It's the end of a long, bruising campaign. The in-fighting in the McCain camp has gone from rumored to so openly discussed that Palin's camp has had to comment on it. The defection of conservatives to the Obama side is so massive that there's actually a term for it -- Obamacons, they're called, conservatives who are both voting for and endorsing Barack Obama for president. Colin Powell is the most well-known recent convert, but the one that's really, truly stuck out for me is Ken Adelman.
Who is Ken Adelman? He's a self-described "staunch conservative," one of the men who's not just a neo-con but one of the grand professors of the neo-con class. He rooted for the Iraq war in columns like "Cakewalk in Iraq" (as early as 2002) and "Cakewalk Revisited," post-invasion in 2003, which is particularly chilling in its mockery of those who, in Adelman's view, unreasonably predicted the loss of thousands of U.S. lives in Iraq. Adelman talked to anyone who would listen -- including Donald Rumsfeld, a lifelong friend and former boss who put him on the Defense Policy Board running up to the Iraq War -- about how we'd find enormous stores of WMDs in Iraq. This is a man who, through personal relationships, political connections, and his professorship of neoconservatism, managed to get his views heard and repeated and subscribed to at the highest levels of the Bush White House. In short, when you think, "Why did we invade Iraq?", an acceptable answer would be, "Ken Adelman."
Adelman's been on a tour of apology these last two years, though; apparently, that Iraq War thing hasn't turned out so well for him or his fellow neocons. They've been making the stunning arguments that it wasn't the idea or policies that took us to war in Iraq that were flawed, it was the execution, meaning, in short, blame the president, not the guys in the room and the newspapers who encouraged and goaded him into war.
And last week, George Packer announced Ken Adelman is voting for Barack Obama.
Say what?
Adelman himself wrote about his decision this week on the Huffington Post (not a place I really thought I'd ever see Ken Adelman), in a piece called "Why a Staunch Conservative Like Me Endorsed Obama." I read this piece with hungry anticipation, because I've been wondering why a die-hard neo-con would not just decline to vote for McCain but would actively support Obama. In fact, I've been afraid that some great reason -- some secret conservatism -- exists that would lead a conservative to consider Obama a good alternative. Maybe his policy on invasions into Pakistan? Maybe some rumored quiet overture to Hank Paulson to stay on? Maybe some secret discussion with Holy Angel of War Petraeus?
Adelman says this:
Granted, McCain's views are closer to mine than Obama's.
Absolutely granted. One man wanted to go into Iraq. One man thinks you're an idiot (I may be paraphrasing).
But I've learned over this Bush era to value competence along with ideology. Otherwise, our ideology gets discredited, as it has so disastrously over the past eight years.
This is literally the most interesting part of Adelman's entire two-year campaign for forgiveness. Don't blame me, he's saying. The idea to invade Iraq wasn't a bad one -- it was just badly managed. I won't argue with the second part, and neither would Obama or Biden. But I would argue -- as would Obama, from all accounts -- quite strenuously with the first part, which defines Adelman ideology. What he's saying is: I would do it all again, if I could be guaranteed we'd have a president who could pull it off.
Adelman goes on to finally make sense:
McCain's temperament -- leading him to bizarre behavior during the week the economic crisis broke -- and his judgment -- leading him to Wasilla -- depressed me into thinking that "our guy" would be a(nother) lousy conservative president. Been there, done that.
I'd rather a competent moderate president. Even at a risk, since Obama lacks lots of executive experience displaying competence (though his presidential campaign has been spot-on). And since his Senate voting record is not moderate, but depressingly liberal. Looming in the background, Pelosi and Reid really scare me.
Nonetheless, I concluded that McCain would not -- could not -- be a good president. Obama just might be.
That's become good enough for me -- however much of a triumph (as Dr. Johnson said about second marriages) of hope over experience.
Here, then, is the Bush legacy: men and women like Adelman actually believe that things have gone badly because the president was an idiot. They don't see -- they don't want to see -- that their own advice was bad, that their ideas are flawed, that neo-conservatism as an ideology is broken and probably unplayable in the world at large. They don't want McCain to win because any extension of the current policy would be disastrous to their ideology, particularly if McCain 2000 emerged and was a competent and reasonable president. Then who would they blame?
