« song for reverend tim's children | Main | 'Harrar': A nice cluster of towns in Ethiopia, now owned by a Starbucks nearer you »
Ideology of Incompetence
This being Election Day and all, I thought I might put to you all a question that has been floating around my brain for some time.
Since the sitting president took office, it has been the desire of many of us theoretically inclined leftists to see not just the man himself exposed, but his chosen ideology indicted as well. That is to say, neo-conservatism itself - with its historical blindness and close-cropped arrogance- would be the ultimate and deserving victim of the abject failure of this regime, ideally.
But in the two years since exit poll deviations reached unprecedented statistical highs, the presidency has found itself at the center of such an embarrassingly huge number of scandals and fuck-ups that, it seems to me anyway, an entirely new possibility is emerging. Could it be that Bush and Co. is so incompetent as to actually hemorrhage any ideological legacy whatsoever, good or bad?
If we consider the stories that are now pouring out of Iraq, we can see the effect of this problem begin to take hold – insofar as the relative ideological or legal merits/demerits of the invasion have been place out of bounds – protected somehow by the gross appearance of total and complete organizational inability at the highest levels.
The reality, it seems, is this: They could not execute even their own ideas with a level of efficiency as to allow for their assessment as ideas. Or to put it another way – what kind of failure is Iraq - a failure of planning, or of intention? Can we in good faith say that it has been neo-conservatism that has failed this venture, and not, as it were, Rummy’s lousy communication skills?
As an amateur trader of ideas, it would be my inclination, in light of recent events, to argue (in so many ways) that one somehow breeds the other, that neo-con’s are somehow more vulnerable to failures of this kind. But intellectual honesty compels me to admit that I often dismiss such arguments as category mistakes under different circumstances. So I put the question to you all:
What then can be said of Bush’s neo-conservative legacy in light of his practical ineptitude?
(As if to answer this question from the other side, Vanity Fair runs a feature this January featuring prominent neo-cons bashing the Bush administration, one figure even goes so far as to say that an entire generation of would-be zealots has been lost due to the artlessness of the Iraq invasion. We should be so lucky.)
By Squibb | November 7, 2006 in Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/361357/6733449
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ideology of Incompetence:
Comments
A question about the "quality of the transfer" running from neo-conservative ideas to those who act on those ideas. My opinion is: there was always a cartoon quality to the phrasing and thinking of the neo-conservative case for this hyper-interventionist stance. I think to myself sometimes that they were surprised that anyone took them seriously; that they were actually pretty happy feeding at the margins of a quasi-academic career spouting irresponsible positions that they trusted no one would pay much attention to. The only problem with that reading is the signatories. Some heavy hitters there. But then this idiot Perlman comes along and does a "John Kerry." It was John Kerry, we should remember, who first coined the "who knew Bush was such an idiot?" in response to the question, "why, please, did you vote for the war in Iraq?", in a _Rolling Stone_ interview leading up to Kerry's run for the Democratic nomination. And so now Perlman, as you point out, says the same: "who knewe Bush was such an idiot?"
To which all those who have worked so hard and worried so much about the course of this country for the past five years cannot restrain themselves from screaming, "what the heck do you mean 'who knew Bush was an idiot?', the word 'idiot' is etched onto Bush's forehead." I mean really what kind of person lacks the insight needed to perceive and predict that George W. Bush will not be a high-quality "carrier" for an idea?
Posted by: Swifty | Nov 7, 2006 8:58:27 PM
What then can be said of Bush’s neo-conservative legacy in light of his practical ineptitude?
Sorry, I don't entirely see the ineptitude. I mean, he's gotten an awful, awful lot done for himself and his friends, while somehow gracefully managing public opinion. And even if "we" win tonight, it will be by the tiniest of margins - certainly, given the hugely shitty nature of what's gone on, a sign that to a certain extent of the combined artistry of the administration and the stupidity of the american electorate.
I always think of the old SNL sketch where Reagan, once the boyscouts are out of the office, reverts to his "real" machiavellian seriousness etc..
