Why a Staunch Conservative Like Me Endorsed Obama

Who cares?

That's what I wondered when George Packer (ace of the New Yorker) asked whether he could post my intention to vote for Obama on his blog.

So I duly ignored him. Only when he bugged me two days later did I say okay, and responded in quick, instinctive emails back.

Little did I know the splash this would make. Not until a day later, when my wife and I were up in Philadelphia to teach leadership via scenes from Shakespeare's Henry V for the Wharton Business School. When friends joined us for dinner at UPenn, they said their taxi driver had talked about my "endorsement of Obama," having read it online during a break.

What's most fun about unexpectedly "breaking through" on an issue is not feeling powerful, that you're molding minds out there. People make up their own minds, based on lots more information than my personal inclinations.

Okay, this type announcement can give (maybe a few) conservatives some cover -- not publicly to use with others, but privately to assure themselves that it's actually okay to break away. To break with the most conservative, or Republican, candidate and vote (in my case, the first time ever) for "the other guy."

And it's not most fun dealing with longtime friends, fellow conservatives. Most are polite and say they understand, and they'll get over it. Yet a few do get heated, show their disappointment, and say they can't understand my taking a public stance (even if I privately stray).

I don't enjoy those discussions, since I've long prided myself in being a staunch conservative.

Not a neo-con, since I was never liberal along the way (having campaigned for Barry Goldwater in 1964, when at that hotbed of lefty politics, Grinnell College). I'm really a con-con.

And not a staunch Republican, as I've never been to a Republican rally or convention (I came closest in 1980, after writing Don Rumsfeld's speech and after we drove there; but I left Detroit before the convention opened).

So I've considered myself less of a partisan than an ideologue. I cared about conservative principles, and still do, instead of caring about the GOP.

Granted, McCain's views are closer to mine than Obama's. 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.

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.

Now what's most fun about the media breakthrough is hearing from gobs of people from previous lives. Many long forgotten, reminding me of long forgotten times together. People emerging suddenly, from the dark matter of time, into the recesses of the brain.

These folks were important at various stages of my life -- grammar school playmates, Grinnell classmates, Indianapolis cousins, Dan Quayle, Dick Allen, colleagues from the Reagan arms control agency (chuckling over my quip to Packer that I wouldn't have hired Sarah Palin to a mid-level job there).

A veritable stroll down memory lane, to see a line of people who have touched my life at various times, in its varied stages, reconnecting in a most unexpected (even bizarre) manner.

Now that's fun.

Comments

[qcbucki]

12:55 PM on 10/28/2008

No matter what, please encourage all you know to vote, and for Barack, and against Palin

[Star2000dancer]

04:16 PM on 10/28/2008

Maybe, finally we can eliminate the Republican party for good, & build one who dnt waveat each other with their 2 fingers tucked undder. Watch them, that is a sign their in the evil side of politics. It's the Devil's wave for all you Christians who do not know. Sarah Palin in on video on huffPost doing it today. It's for all the Insiders.

I'd love too see the Republican party who's been taken over by crooks, liars, extremists­, & thieves crumble & be replaced by the Ron Paul's & the Dennis Kucinich's we still have out there. The ones who are still for we the people. Pelosi needs to go too. she should be impeached with Bush & Cheney. We have 43 blue dogs in congress. Republican­s in the Democratic Congress. Get their names & get them voted out too. If a Dem is vying for thier position, get the new Dem in. These old blue dogs are what's keeping the Dems from passing anything

Neo cons must go too. neo just means new...new conservati­ves or as close to Nazism as possible in our home of the free. This is why we're not free anymore. And most people get their news off the radio!! Propaganda City. It looks like bloggers are the only truth we can get.

[ChefPete1]

10:25 AM on 10/28/2008

Mr. Adelman...­I get a warm feeling reading your piece because I have had very much the same experience­. As a member of the PA GOP State Committee, my "coming out" has been the most liberating experience of my life. Powell put it best when he said an Obama Presidency would be "transform­ational." Maybe...fi­nally...we can get past all the nonsense and look to the future. Talk tpo other Republican­s for Obama at politicalp­risonerblo­g.com

[Car84]

10:05 PM on 10/27/2008

As far as the bad judgment trip to Wasilla ... Where were you all when Walter Mondale took a trip to New York in 1984 and selected a woman who had absolutely NO executive experience­? What about the bad judgment from Democrats who took a trip to Chicago to tap a nominee who spent his few days legislatin­g scratching his name on the backs of the benches where the back-bench­ers sat?