The next four years, if under an Obama presidency, will be a high, heady time for these folks -- a time in which they can lick their wounds and reform their plans in the quiet, sheltered spaces like the American Enterprise Institute, unbothered by the daily attacks on their philosophy that have been a hallmark of the Bush presidency. They will be able to tell themselves that Bush was unpopular, but their ideas were not. They will be able to tell themselves, next time we'll get it right.
I am worried about Ken Adelman's turncoatism. I am worried about his and Perle's and even Frum's tour of apologia. Though, yes, I find myself wanting every vote for every reason for Obama, I am troubled by every protest endorsement that hits the airwaves. I am not ready to forgive and forget on Iraq, yet, and I am worried that these endorsements will be seen by some -- maybe by many -- as the start of reconciliation.TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Catherine Forsythe
Writer to the Stars
Emily Holleman
Iron Skillet
Leslie Harpole
old new lefty
Salon.com
Comments
I just hope memories don't fade and history is not overlooked the next time these idealogues try to foist their "ideas" on the USA.
Revenge is a waste of time. We need to focus our attention on cleaning up their unprecedented mess. The best punishment is to deprive them of the attention, respect and power they crave. They are pariahs and should be treated as such.
I agree with this, but I think the argument they're making at current is more likely to preserve their viability as those who speak for the conservative movement (which I'm not convinced they do).
Being a conservative means never having to say you're sorry.
Part of the conservative ideology is that conservatism is never wrong. A corollary to that is that all problems are caused by liberals or by conservatives who fail to be conservative enough.
Yes, for the conservatives it's always someone else's fault. Iraq didn't work out? That was Bush. Economic disaster? That's because of Fannie and Freddy and the liberal Community Reinvestment Act. Palin looks like an idiot? That's because of the liberal media. Massive deficits? That's because Bush wasn't conservative enough.
So for conservatives, any time there is a problem you just kick over the nearest rock and underneath you'll find a liberal or a conservative acting like a liberal. Conservatism itself is never to blame.
Also for conservatives, the sins of liberals are emblematic of liberalism. The sins of conservatives are emblematic of nothing. If a liberal spits on the sidewalk, well, that's because liberals are disgusting creatures who do things like that. If a conservative spits on the sidewalk, he's just a conservative who isn't acting like a conservative.
Another strategy for saving conservatism from criticism is having a short memory. As a kind of perverse recreation I like to hang out on conservative blogs. During the run-up to the Iraq war, the conservatives really had a hard-on for the war. They were all excited about it, and anyone who didn't sufficiently foam at the mouth in excitement over the war was obviously a traitor, or worse than that, a liberal. Then when the war went in the crapper, the Iraq war largely dropped off the radar. On one of those blogs discussion of the war simply vanished. Then the "surge" came and seemed to be working, and suddenly the conservatives were all het up over the war again, and anyone who didn't foam at the mouth over the surge was a traitor or a liberal.
I kind of wish I were a conservative. It must be nice to be right all the time.
Nice tag, too... although it is definitely Ken Adelman who is the real "dork"
That you also talked about Adelman, who I didn't really know about, is kind of a bonus, making me more generally informed. But what was really the good stuff here for me was your "They will be able to tell themselves that Bush was unpopular, but their ideas were not." and some of the surrounding text. I think this is a key insight.
Edgar, thanks. I felt suddenly very dorky about halfway through, when I realized most people don't seethe over the actions of Ken Adelman on a daily basis.
Kent, I commented over at your place, but I wanted to add that Preview Comment would be greatly appreciated here, too.
I think we'll be lucky if they recede and "lick their wounds and reform their plans in the quiet." I'm fearful they will actually try running a shadow government...Okay, that may be the crazy talking, but after 8 years of Bush/Cheney and the still-fresh memories of how they dogged Clinton's administration...Let's just say..I hope they go away.
And while away, let them build their grand plans...When they emerge, they will still have to deal with the under-educated, under-informed of their party... those that see Sarah Palin as the next Reagan .(Okay, maybe that is a fair comparison).
I'm hoping that after a dose of smart, reasoned, THINKING government, America will not go back to affable, but dumb.
