There are a lot of reasons to object to this Boston Globeendorsement of John McCain (e.g. running two endorsements—one per party, as the Globedid—lamely affirms a mushy “nonideological,” character-based vision of politics), but this passage really irks (emphasis added):
The antidote to such a toxic political approach is John McCain. The iconoclastic senator from Arizona has earned his reputation for straight talk by actually leveling with voters, even at significant political expense.
The piece goes on to cite the senator’s “willingness to acknowledge unpleasant realities,” the fact that he has “never been an uncritical booster of President Bush's policies,” his record as a reformer, his ability to “transcend partisanship and promote an honest discussion of the problems facing the United States.” What unites these disparate qualities? Not one has a damn thing to do with being an “iconoclast”:
One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions.
One who destroys sacred religious images.
So the word has a pretty specific meaning (more here). Even if you accept that McCain is a maverick (and plenty don’t), there’s simply no evidence that he’s iconoclastic. I’d go so far as to say that being a multi-term member of the U.S. Senate will, in this day and age, tend to drain a person of any and all iconoclast credentials. The editorialists at the Globe got lazy, and the result is a fairly glaring abusage. So sad to see the language mauled in one’s home paper.
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
Posts
!