In short, yes, of course, he's "inept," measured on objectively evaluated "results." But I'm afraid, whatever the outcome tonight, that his legacy will be instructions on just how far you can push things until they even begin to break.
Posted by: CR | Nov 7, 2006 10:56:59 PM
I have to agree with this CR. But it's an interesting question, and that link in your last paragraph is especially revealing.
More immediately, the Democrats are picking up seats everywhere (21 so far in the House); meanwhile will Digby's prediction come true? (Will Rove have the balls?)
We may as well use this as an openthread...though I have nothing else to add other than wonder along with Squibb what it will say about the legacy of neoconservatism, if anything at all, should the Republicans not soon resort to drastic measures (that is, how seriously do they believe this stuff about the liberal plague unto Armawhatsit, and how much do they value their luxury and power - maybe the former is just distraction in defeat.)
See also our friends at PrintCulture, if you like. They seem to be having fun (as opposed, you know, to just putting on a clown face, et cetera).
Posted by: Matt | Nov 8, 2006 12:29:44 AM
'instructions on just how far you can push things until they even begin to break.'
Suskind's book is especially good on how the administration has already gutted CIA--an astonishing feat. I think we generally think of CIA as fairly powerful and have now found out how they didn't have to be, how they could be tampered with. That their analyses and valuing of evidence was clipped, then chopped away so that Jami Miscik barely was able to defy Cheney with Goss by then DCI, barely getting through that no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq was true when Cheney wanted only a piece of a CIA report declassified so it would be misleading about the war's effect on jihadists--although this part would seem so only if taken out of context of the whole document. The book gets rid of all old-fashioned suspicion of CIA, which amounts to little compared to what they're like when they can't operate for security. I hadn't any idea that the destruction by the Bushies had been just as fierce within the agency as it had out in the world. Nor did I know how protective of Bush's fragile-nerve babyishness had become Rice and, in fact, all of the inner circle--that he is a baby and dependent on tougher people around him makes him personally seem inept and therefore ultimately incapable of withstanding the pressure of even mild defeats such as the taking of the House (at this moment) will mean. Before, he'd lost Social Security reform, but usually got all of his baby whims gratified.
Posted by: Patrick J. Mullins | Nov 8, 2006 1:14:37 AM
this CR, Matt, is the real CR. for real.
Posted by: CR | Nov 8, 2006 1:14:57 AM
'barely getting through that no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq was true'
Sorry, I wasn't careful when putting this together--the Al Qaeda/Iraq connection was an issue much earlier, Miscik/Goss/Cheney was Nov.,2004, just after the election,and was about the connection of Iraq and wider war against terrorism, which is reminiscent of the earlier connection, but isn't exactly the same as the earlier business going back to 2002.
Posted by: Patrick J. Mullins | Nov 8, 2006 1:26:24 AM
Ok CR, I believe you. Really. (Never really doubted it, to tell the truth. Clown face was not poking fun at you. But also, do we have to talk so...closely all the time around here?)
Best wishes,
Matt
Posted by: Matt | Nov 8, 2006 7:03:34 PM
Oh look, we took the Senate, too. There were cheers in the bar where we ate lunch today (and talk of vacancies at Guantanamo) when Rumsfeld resigned.
(As a Vermonter, I will also proudly note that Bernie Sanders was among the first victories called, and by a very decisive margin. A Socialist in the US Senate, how about that. It is something, more than nothing.)
Well anyway let's hope the Democrats don't blow it. And God save us all from Hillary Thatcher.
Posted by: Matt | Nov 8, 2006 8:51:29 PM
BTW - I was quite fascinated by the two-step that CNN had to do last night when Sanders won. He was one of the earliest "projections," and when Wolf Blitzer had to say the word "socialism," he squirmed like my dad would if he had to say "vagina" in public.
I propose a permanent project for LS, at least those interested: the incremental rebranding of the word "socialism." I can imagine the sexy subway and bus shelter ads.