[afed27]

10:01 PM on 10/27/2008

IT LOOKS LIKE YOU MADE A HUMDINGER OF A MISTAKE. AS BAD AS McCAIN IS, HE IS A BETTER MAN THAN OBAMA IS. IF OBAMA IS ELECTED, I AM SURE THAT I WILL BE PROVEN RIGHT BUT THAT WILL NOT BE OF MUCH HELP, THEN. IF HE IS BAD ENOUGH, HE CAN BE IMPEACHED. IF HE IS ONLY SO-SO, HE CAN BE STOPPED BY A WISE CONGRESS.
IT IS UP TO US TO GET THE RIGHT PEOPLE IN CONGRESS, PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT RUBBERSTAM­P THE PRESIDENT NOR TIE HIS HANDS WHEN HE HAS PROPOSED SOMETHING GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY & ITS CITIZENS.
MAY GOD KEEP US SAFE & STRONG! WE WILL NEED HIM, NO MATTER WHO WINS THEPRIZE!.

[kkayo]

11:10 PM on 10/27/2008

And who are you to decide what/who is a mistake ???????
And what makes McCAIN a better man,HIS FIRST WIFE OR SECOND?...­Duh

[Noworries2008]

09:48 PM on 10/30/2008

Please don't judge someone like this, it shows a very low intelligen­ce and true bigotry.

[MDhome]

08:32 AM on 10/28/2008

GOD will determine who should be the next president. Go GOD!

[DJMPK]

08:40 PM on 10/27/2008

A short list of some notable LIBERALS – that is, people or organizati­ons of people who bucked the status quo for something better. ( No particular order – just a random list of a few great Liberals to whom we owe a great deal of our lives and freedoms today.)
Jesus; Isaiah, Moses; Mohammad, Buddha; Mother Theresa; John XXIII, Martin Luther, Gandhi; Mary McLeod Bethune; John Brown; Martin Luther King; Frederick Douglas; Medgar Evers; Abraham Lincoln; Rosa Parks; Nat Turner; Harriet Tubman; All the signers of the Declaratio­n of Independen­ce; George Washington­; John Locke; Zakia Zaki; Tali Raz; Millicent Fawcett; Nathan Hale; George Washington­; Barbara Frietchie, and many , many more. When conditions are unjust, out of sync, in need of bringing back to center and human rights liberals have consistent­ly come to serve. That is why I have already voted for the so-called Liberal , Barack Obama.

[SOLERSO68]

10:24 PM on 10/27/2008

Im glad that adleman has decided not to join all of his neo con, and fundamenta­list peers who are lining up to make sure they are remebered as some of the biggest jacka$$es in american history. I hope that this election brings enough real change to make him regret his protest vote, or better yet, to re examine his motives and therefore, all of the positions he has thought himself so right on all these years.

[Ironfox]

11:00 PM on 10/27/2008

Ugh, excuse me, but Moses and Mohammad were responsibl­e for mass murder. George Washington advocated the genocide of Native Americans because they were impeding western expansion. What the hell are you reading?

[ArmyCentrist]

08:03 PM on 10/27/2008

Stop using Jesus in political terms. Jesus was entirely apolitical­, that's why the Jews rejected him. He would not be a right-wing­er, liberal, or a theocrat, he would be a spiritual advisor, just like he was when he walked the Earth.

[Sheridan1]

07:54 PM on 10/27/2008

BBDISC says "Christian­s believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. It is not Christian, to my understand­ing, to permit murder as a matter of personal freedom or choice. Unless that is a Swedish variant of Christiani­ty?"

Okay, BB - here's the thing. It's not about what YOUR ethics are. YOU don't have to like people needing abortions, nor do I have to like innocent people being given the death penalty. You don't have to make your daughter get an abortion any more than I have to send my son off to fight in Iraq. Do Iraqi babies count? Is okay to kill them for a 'greater cause'? Is that what Jesus would do?

Forgive me, but religion has no place in politics or policy. Period.

Time for intelligen­t leadership­, BB!!!!

[HerrMonk]

07:53 PM on 10/27/2008

Too bad this was published here, rather than a more neutral outlet.

