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

[greggegregg]

Want to send John McCain a vote of "No Confidence"?

If so, go here and sign this petition:

http://www.McCainPetition.com

Gregg

[luckyrico1]

There was a time when I would have voted conservative. That was a time when conservative meant fiscal responsibility and intelligence in law and governance.

The Republican party caters to Big Business, Big Oil, and the War Machine while making promises to the evangelical right and "Joe the plumber". That's why we get candidates like Bush and Palin; the anti-science and anti-choice religious incompetents.

In the name of God, "Family Values", and "Country First" the Republicans have: impeached a president because he lied about sex then, fed US lies that led to the invasion of Iraq, squandered a surplus and a booming economy, oversaw the largest government expansion since the 1960's, gave the wealthiest 1% enormous tax breaks while subsidizing the energy and oil industry (in the wake of unprecedented profits). The deficit spirals out of control.

There's a reason why our forefathers wanted a separation of church and state. Progressives respect the separation and that's why they don't get the evangelical votes. Progressives aren't afraid science and the "intellectual elite" so they make decisions based on fact; not fear.

Republicans are the party of "SPEND AND SPEND" and have lost all credibility in being "the conservative" party.

[Ensentium]

Yes, and we came from protein in rocks right? Okay who's the crack?

[knollfence]

No we were formed from dust by magic.
Then women were made from a ribs.

GET REAL.

[2lib4oh]

Sometimes dissent is patriotic and sometimes its opportunistic.

I wonder if Mr. Alderman reached his decision to depart from his fellow Republicans based on reasoned judgment as this Progressives has or does he just want to be on the "winning" side?

[zenaby56]

Thank goodness there is some thinking going on finally. There has been too many years of chosing our leadership because of their ideology and not what that person can do for the benefit of our country and its people.

[Agent420]

If your conservatism is pre-raygun, then I can see your point. However, that still doesn't excuse you from a blind following of who ever is marked Republican on the ballot. During my life, I have voted for who I thought was best for the job regardless of their party. I don't worry too much about ideology as much as I worry about the rapidly growing gap between the rich and the poor.

[DavidK08]

It is impossible to be "country first" and always vote your party line, no matter what. If your party doesn't have a candidate that represents what you want for your country, you have to vote him down or you are "party first".

[Bitsko]

Appreciate the vote, Mr. Adelman, but you might want to train yourself to wise up earlier. You're not the only one with an opinion on this planet.

[Teadye]

HuffPost's Pick

From a "progressive" point of view, I would like to say a couple of things:

First, most of us do not consider Obama to be liberal. If you actually read the whys and wherefores of Obama's "liberal" voting record, you'll quickly understand that numeric scores don't tell you much (esp. when they were generated for poiltical purposes.)

Secondly, if you think Republicans don't like Pelosi and Reid, you should tune into the "liberal" station. They are really disliked by us and have been since day one. Reid in particular. His assertion was deeply resented by the rank and file. All I can say is "get in line" on that one.

It's fair to say that most progressives don't value ideology one whit. That might be what confuses many conservatives. Most of us feel that ideology is just another brain-stopper. The problems we face usually crop up because one excuse or another was used to hop off the "Thinkers Express" and throw facts and reason under the bus. Reason requires one to follow the path to the logical conclusion, not merely the convenient one or the one that feels the best. A good progressive thinker is always asking "and then what?"

What Obama represents to us is the path away from power, ego and privilege as the basis for governance, turning towards professionalism and competence in our public servants.

[fedupscot]

What a great posting...­thank you.

[Sneakerface]

"...Most progressives don't value ideology one whit ?" That doesn't make any sense.

I am liberal / progressive, and I have not problem saying that I value ideology. I'm a liberal, and I want liberal politicians in power. What's wrong with that? Not valuing your ideology is like saying you don't value your values.

[meltingpot101]

Sometimes people loyalty to their ideology creates a stagnet mindset.

True progressives want to be better next year than they are this year. They weigh facts and reason to determine what the best solution is.

Moving forward, progress and a plan for the future is always more important that who it came from.

I consider myself a "progressive," but not necesarily liberal, more of a moderate. However I would have no problem voting for a republican if I felt this was the right candidate with the right vision at the right time.

I have already voted for Barack Obama, he clearly represents progress on so many issues. He has conveyed his vision for this country convincingly.