So sad to have to hide behind the rather empty, if not, at time, incorrect, "progressive."
Posted by: CR | Nov 8, 2006 11:52:40 PM
I support Hillary Thatcher.
Posted by: Patrick J. Mullins | Nov 9, 2006 10:21:02 AM
Hillary? Really? Why?
Posted by: squibb | Nov 9, 2006 10:33:35 AM
Squibb--it's probably because I don't think Al Gore can re-capture the nomination, and John Kerry is a mere blunder specialist. Hillary is hot stuff (I haven't got time to worry about her sins and iniquities, not knowing a soul, including saints, who don't sport them whenever possible) and it also means Bill Clinton will get a 3rd term--as we all know, that's what he's always wanted and needed. Who knows? Maybe even a 4th to match FDR? By then, Chelsea can run and he can get a Fifth (both kinds)...
Posted by: Patrick J. Mullins | Nov 9, 2006 10:43:15 AM
no hope for Obama, then?
Posted by: squibb | Nov 9, 2006 10:48:54 AM
I don't think so, although I'd certainly support him if he manages to get the nomination. He's got a lot going for him, as anyone can see. I'd just really like for Bill Clinton to be back pulling levers with his wife--I mean, you just don't get much smarter than those two.
Posted by: Patrick J. Mullins | Nov 9, 2006 10:54:43 AM
Patrick, I appreciate what you are saying. But I really think for all their talents, the Clinton's are extremely cynical and polarizing figures. Though it seems largely irrational to me, for conservatives (and even some middle of the road folks) they seem to embody every evil excess of the 1960's. Why revisit that?
Posted by: Alain | Nov 10, 2006 5:28:32 PM
I tend to agree with Alain on this - I don't see Hilary inspiring as many votes from the left to counter the hatred she evokes from the right. Also, her leadership track record these past couple years has been atroicious.non-existant - aside from slinding right on abortion rights. gross.
Posted by: squibb | Nov 10, 2006 5:49:44 PM
The question of the hour is really how to stop Hillary (she's the closest thing, on policy issues, to a Rebublican, as far as anybody paying attention is concerned. Or next to Lieberspam, perhaps (what were the good people of Connecticut thinking?).
It'll be Hillary Obama or Hillary Wesley Clark (God help us), or who? Edwards somebody (just as smart, btw, and with a little more integrity, not to mention sense of economic justice)...vs. Jeb somebody, God save us from McCain.
With 21 Republicans in the Senate up for dismissal in 2008 (and only 10 Democrats), the temptation to make capital running to the center, yet again, will be large.
Posted by: JHillisKiller | Nov 10, 2006 7:12:40 PM
In a decent world the question of the hour would be more along the lines of this...
For all those who ever thought, let alone argued the Iraq war was a good idea, maybe something moderately less harsh.
Posted by: Matt | Nov 10, 2006 7:38:24 PM
Alain, Squibb--of course I know what you are talking about, I just fear terribly to not continue being practical in a way I never would have thought I could countenance. Personally, I can think of a number of candidates whom I prefer, but I cannot even bear the thought of living through another 2004-2006 period--I mentioned on another site how much worse I thought that period to be even than 2001-2004. At the risk of sounding as though I've completely lost even more control of myself than the blogosphere already know I'd lost most of--living under the reign of Bushies as in the last 2 years is, if not a fate worse than death, at least almost as bad. I fucking cannot believe they have been curtailed! it is just not nothing.
I guess the Clintons seem to me like political animals that are not quite as bad as Republicans--and that they have the horse sense to know how to beat Republicans without ever being quite that bad, even when they do the political whore-out. Just ask yourself, is there really anything that happened during Clinton's 2 terms, no matter how undignified he could seem about a thousand things (Ms. Lewinsky does not even need to be in the list, of course), that matched the terrifying chill of living in the ever-shrinking world of the Bushies? Why, I think they were about to start living in planes full-time, and just fly over everything all the time, bomb this place, then that one. They must want to commit suicide now! I mean they just don't fucking have a leg to stand on, and I can't even believe it.
