War, in short, is good for business in Arizona. And yet, Saint John McCain’s strident militarism never gets discussed on these terms — is never seen as something on a par with how Carl Levin loves cars and Joe Biden loves credits cards. ~Matt Yglesias

This is right.  The reason why McCain’s militarism doesn’t get discussed in these terms is that there is a reigning idea out there today that only corrupt and venal people (you know, French, Chinese and Russian people with their filthy interests in oil of all things) would ever oppose high-minded and noble efforts to kill a great many other people.  You see, no one opposes these interventions for good reasons, but just because they are either treacherous or bought off.  It certainly couldn’t be that anyone supports interventions out of naked political interest or the desire for power (and it definitely never has anything to do with oil interests or powerful lobbies of any kind)–you’d have to be some kind of conspiracy nut to think that! 

That’s why the jingoes are especially fond of Lieberman: unlike McCain, he apparently favours these efforts out of pure devotion to state violence, rather than out of any of the morally compromising influence of money and powerful constituencies in his home state.  Besides, the idea that someone might support something as admirable and decent as organised killing because of graft and influence is too shocking for the tender feelings of the members of the hegemonist consensus.  You shouldn’t have to be cajoled into supporting aggressive war–the enthusiasm and desire should be spontaneous. 

Besides, if it appeared that McCain were acting out of political calculation, that would undermine his personal narrative of being a true-believing warmongering fanatic, which would destroy his last attractive feature for Republican primary voters.  Suggesting that he was acting out of loyalty to constituencies in his state would hint that his positions were remotely explicable and therefore potentially rational, which would ruin his image.