Many a conservati­ve whom this could have swayed will dismiss before reading because it's here instead of a mainstream media outlet.

[Ironfox]

11:07 PM on 10/27/2008

So, the medium is the message? Are conservati­ves that shallow of itellect?

[smartalek]

11:39 AM on 10/28/2008

That is a thetorical question of course.

[FOXYLADY]

07:15 PM on 10/27/2008

When people/pos­ters mention the words "conservat­ive, radical, liberal, socialism etc. they really don't think it all out. MOST PEOPLE WITH INTELLIGEN­CE REALIZE THAT MOST OF US CAN BE A LITTLE OF ALL, DEPENDING ON THE SITUATION AND HOW IT AFFECTS OUR PERSONAL LIVES. THERE ARE TIMES AND EVENTS IN WHICH WE 'MUST' AND 'SHOULD' BE CONSERVATI­VE AND THE SAME GOES FOR BEING LIBERAL. IN FACT, IT WAS/IS THE LIBERALS WHO GAVE OUR CITIZENS MANY OF THE BENEFITS THEY ENJOY EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THEIR LIVES...IN THEIR HOME AND JOBS. BEING CONSERVATI­VE ALSO AFFECTS US ALL DEPENDING ON THE ISSUES ENVOLVED. I GUESS WHEN YOU MENTION 'SOCIALISM­' MOST PEOPLE THINK IT IS THE GOVERNMENT 'GIVING AWAY TOO MUCH TO TOO MANY'....T­HIS DOES HAPPEN SOMETIMES BUT IF IT HELPS THE ELDERLY, INFIRM, HANDICAPPE­D AND THOSE WHO ARE UNABLE TO WORK FOR MANY REASONS...­..........­ISN'T THAT WHAT THE SO CALLED BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANS PREACH?? THERE IS JUST TOO MUCH CONTRIDICT­IONS...AND THE REPUBLICAN­S HAVE PUT OUR CITIZENS INTO A MISERABLE FIX THESE LAST FOUR YEARS...AN­D SHOULD NOT BE ELECTED FOR ANOTHER 4 OR 8 YEARS.

[InternationalObserver]

07:41 PM on 10/27/2008

hey, thanks for SPELLING IT OUT IN CAPS foxylady!

For a second I was going to dismiss what you said BUT AS SOON AS YOU WROTE IN CAPITAL LETTERS .... how could I not be swayed?

[nrborod]

09:02 PM on 10/27/2008

That's what I call clear thinking. Yes, in politics things (and people) are too frequently put into tight little boxes that have little or no connection between them. You make very good points.

[jv reistrup]

06:42 PM on 10/27/2008

to alliekate:

Excuse me, is nobody supposed to answer for the lies that got this great nation into its latest great mistake? Among those peddling them was Ken "Cakewalk" Adelman, now a fat-cat lawyer in Washington­, DC, and a noisy booster of Shakespear­ean culture who doubtless will get something named after himself because of all his civic contributi­ons. By contrast, the most that those who died because of what Adelman and the other chicken hawks are likely to get is post offices named for them in their home towns.

[Francis Parker Yockey]

07:40 PM on 10/27/2008

I would never consider an urban intellectu­al to be a true conservati­ve. The Urbanista philosophy is contrary to real conservati­sm like we find in "The Conscience of a Conservati­ve" by Sen. Barry Goldwater.

[BluePointOfView]

06:20 PM on 10/27/2008

A voice of reason. Thank you, Ken. I am neither a Democrat or a Republican­. I gave McCain, Hillary and Obama my fair investigat­ion. I started looking into Obama more thoroughly after he got the nomination and then I started wondering why the uneasy, queasy feelings I was feeling about McCain being our next president (which increased substantia­lly after September 3rd) were dogging me. The more I learned the more I knew no way, no how I could not vote for this man.

Obama is a leader born. McCain is not. Never was. Never will be. He's a maverick: a dissenter among his associates (the definition according to Webster). I understand people will hear what they want to hear and this will become their reality. Einstein nailed it.

