Will first brings up pharmaceuticals:
In ABC's New Hampshire debate, McCain said: "Why shouldn't we be able to reimport drugs from Canada?" A conservative's answer is: That amounts to importing Canada's price controls, a large step toward a system in which some medicines would be inexpensive but many others – new pain-relieving, life-extending pharmaceuticals – would be unavailable. Setting drug prices by government fiat rather than market forces results in huge reductions of funding for research and development of new drugs. McCain's evident aim is to reduce pharmaceutical companies' profits. But if all those profits were subtracted from the nation's health care bill, the pharmaceutical component of that bill would be reduced only from 10 percent to 8 percent – and innovation would stop, taking a terrible toll in unnecessary suffering and premature death. When McCain explains that trade-off to voters, he will actually have engaged in straight talk.
Since when has it been a conservative principle to disallow, by law, the purchase of a legal product from outside the United States? He may argue that it imports price controls from Canada, but it's empirically obvious that American consumers are, comparatively, gouged when it comes to drug prices. To disallow the importation of drugs from other countries--again, by federal law--amounts to supporting price gouging by governmental fiat. The aim isn't to reduce profits for drug companies. The aim is to reduce costs to consumers. I doubt seriously that drug companies sell their products in Canada at a loss. As for the supposed cessation of innovation as a result of reduced profits...that's quite a stretch. Without innovation, drug companies will completely lose any competitive advantage in the market. They must innovate to survive. And if profit margins take a hit, they will have to find ways to be more productive and efficient. There is no evidence that drug companies can't be just as profitable with reduced consumer prices. Southwest Airlines and Jet Blue airlines proved that handsome profits can be made in a presupposed zero-profit market. They just have better organizations and are profitable, in great part, because their competition is so poor.
Then there is McCain-Feingold:
McCain is, however, an unlikely conciliator because he is quick to denigrate the motives, and hence the characters, of opponents. He promiscuously accuses others of "corruption," the ubiquity of which he says justifies McCain-Feingold's expansive government regulation of the quantity, timing and content of campaign speech.
"Denigrate the motives"...please. This isn't even a liberal or conservative position--unless ethics have somehow found themselves under the province of ideology. The system is corrupt. I presume Mr. Will is familiar with the Jack Abramoff scandals. And to take a supposed principled stand on free speech by saying anyone should be able to inject as much money into the political process in an attempt to, literally, buy influence is hardly noble. I do agree that, constitutionally, much of McCain-Feingold cannot stand. But the only reason the law was introduced and voted on is because Congress won't make the ethical reform steps voluntarily. They've become accustomed to a system reliant upon copious donations of money because it puts them at a distinct advantage over any future competitors for their office. In other words, they don't want competition or a level playing field. They want a system that weighs heavily in their favor--even if it means prostituting oneself to one's contributors on occasion. Hardly conservative or principled, I should think. McCain is right to roll his eyes at those who oppose the law but make no effort to voluntarily reform the system. (As an aside, I am greatly interested in just how long these men of great principle will hold to it if/when the Ds are getting the majority of campaign contributions).
The the closing gem:
Applause greets faux "straight talk" that brands as "bad" the industry responsible for the facts that polio is no longer a scourge, that childhood leukemia is no longer a death sentence, that depression and other mental illnesses are treatable diseases, that the rate of heart attacks and heart failures has been cut more than in half in 50 years.
Mr. Will has been one of my favorite columnists for a couple decades now, but this is dangerously close to hyperbole. Jonas Salk didn't work for Pfiser and, it should be noted, gave his patent to the world for free with the quote: "Who owns my polio vaccine? The people! Could you patent the sun?" As for childhood leukemia, certainly drug companies have done much and deserve much credit, but they were hardly singularly responsible for the research and treatment. Thousands of university researchers have been involved for decades (yes, many of them from the generosity of drug company grants--but many more not). My friend's father was treated for leukemia by the University of Arizona and is happy to report complete remission due to their innovative work, not the work of a drug company.
And the further point is this. If McCain supported legislation that is disagreeable with conservatives such as Mr. Will, fine, reasonable people can disagree. But to take two or three of his stances in a political career spanning decades and reduce that to a portrait of his ideology is, quite frankly, absurd. As Mr. Will has written before, then Governor Reagan signed the largest tax increase in his state's history, expanded abortion rights, and signed no fault divorce into law--hardly conservative by today's standards. And, of course Teddy Roosevelt instituted the estate tax (now called the death tax) and railed against the gilded class. Neither of the aforementioned two could be seriously dubbed "not a conservative."
I'm a left-leaning independent (read: disgruntled Democrat) who favors the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, wants partial privatization of Social Security, supports NAFTA, and is very skeptical of unions. Still, I would say I'm liberal overall. And McCain, who has spent a 25 year career supporting smaller government, reduced taxes and spending (even when his party spent money like sorority girls with new credit cards), a supremely strong US military, pro-life legislation, free trade, and who may well kiss a picture of Reagan before he goes to sleep at night is not a closet liberal. Please. What happened to the GOP "big tent?"
Unless the GOP wants to be the party known as corrupt, spending-happy, government expansionist, liberty-allergic, hypocritical, self-loathing homosexuals with a penchant for torture, they need to re-examine themselves and allow for someone like McCain to depart from his party's contemporary conventional wisdom once in a while--particularly when he honestly feels he is putting country above party.
