Despite arguments to the contrary, the history of racism indigenous to John McCain’s political ideologies is undeniable. In addition to opposing the establishment of Martin Luther King Day as a national holiday, McCain unabashedly referred to the Vietnamese prison guards who tortured him during war with the anti-Asian epithet “gook.” Yet while much has been said about the hostility towards people of color that can be read into McCain’s voting record and use of language, exploration of the white supremacist rhetoric and realities that may be intrinsic to his views on war is still unfolding. In his book “Gook: John McCain’s Racism and Why It Matters,” writer Irwin A. Tang explores this very topic by engaging the racial implications of the politician’s Rogue State Rollback strategy. Yet while Tang deftly delineates McCain’s racist attitudes and proclivity for adopting a pro-violent stance, he does not provide sufficient evidence to indicate that the politician’s philosophy of war is innately racist. Nevertheless, an examination of the war strategy reveals that it is racial.
To fully understand the complexity and importance of Tang’s argument regarding McCain’s Rogue State Rollback, one should consider the meaning and import of the doctrine. In essence, this plan of action is predicated on the view that Iraq, Libya, and North Korea pose a threat to the world because of their continual attempt to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To solve this problem, McCain supports arming American troops and civilians from these countries waging war to overthrow their governments and displace them with democratic political systems. While one might not view this ideology and its pending praxis as racist, understanding the demographic constituency of these land regions-as well as McCain’s disposition towards people of color-sheds light on how his policy may purport a racist worldview.
While much debate exists regarding the legitimacy and underpinnings of McCain’s Rogue State Rollback exists, Tang’s arguments on the issue are unique and insightful. In describing McCain’s ideology with respect to violence between nations, Tang states that the plan of action is racially informed. In explaining this view, the writer argues that McCain has a “strong racial antipathy chained to a tendency to launch bombing campaigns” and subsequently maintains that “these attributes will fuel the fire of the other” (96). While this assessment seems accurate given the politician’s history of racism and support of war, it does not engage the issue of whether McCain’s strategy could be deemed racist in theory and praxis. Yet discussing whether or not the doctrine constitutes or promotes racism is important. Upon analyzing the plan carefully, it seems that it may entail-but does not constitute-racism.
As made evident by the racial demographics of the nations McCain deems a threat to peace and democracy, they are all predominantly non-white regions. Given the fact that invading and attacking these countries would be an act exacted by a government largely comprised of white men, the waging of war should not be deemed aracial. Rather, the war would be racial and quite possibly racist in that it would involve a country ruled by wealthy whites dismantling the government of nations primarily populated by people of color. In this case, racist realities might be replicated in that whites could exact governmental rule over non-whites during and/or after the establishment of the democracy about which McCain speaks. Yet while this racially hegemonic result of the Rogue State Rollback could constitute a manifestation of racism, it does not make the plan itself ideologically racist.
In addition to arguing that the Rogue State Rollback strategy might amount to racist ideology/praxis on the grounds that it would entail whites dominating the government of non-whites, one might argue that McCain’s strategy exacts racism given its economic implications. Simply put, many have argued that the motivation for war is not quelling the threat of violence through weapons of mass destruction but rather the desire for oil. If the inspiration for the war is indeed the acquisition of oil, this drive for wealth-like governmental domination-could constitute racism. While the exacting of violence by a government run by whites against a nation largely comprised of non-whites is not innately racist, it could become so if the motivation for war was the unjust transfer of wealth from people of color to whites.
The word unjust is key here, because it demonstrates that the economic shifting is rooted in some form of exploitation or dishonesty rather than fair trade and business. With respect to the rogue state doctrine, the unjust element of the war would be realized if the assessment regarding Iraq, Libya, and North Korea possessing weapons of mass destruction was a false motive veiling the will to violence in the name of wealth acquisition. Although this lack of justice cannot be conflated with racism, race-based domination could also be present if the rogue state doctrine were actualized. The racist element of its actualization would be the devaluation of people of color through robbing them of resources such as oil while valuing whites by asserting that group members are entitled to their wealth.
As made evident by the aforementioned arguments, concluding that the Rogue State Rollback is racist remains a problematic endeavor. First, whether or not the motivation for exacting war is wealth acquisition has not been proven. Rather, the idea has been and remains hotly contended by numerous political pundits. Second, McCain’s strategy is predicated on the idea that the three countries should be attacked because they possess weapons of mass destruction, not because they are populated by people of color. These ostensible facts make deeming the Rogue State Rollback a racist plan of action ambitious, far-fetched.
While one can only speculate about whether McCain’s Rogue State Rollback constitutes or will entail racism, his history of hostility towards people of color and proclivity to use the government as a conduit through which to purport violence is evident. This may be the reason that Tang devotes an entire chapter of Gook to examining the parallels between the politician’s racism and philosophy of war. Despite the ambiguity regarding whether or not his philosophy puts racism in perpetuity, however, McCain’s Rogue State Rollback strategy is unequivocally racial.
Sources:
Tang, Irwin A. Gook: John McCain’s Racism and Why It Matters. Texas: The it Works/Paul Revere Books, 2008. Print.
