"What do you want?"

That was the question most famously by Ed Wasser's character Morden on Babylon 5. A seemingly simple question that no one could answer to the satisfaction of Morden's, uh, shadowy associates, with one tragic exception.

I can't help but ask the same questions of conservatives this day. "Conservatism" has never been about any one thing per se, but has found its philosophical bearings in issues of security, economics and social affairs. The fault lines of modern conservatism are thus defined -- you have security conservatives, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. Generally, no candidate fits even two such categories, let alone all three, so the result has been an alliance has always been uneasy at best.

The recent primary season for the GOP exposed those fault lines in unusually harsh terms. You had security conservatives in John McCain and Rudolf Giuliani, but they are moderate fiscally and social liberals. You had the fiscal conservative in Mitt Romney, who was a moderate in terms of social issues and security. You had Mike Huckabee, who was a social conservative but very liberal on security and fiscal issues. Fred Thompson established himself as a security conservative, but was more liberal on fiscal and social issues than is generally believed. Ron Paul was a fiscal conservative, but is all over the place on social issues and is an isolationist (and a naive one at that) in terms of security.

Thus, in many respects, the candidates were almost mutually exclusive. That John McCain ended up with the nomination should come as no surprise. The image the public has of his positions fits the general position of the public -- they want security, they don't care about government spending in general except to the extent it affects their taxes and as a general rule they don't care about abortion or gay marriage. Maybe my assessment is skewed, however, since those are the views that I hold.

McCain is not a perfect candidate by any means. I, for one, have let him have it on issues of illegal immigration, global warming and drilling. And I am far from the only one. So imagine how happy I was to find out that McCain is beginning to see the light, even if it may be only out of political expediency, on drilling:

With the price of gasoline surging past $4 a gallon in many parts of the country, Senator John McCain called today for the lifting of the federal moratorium on offshore oil drilling for states that want to permit it.
He said that he also favors giving states incentives to allow exploration, part of an energy proposal that he said would be “very helpful in the short term for resolving our energy crisis.”
Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, said the impact of high fuel prices was hitting Americans, not only at the pump, but also in the form of rising food prices and threats of inflation.
“We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gases through the development of alternate energy sources,” Mr. McCain said, adding that he continues to support a summer gas tax holiday.

Mr. McCain has a mixed record on the issue in the Senate. In 2001 and 2006, he voted in favor of offshore oil drilling in Florida, but in 2003 he voted against it in Florida and other states. Mr. McCain has consistently opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Not perfect, but a good start. A very good start.

Reason for some celebrating? Not for some. Michelle Malkin:

Now, he’s announced he wants to lift the offshore drilling moratorium and will give an energy speech tomorrow. He was for it before he was against it before he was for it again. Positively Kerryesque[...]

McCain supporters say I should give credit to McCain for changing his mind.

Well, I certainly give him credit for whiplash-inducing political expediency.

Now, I do not know Michelle Malkin personally, but I like what I've seen of her on TV and in her writing. I don't agree with her on everything, but I usually do. She is a sharp thinker and persuasuive writer. I have nothing but the highest respect for her and her work.

But I must ask her: WHAT DO YOU WANT?

I don't know that McCain changed his mond on offshore drilling out of political expediency, and neither does Michelle. (I don't even know if he changed it at all, since he has been fairly consistent about giving the choice of drilling back to the states.) He may just have seen the crisis that is the price of gasoline today in America and decided we couldn't afford his type of environmentalism right now. But for the sake of argument, let's assume it's out of political expediency.

So what?

The policy is sound. So what if the motives for adopting it are political? It is a sound policy, one that people like Malkin support. I would think that rather than bashing McCain for publicly adopting it, they would encourage him to go further and re-examine his positions with other oil-related issues.

But, no. They just bash McCain some more. All stick, no carrot.

McCain has somehow survived the primary season while being bashed by the fiscal cons and social cons, highlighting the sharp differences among the three groups of conservatives. Some of that criticism has been warranted (illegal immigration, drilling), others not so much (judges), still others people do not care about (McCain-Feingold). At worst, McCain at least is paying lip service to coming around on one issue.

What is the point of McCain listening to conservatives -- he does have a 95% rating, you know -- and adopting their positions with which he may have disagreed in the past if this is the "reward" for doing so?

Like Morden asked: what do you want?

(crossposted at Pro Cynic and Circle City Pundit)