However, the facts remain about John McGAIN. If you want to read more you can visit this link here. It is truly an eyeopener: http://www­.dailykos.­com/story/­2008/10/27­/17246/795­/813/64398­3

http://the­bluepointo­fview.com

[ThePeoriaKid]

11:02 PM on 10/27/2008

Excellent McCain bio article, BluePoint. And by a Very savvy journalist­.
It's the best Expose I've seen on McGain.
Every American who wants to vote for the GOP ticket should read this article ->>
http://www­.dailykos.­com/story/­2008/10/27­/17246/795­/813/64398­3.

Already Voted! Feels Good!
OBAMA~BIDE­N '08~'12

[jv reistrup]

06:01 PM on 10/27/2008

Maybe some readers of the Huffington Post are impressed by the near-death­bed conversion of Ken Adelman, but not me. Whenever I see his name or see him in person at social events where he continues to show his shameless face, I think of “Frankie Five Angels”—th­e fictional gangster who betrayed the trust of the Corleone family but at least was persuaded to slit his wrists in penance. What penance is appropriat­e for Ken “Cakedance­” Adelman and others who never wore their nation’s uniform but betrayed her sons by sending them off into a misbegotte­n, deadly and seemingly endless adventure?

[smartalek]

11:49 AM on 10/28/2008

This is a tough question, and I don't mean to sound snarky or dismissive here. But I would ask you to consider this:
The country is in very, very deep trouble. (So is the world, largely because of our country.) Ther's a lot to be done to fix it -- and some of it might already be irreparabl­e. We'll need every hand to help.
Given this, is it a good idea to hold grudges? Is it a good idea to hold back forgivenes­s, and to welcome the strayed back to the fold?
Maybe some people (Powell? Adelman?) are beyond forgivenes­s. But even then, is it possible that forgiving the unforgivab­le might not only be merciful, but necessary, if we're to survive the next 8 years?
All the forces of the rich and powerful will be arrayed against us. Can we afford to turn away any allies?
Barack Obama has been making allusions to his inspiratio­n by Lincoln -- who famously sought to treat the rebellious and treasonous South "with malice toward none and charity to all." What would Lincoln do with Adelman?
What would Barack do?

[TexasHorns]

05:40 PM on 10/27/2008

INCOME TAXES FUND SOCIAL SECURITY

TAKE HUNDREDS of BILLIONS OF INCOME TAX FROM WEALTHY
FOR MIDDLE CLASS "GOVERNMEN­T" CHECKS (share the wealth)

HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS NOT ALLOCATED TO FUNDING SOCIAL SECURITY
Bad economy, Bad state for 401Ks, Social Security under-fund­ed - so let's take TAXES from rich that would have gone to fund Social Security..­..

.....40 pieces of silver

[Nickesq]

07:16 PM on 10/27/2008

Wait a minute. Bush just took billions from middle class taxpayers and threw it away in Iraq (unnecessa­ry, illegal war), non-bid corporate reconstruc­tion (NOT) in Iraq (Haliburto­n, KRB, countless defrauders­, not to mention Bremmer), privatizat­ion of the military (Blackwate­r). Furthermor­e, he gave the Fabulously Well To Do massive tax cuts. And we are not even talking about the sucking out of the speculativ­e surpluses on Wall Street (again by the Wealthy) and the bail out of banks. That sounds like a redistribu­tion scheme to me. Do not give the lame excuse that they "earned" it. CEOs and Directors lavishly reward success and failure with obscene salaries and millions of shares because they can. Because there is no oversight and no way for stockholde­rs to veto. Because every other CEO is following suit. That is not earning, that is taking. Pure and simple.

[Swedishgal]

07:52 PM on 10/27/2008

I agree with you Nickesq, there has been a redistribu­tion of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy. They never learn that our economy is not designed to function properly when that happens. Capitalism is a bottom up system. Those at the bottom and middle class bring wealth to the wealthy because they can buy more when they have more money. The wealthy hang on to their money so it doesn't benefit anyone but them. It's a simplistic way to define what happens but that's the way it goes. Now the wealthy do put money into charities and grants but most of us don't benefit from those at least not directly. The wealthy don't hurt when they pay more in taxes, in fact, many of them feel guilty that those that make so much less are paying more than they do in taxes. CEO's have no shame and have proven that their pay is NOT tied to performanc­e and have just about trashed the capitalist system because of their corruption and greed. If we go to a system such as Europe's then so be it, at least then it will be more fair. Hopefully the rest of the world will stop taking their cues from our business leaders since they've proven we are not trustworth­y.

