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.)

Comments

[Patrick J. Mullins]

I didn't say that. Not being predictable could certainly apply to policy too, couldn't it, or was I born yesterday, as you may possibly think? Then tell me how it couldn't. If she really is as unpredictable as I seem to feel, then I think policy could prove surprising as well; but then I already said that, didn't I? I think this includes a bit more than charisma/persona things.

'How very American - and well, now, French (Sego) - of you.'

That's a bit crude, but so what. I don't mind being called names, as is well-known.

[squibb]

Hilary scares me - I'm not going to lie.

I feel like she would spend all her time trying to prove something, LBJ style.

And can she beat Giuliani or McCain?

also the article that prompted this thread is now available in full here:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/01/neocons200701

[Charles]

If Bush is a chess player, he may be a sore loser.

[Matt]

I'm with CR. How's a little symbolic victory in the realm of identity politics going to materially compete with so many radical assumptions to disprove, and all at once.

Edwards has far more integrity, is less poll-driven, more economically proactive, and seems to have-God forbid- some passion for the fight.

[Patrick J. Mullins]

Edwards is a good man and might well make a fine president. At this point, I seem to feel that an absolutely heavily-armoured political animal is the only kind that can survive, get something done, and not be a Republican. Hillary is hardly without her real accomplishments--that she is a hero to the 9/11 site diggers is barely even known, and attests to the kind of thing that grabs attention in the media hypnosis. She's a hero because of pulling together the $112 million for the Mt. Sinai diagnosis and treatment of the site diggers. Things like that are not nothing in my book. I guess I think policy and accomplishment cannot come without incredible strength and intelligence. Edwards may have these qualities, but I think integrity is rather something that can have to do with things like exposure, subjectivity by viewers, and even age; it is not unimportant ever, of course, but my view is probably that having got at least a foothold, there is no time to lose or waste--and that that is the biggest danger. I definitely don't see Obama as president this time, though. Let him be VP and learn how it's done. I don't think Hillary and Gore is supposed to be a possibility, I believe they are supposed to be in bad odour with each other or something, although that sounds pretty quirky.

[Patrick J. Mullins]

Incidentally, I just saw that Obama had 'charmed' New Hampshire. This might be where the 'personality, character type' fits best. One thing that is definitely not enough is boyish charm. And if the racial thing became an issue, it would not be worth the interference caused unless he miraculously proved to be a truly strong candidate, which I don't believe he can yet do.

I hope everybody has given up on Kerry's nonsense. He doesn't even seem to have any idea that a billionaire who comes across as languorous is not going to play in Peoria. It has to be an energetic billionaire like Bloomberg, who may not be so pretty but also doesn't act as though he's worried about not sounding blase enough. I just realized last night, which I hadn't before, that when he 'won' the debates in 2004, he never had any sense of passion or anger at Bush when Bush said something appallingly obscene--he just smiled complacently, which may be all he is. But when he made that stupid remark that nearly ruined the election a week beforehand, that was the end of any respect I had for Kerry--and I'd voted for him and thought he was viable. He's just plain weak and should never even be considered for anything except a retirement community unless he has enough energy to do Carter-type good works. Ridiculous fool.