And make no mistake about it—“conservative domination” is what we have endured in this country for the last 30 years or more. The liberals have been so cowed since Ronald Reagan’s ascendancy that even when they have held the White House or had control of one house of congress or the other—it was the conservative agenda that was being serviced.
Conservatives have been running on platforms of greater fiscal responsibility and small government for three decades—yet despite almost unfettered domination of the political landscape, government and irresponsible fiscal management has grown exponentially.
Fact is the largest increases in deficits and in national debt have come at the hands of Reagan and Bush the Moron—and the largest increase in government has accompanied those increases.
What the hell does it take to get these people to realize they are being had?
Egad, they use to mock liberals for being unthinking, gullible, kneejerkers.
How much more at fault are they in all those areas!
You note
Bush was wrong!" It's a fascinating strategy, no?
Bush is leaving the job. Every time I have left a job I am surprised to learn of the power and activities I was in charge of while on the job and why what is now wrong is the fault of the person who just left. Nobody else seemed to have been involved ;0).
Hopefully he will just go to ranch, clear brush, and leave humanity alone.
Nor, I suspect, will many others. The neocons' battle is to find a place (any place!) on the planet where they can play out their simple-minded-yet-satisfying good vs. evil geopolitical narratives.
And our fight is to take that whole mindset to task, and find a way forward. There's a place for our military, and I'm glad it works well, and proud of those who serve. I just don't think it should be our front line of everything: diplomacy, policing, nation-building, anti-terrorism, etc.
So let's not stop on November 5th.
I want to believe that Obama is the Lincoln of our day--I feel sure that he has the gifts, I just don't know that he will use them. I'm not at all sure that he isn't part of our deeply flawed foreign policy establishment at the moment--I wonder if he got Iraq right only because he was still outside the bubble. Joe Biden certainly has proven himself to be an establishment thinker, and Obama's remarks about Georgia and Afghanistan don't bode well. But he can rise above. He is thoughtful enough and smart enough, and, I think, caring enough, to get it right once he's in office and he has to make decisions. This is what I pray for. That Adelman and his ilk will actually wind up coming fully to sanity because they will be persuaded by a true leader who knows how to consider the evidence and communicate his reasoning. We can only hope.
Now Bill Kristol--he will never be sane.
I was a little disturbed when I heard about Adelman's endorsement, but wasn't sure exactly why. Maybe there's a clue in his statement that he is more an ideologue than a partisan. In other words, now that the Democrats are coming to power, why not make nice with the ruling party, and cozy up to them? I worry that the neocons will try to advance their agenda with Obama. Do I think they will succeed? No, I believe Obama has rejected the neocons. But it worries me nonetheless. The "New American Century" crap is disturbing to the nth degree -- I wouldn't put anything past these bastards. You know, the ends justify the means, and all that -- even if it means making nice with the satanic "libs" -- clearly, they'll go to any length.
Another thing that Adelman reveals gives credence to the thought I had when Bush was reelected in 2004. I thought that, if the country survived another term of Bush, with the Republicans in charge of all branches of government, then the ensuing governing disaster would be so apparent that the right would be thrown out resoundingly for at least a decade, maybe a generation. That was the only bright spot I could see. And thus it seems to be coming to pass, including the "if we survive" part -- by the skin of our teeth. All it took for the right-wing to be ostracized was a full airing of their governance -- once people saw what they were really all about, they would resoundingly reject it, Rove's "thousand year Republican Reich" notwithstanding. In fact, we could not have done it without Karl, and we owe him a debt of thanks.
Of course Adelman doesn't want McCain to win. That kind of exposure of the true nature of the neocons would ensure their destruction -- a doom which Bush/Cheney/Rove may have sealed already. We can always hope.
(oh, and here's a close-italics
HTML tag just for fun, right here: Done!)
m.a.h., your hopes are my hopes.
Frank, you're right to be more frightened of everyday ignorance -- it's what the neocons need, in many ways, to get their plans pushed through.
Rick -- exactly.
K8, the subtler, more strategic fear is mine, too. Eeek.
Velina, forgive but not forget is probably a good goal for many of us.
Dorinda, I don't think Bush will have much choice -- I can't see anyone wanting his advice for a long time.