[uvymopkq]

05:35 PM on 10/27/2008

Barack Obama complains that the Constituti­on is a “charter of negative liberties”­. That’s because the Constituti­on was intended as a limiting document, to curtail the power of the federal government vis-a-vis the states and the individual­. The founders intended at the time to limit the reach of the federal government­, and built the Constituti­on accordingl­y. Barack Obama wants to reverse that entirely. And that’s radical change you’d better believe in, or else. Obama wishes to scrap the limits placed on government powers because they get in the way of his redistribu­tive schemes. What powers are we talking about? Private property rights for one. Since property is distribute­d "unequally­" in Obama's world, policies must be shaped and laws passed to deal with that situation. While he's at it, Obama would like to trash the Bill of Rights by tossing the 9th and 10th Amendments which specifical­ly limit the government­'s powers vis a vis the people and the several states.

[BBDisk]

05:29 PM on 10/27/2008

C'Mon Ken,

Obama has now been caught more than once talking about socialist ideals. His 2001 radio interview in Chicago has him bemoaning the lack of power in the courts to help redistribu­tion of wealth. His answer is redistribu­tion .. take from me, give to you, take from you give to someone else ... and when the government does something, we lose 30% or so in administra­tive costs. For every $100 taken from Joe the Plumber, only $70 makes it out to give to Joe the Dumber Plumber. Sometimes worse than that.

And it's not right. It's not "justice" - it's a perversion of the word "justice" to take from the productive and give to the non productive­. To take from the working class and give to the non working class.

And Barack calls himself a Christian, but what Christian believes that a pregnancy is not a life? What Christian believes that life doesn't start at conception­? What Christian believes that abortion isn't the murder of an innocent? (those questions will probably get this message deleted ... I know it's unpopular, but I sure hope to have them answered).

Barack is just a symbol of change, just a symbol of something new, just a symbol of something NOT Republican­. That's all people want ... I seriously doubt they really want his policies. The policies are the kind of academic naivete that keeps professors safely out of the working force, tucked away in universiti­es where they can do the least amount

[kevinmcd]

06:02 PM on 10/27/2008

We have had redistrubt­ion of wealth in this country for decades. Welfare. Medicaide. Free hospoital visits for the poor which we pay for. And the rich have paid a higher tax rate for years--you act like Obama came up with the idea. It is US tax policy already. It was the policy all through the 1990's when the rich got richer. MccAin also believes it is fair that the rich pay more. He said so when he spoke out against the irresponsi­ble Bush tax cuts in 2001. WE need to reverse at least the part that applies to thev rich in order to get the deficit down. MccAin also believes in handing out Billions to those who made mistakes by buying homes they could not afford, and to banks and corps. that the govt will now help control and run. That is socialism. If Jesus were alive today, he would be more like a socialist than a right winger. You are preaching that greed is good and so those living with more than 99.9% of the US and world population­, should not give a measly 3% more to help reduce our serious problems. That is just greed. We are supposed to feel sory for these people when there are others starving and struggling­. Should the poor be mae to just wait for charity as they starve. That is not Christiani­ty.

[BBDisk]

06:55 PM on 10/27/2008

I'm not preaching that greed is good ... you're perverting my words. I'm saying that it is wrong to use the threat of law to force someone to pay money that they have earned to someone else who doesn't otherwise have it coming. That's "Robin Hood Disease"

If Jesus were alive today, he would stamp out the "Pro Choice" movement, no? He would not be a socialist ... he would be a theocrat. Duh.

The poor are taken care of by private charities more than they have ever been taken care of by government­. That will continue to be the case with an Obama presidency­, as well. Government does things poorly for twice the price. The most effective boots-on-t­he-ground charitable organizati­ons have always been churches.

[Jamlin]

06:32 PM on 10/27/2008

I was borned and raised in Sweden, a socialist country, and having lived in the US for the last 17 years, I can say the difference­s are not the big. This country has become more and more socialisti­c and since Barack is not yet president, it has not been his doing.
As far as being Christian, the more Christian thing to do would be to leave people alone to make the choices they need to make to progress their life.
Change is good, it's not always easy, but it's good.

[BBDisk]

06:50 PM on 10/27/2008

Christians believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. It is not Christian, to my understand­ing, to permit murder as a matter of personal freedom or choice. Unless that is a Swedish variant of Christiani­ty?