arizona during the 2000 election. I was residing in Flagstaff, driving to Phoenix one day, volunteering, driving to a rest stop half way between the Northern Arizona community and the capitol city, sleeping in my car for a night, returning the next day, and driving back to Flagstaff after finishing a second day of volunteering. I repeated the pattern on a weekly basis until the Senator won the New Hampshire primary. McCain brought in the professional staff to take over the campaign’s day-to-day affairs, and understandably at that point. The Senator lost the nomination to George W. Bush beginning with an ugly fight in South Carolina. Serving on his campaign was an experience I will not forget. It was a privilege and honor.
A key question in my mind has always been where would the country be now if McCain had won in 2000? There’s little doubt in my mind it would be a different place. The Iraq War probably would not have occurred. 9/11 was a likely inevitability for whoever occupied the White House. I suspect a McCain Administration would have focused on Afghanistan with an intensity the Second Bush Administration lacked. My sense is much of the Middle East’s current problems would also have been significantly muted. Would we have avoided the August 2008 economic calamity? It’s difficult to ascertain. A McCain presidency would have shaped the country’s socio-political-economic climate in a manner we cannot fathom — nor ever will.
What is certain is McCain leaves behind a legacy of honor, selflessness, and country first that will endure for years and decades to come.
MSc – Politics of China
School of Oriental and African Studies – University of London
The cake controversy
An Aug. 25 editorial opines that, because Jack Phillips opens his bakery to the public, the government should compel him to create a cake celebrating a transgender procedure. The editorial misses a critical distinction.
Once a cake is baked and placed on the shelf for sale, it must be sold to whoever wishes to buy it, regardless of sex, race, religion or sexual orientation. However, our government should neither prohibit nor compel speech. It should not compel a Muslim to decorate a cake saying “Jesus is Lord,” or a Jew to create swastika cupcakes, just because they each operate bakeries. If we are a free society, we must each be able to engage or refrain from engaging in speech or artistic expressing, without government compulsion — even if we have a business.
This newspaper offers advertising to the public regardless of who places the ad. But it would be tyranny for our government to compel you to create an editorial expressing a particular point of view or celebrating a particular event.
Jack is not interfering with anyone’s liberty to celebrate a transgender procedure, or marry whomever they wish. He is instead exercising his freedom to refrain from participating in those celebrations. Some people will inevitably be offended by another’s exercise of their freedoms. But when we fail to respect each other’s freedoms, then liberty itself dies.
To paraphrase an old saying — first the government came for Jack because he refused to decorate a cake, then it came for a Jew because he refused to create a swastika, then for the Jehovah’s Witness because she refused to salute the flag, then for the SDN because it refused to print what it wanted, but by then nobody was left to object.
J. Michael Morgan
Dillon & Centennial
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.