[Ensentium]

What are you talking about. Obama was ranked the most liberal of all senators. Joey (can't remember when the restaurant closed down) Biden was ranked the 3rd most libera.

[TLV]

.....ranke­d by whom....?

[biding4brilliance]

Ensentium, what you have to realize is that special interest groups that do these studies and rankings may be promoting their own agenda, even groups that say they're non-partisan. He was ranked as the #1 liberal for 2007 by the National Journal. That decision is widely contested and the ranking process is thought to be flawed. This is not the first time the "NJ" has released a controversial decision amidst an election season, too. In the 2004 election, they also claimed Senator Kerry was the most liberal. According to the Journal's chief editor Charles Green, they've come out and admitted that the 2004 results were flawed by flawed methodology of ranking.

Here's what he said: "We decided that in order for a member of Congress to receive a composite rating, he or she needed to vote often enough to qualify for scores in each of the three issue categories-economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy-that we measure. In Kerry’s case, he didn’t vote often enough in 2003 to merit scores in the social-policy and foreign-affairs categories. His overall ranking was based on his score in the economic category." ( http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14472.html )

By cross-checking your sources against others, you can get a much fuller spectrum. These ranking systems are not perfect. They're just tools. It would be wise to avoid taking them for face value, whether the results favor a republican or a democrat.

[Jezreel]

Excellent! Thanks for posting such a thoughtful and respectful comment. Your response is completely in line with my views on this subject.
I especially agree with your assessment that Sen. Obama is not a Liberal. The caricatured version of a far-left, extremely Liberal Barack Obama has agitated partisans on the Left and Right sides of the political spectrum and resulted in some of the most mean spirited activism seen during this election cycle.
Relentless efforts by Republicans and Conservatives to portray Senator Obama as a Social Liberal is part of broader narrative - a loaded fabrication created to depict Sen. Obama as dangerous for our economy and our national security if elected POTUS.
Senator Obama is a thoughtful, prudent and pragmatical professional who is neither Liberal nor Conservative. He is, like most adults, a centrist whose views alternate between Liberal, (as in his position on abortion); Conservative (as in his view on capital punishment in the case of child rapists) and moderate (as in his views on fiscal policy and personal responsibility). He is an exceptionally skilled politician and a charismatic leader whose intellectual acumen, keen discernment and visionary foresight are precisely what's needed to lead our country at this time in our history.

[laire]

Teadye,

I agree with a lot of what you said however, I do disagree with you about Obama being a liberal or progressive as he has called himself. Which I think simply means you put your Liberal ideas into action. He believes health care is a right I think that's one of the most liberal positions you can have. We can look at individual votes and say I don'think that's the Liberal position however, I would say this is not the way to determine whether someone is a Liberal or not. I think people are confusing his pragmatism for not being Liberal or maybe not being Liberal enough for some people. I consider my-self a liberal/progressive but I'm an issue policy person so it really depends on what the issue is but I have a philosophical understanding of the world and our system but I'm not dogmatic. I have a thought by reading his books that he probably falls in that camp of Liberal/moderate person where Hillary I think is liberal/co­nservative­.

[biding4brilliance]

Liberal Conservative? That's an oxymoron. Does not work.

[trinity29]

Mr. Adelman,, your endorsement sounds more of a "better of the two bad choices" than actually a conviction. How does being strong on one way of thinking and governing actually represent the greater good of people in your country who are not aligned with your thoughts? Yes McCain was erratic in his behavior. But are you seriously suggesting that his policy of $5000 health care credit and more tax cuts to the rich are actually the conservative way to go when several independent nonpartisan organizations have declared that the cost of this approach is going to be higher than Senator Obama's?

You speak of Senator Obama's liberal voting record. What exactly is "liberal?" And who really owns that term? Have you looked at McCain's voting record against himself? He is not willing to support his own bill. If you do not look at a candidate individually based on issue by issue, you reduce the candidate into a soundbyte, a propaganda piece to discuss at dinner parties, instead of considering the implications of the policies that candidate proposes.

I appreciate your vote, although I cannot help but wonder how someone as intellectually reflective as you are adhered to a monolithic ideological principal of conservatism to be the holy grail of saving the American people when the thoughtful approach would have been a balanced government that has a fair exchange of contradictory ideas and come to some point of compromise instead of upholding one set of ideologies as good for all.