I guess I just don't think their friends, some of whom I infinitely prefer like Al Gore, know how to be at least half-decent and have political savvy too. I'm so pissed at Kerry ruining not only his own election by thinking you can be subtle with huge populations, but only because of timing not ruining this one with more politically suicidal talk that I never want to hear of him running again, even though I voted for him, of course. The others I don't know--I've become thick-skinned, I guess; and after getting rid of the Bushies' absolute power years, I can't imagine ever valuing subtlety in American politics again (not because I don't want to, but because it doesn't seem to play in Peoria.) To me, it feels as though something worse than Nixon has just been passed by, and I am not sure why people don't feel this as strongly; because just a few weeks ago there was nothing but lamentation and hopelessness. There is not huge optimism now, but I don't feel that there is certain annihilation the way there was. These are HORRIBLE people these Bushies!
Posted by: Patrick J. Mullins | Nov 10, 2006 7:54:05 PM
I wouldn't object, of course, to someone providing something that was as solid as the Clintons' power with something more obviously ethical. But those like me who think the 2nd step is somewhat better than the 1st step have been redeemed finally--because I don't think the 3rd step (and all its 3rd parties) is worth anything if it ends up leaving the 1st step--BUSH/CHENEY--in place to cause endless noisome horror. And it's not enough to talk of the Iraq War. One thing the Clintons do NOT do as much of as the Bushies is to ruin the country internally with these frightening tax cuts for the 1%. No, there's just no way that the Clinton Group, Inc., is as bad as the Bush Group, Inc. Come up with something that can BEAT both--not just be more admirable than both--and then we'll talk turkey beyond Mr. and Mrs. Hillary Thatcher. (I bet Bill wouldn't even mind that if it got them the job...)
Posted by: Patrick J. Mullins | Nov 10, 2006 8:02:31 PM
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/11/a_known_known_h.html
smarter:
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/11/sigh.html
Posted by: Charles | Nov 10, 2006 8:18:34 PM
So, Hillary -- and maybe Obama -- are running.
The dailykos crowd is already calling it for Obama. I think they're nuts, and in denial about Hillary, who they detest for some reason. Just because she isn't their choice doesn't change the fact that she has the Democratic party in her pocket, modulo Howard Dean who is still an independent mind running the DNC (and a very healthy thing that is).
But a Hillary / Obama ticket I think is a distinct possibility. Matter of fact, I suspect the Clintons have been grooming Barack for that role since the '04 convention. Where did he come from all of a sudden, anyway? I'd like to know who exactly chose him to give that keynote speech, and why the rpess fell all opver themselves to annoint him the "future first Black president". I suspect it was Bill's doing. I don't think Kerry did it. Edwards sure didn't. Howard Dean wasn't DNC chair yet. Come on, why would the beltway crowd give him a leg up? Just as they were shoving Dean under for the third time?
I think it was part of the plan to make Hillary electable. Remember Bill was "the first Black president". Trust him to think long and hard about how to win big with that constituency. (He is still the smartest political mind on the planet.) Having Obama as Hllary's Veep choice would make it impossible for Karl Rove to make the election entirely about doubts re: a woman president, wouldn't it? And that's the big danger -- that it all gets hung up on that stupid irrelevant prejudice. Like JFK and the Catholic thing (that sank Al Smith in '28), it needs to be defused somehow. But who can even focus on that issue for long with the prospect of a Black president 8 years down the road? The talking points just got much more diverse. The endless mindless repetition engine got derailed. And prejudice gets its true name -- it's actually harder to be a racist in politics today than it is to be sexist. It's like attacking Rove on two fronts at once.
Also, imagine the South in play, if Blacks voted in their greatest numbers ever. Don't you think they would? Maybe enough to offset all the vote fraud. (Sheer massive turnout worked good against it in the midterms.)