[VA Lady2008]

So the question du jour would be: Did they call you a traitor?

[eggman]

More and more conservatives are saying similar things. It seems we have reached the point where even prominent cons are obliged to admit that Bush's presidency has been an unmitigated disaster; that McCain offers no hope for improvement; and that Obama, whatever one may think of his ideology, has demonstrated intrinsic Presidential qualities.

Adelman still does not see the extent to which conservative ideology has contributed to the mess in which we find ourselves. The financial crisis, the energy crisis, the country's ballooning deficit, our tarnished reputation as a freedom-loving country, and the stress on our military readiness are among the problems created not by Bush's incompetent approach but by the triumph of conservative ideology in all three branches of government.

Adelman has obviously done some soul searching. But he won't find his soul until he reconsiders his ideology.

[xansam]

not fair. a true conservative ideology is a far cry from what we have seen, beginning with Reagan and ending with bush. that doesn't make them soulless, it's the right wing religious agenda that is so dangerous and has toppled the republicans. there is not one member of the present administration that could be/is a true conservative. while i don't personally hold with that ideology, i find it much less distasteful that what we have seen. it is the zealotry of the religious right that terrifies me. (does that make them terrorists?)

and politics used to be the providence of the most intelligent, the deepest thinkers of the ages, now we have Palin making a run at the vice presidency? the leaders of this country need to reclaim the intelligence that was once the u.s congress and presidency. until we stop voting in utter morons, we get what we deserve. perhaps that is why obama is effecting so many true conservatives. while they may not agree wholly with his ideology, they respect his deep intellect. and for that they should be applauded.

[text93]

With all due appreciation of your openness, Mr. Adelman, I'd like to point one thing out to you. I realize that the idea of Obama-Reid-Pelosi scares you and those of your ideological bent. Do you realize that the idea of Bush-Hastert-Lott, or Bush-Hastert-Frist were scared people of a different mindset from yours? To me, those two combinations were scary contemporaneously, and are scary in retrospect. And they have led, in this man's opinion, to where we are now.

Hard to grasp, I know, but conservatives do not have a monopoly on being right. In fact, I think they barely have a franchise.

[Thefamilyvan]

I SO AGREE WITH YOU! I've been scared and nervous for 8 YEARS! I'm not surprised at what we have now. Clinton left a BUDGET SURPLUS and now we face one of the biggest recessions in world history! They took the good government of 1992-2000 and wrecked it! The buck stops right on the Republican's feet with Mr. Bush at the helm. Our fears were confirmed. This has been the WORST presidency on record!

[zeth]

Seconf you on that

[wingnutslayer]

The primary GOP strategy for years has been to demonize and vilify liberals so that Joe Sixpacks everywhere only have to hear the word liberal and they start crossing themselves and shouting out "Evil! Immoral! Commies!" I would say that the tide has definitely turned. Conservatives that I know accuse GWB of not being a true conservative even though they loved him like Jesus when he was strutting around after Baghdad fell and the conservative pundits were trashing anything smelling of liberalism as anti-American. Then Iraq went to pieces (no surge can make up for what we lost in those early years), and Katrina hit and demonstrated that regulatory commissions under Bush were just perks for cronies. All of a sudden, his incompetence made him less conservative, not his policies which hadn't changed one bit, his incompetence. It's nice to see a conservative own up to the fact that a conservative can screw things up so badly that new standards in hopelessness have been set for years to come. Thank you, Mr. Adelman, it's very rare and strange to see a true conservative admit that one of their own has been an unmitigated disaster and that a dreaded liberal may be the best thing for the country.

[HoraceOvidson]

Speaking on behalf of the entire left of center and moderate world: We'll trade Lieberman for you any day. And its on to the world series.

[munki]

Totally understand­able...

[Wozzeck]

How valuable is the political endorsement of a person who should be tried under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide for inciting war with Iraq? Article 3 of the convention defines as punishible "direct and public incitement to commit genocide". Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as " ...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a NATIONAL, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: ...c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Prevention_and_Punishment_of_the_Crime_of_Genocide

[BigBagel]

It's valuable to Adelman so he has the possibility of getting an ear in the White House. Hopefully his phone calls won't be returned.

[Rmatt10066]

Typical Republican, two lines about the good of the country, the rest of the article about himself.