My guess is, Obama knows it's too early to go for it on his own, but is going to show some strength, get people excited / worried, then take the second slot he's already been offerred. Eight years of on-the-job training and he'd be unstoppable. Why wouldn't he take that deal? So much safer. You only get one try. Just my guess. Notice how moderate he's been lately, even on the war? He sounds more and more like Hillary.
Wesley Clark is another Clinton creation and possible Hillary ticket-mate, but I suspect he'll be her SecDef and point man on the Iraq mess -- she'll need a team in place before the election to have a convincing story there. He makes a much less charismatic Veep, and besides we're tired of having the Veep run wars, that was Cheney's thing and Hillary knows how discredited that whole twisted arrangement is now. But the guy who got in and out of Kosovo as SecDef, to get us out of Iraq? Perfect. Announce it at the convention, or as soon as Hillary seals the nomination.
Come on, folks, let's make some history. Time for an inflection point. First woman, first Black. In that order. Oh, and with 25 Rethug Senate seats up for grabs in '08, and only 10 Democratic Senate seats, we could be looking at a veto-proof legislative majority for the first time since LBJ. Remember the Voting Rights act? Medicare? Remember the last time Democrats actually did anything, except send jobs overseas and balance budgets? (Well, Jimmy Carter did get SALT II and the Egypt/Israeli treaty signed.) But I mean big stuff, FDR-scale stuff that lasts forever -- like national health insurance -- lobbyist reform -- campaign finance reform.
Even CLIMATE CHANGE action. Make Al Gore secretary of the environment (new cabinet level position). Well, maybe not, he and Hillary aren't friends. I know someone who thinks Harvard might pick him as their next president. That'd be a great bully pulpit for him and his cause right now. Maybe he's best as a single-issue man. He sure owns that one.
2008 will be the closest thing to a 1932 FDR opportunity for Democrats since, well, 1932. Eyes on the prize, candaidates. (1) Get elected president, with a congressional majority. (2) Be idealistic and progressive, like JFK/RFK again. Put (2) before (1) and you lose. The time for a great soaring speech for the history books is your inauguration. Save it for then. (Go back and look at what JFK ran on. "Nixon will continue the policies that will surely lose Indochina to the communists!')
(cross-posted, and more refined in a diary at DailyKos)
Posted by: samizdat | Dec 6, 2006 7:47:22 PM
Yes, samizdat, but I guess the understandable worry is that we get that clean sweep and veto proofing, and President Hillary spends four years triangulating her way to a second term. Why would you think that she of all people would lead the charge for a New New Deal? You really think that she would wager her office for national healthcare? Can you explain why something along the lines of welfare reform wouldn't be just as likely? Wouldn't they step into office panic-striken at the thought of Gingrichite blowback?
Seriously, wouldn't, say, a school-voucher program or something bland and more right than left be the sort of thing we might expect of her and a similarly nervous Congress?
Posted by: CR | Dec 7, 2006 12:06:44 AM
I had never looked at Obama's photos till this week. He looks like a boy, would be terrible choice for president and could not do it. We've had enough boys doing president, even if they're 60 now. I really don't want him for anything, but would support him. I don't think Hillary is predictable, she's smart and married to Bill--that's all good. Extremely Smart and Extremely Tough is what is needed. All she needs is to get elected. She'd be an amazing president if the era is amazing enough, in which case she'd probably be extremely inventive once she got used to the freedom, and Bill would break her in fast. The recent era has been amazing in a purely destructive way, so everything had this seizure-like feel to it, even though it was the right making it go sort of weirdly sinistral.
Posted by: Patrick J. Mullins | Dec 7, 2006 1:12:45 AM
I don't think Hillary is predictable, she's smart and married to Bill--that's all good. Extremely Smart and Extremely Tough is what is needed.
So policy, like, isn't the point. Just personality, character type... How very American - and well, now, French (Sego) - of you.
Posted by: CR | Dec 7, 2006 12:02:35 PM
Post a comment
Please note: comments are published at the discretion of the post's author and will not appear immediately. Do not submit comments more than once.
