The shamelessness of modern conservatism

After meeting with red-faced advisers on Tuesday, President Obama noted that there was no inadequacy in the amount of their assembled security intelligence -- indeed, the NY Times' David Brooks has pointed out the staggering fact that "the National Security Agency alone now gathers four times more data each day than is contained in the Library of Congress" -- although their comprehension of it was, to put it gently, wanting.

"I will accept that intelligence by its nature is imperfect," said Obama, "but it is increasingly clear that intelligence was not fully analyzed or fully leveraged. That’s not acceptable," he continued, and just to publicly clarify what "unacceptable" means, he added that he "will not tolerate it."

The Times, in its straight reporting on Obama's news conference, had this to say, and it was representative of most everyone's reporting: "The tone of the president’s remarks on Tuesday -- the sharpest of any of his statements since the [Flight 253] incident nearly two weeks ago -- underscored his anger over the lapses in intelligence as well as his efforts to minimize any political risks from his administration’s response."

Yet, or so it seems to me, the accentuated order of those two observations should have been reversed. Since Obama's delivered remarks I've read innumerable stories and heard countless analyses about how angry the president appeared, but his anger -- again, this was just my take -- seemed more politically tactical than genuinely emotional.

This is not to suggest that Obama is in any way indifferent or unfeeling. He is, however, extraordinarily realistic about, and intellectually tuned into, inherent human error and inescapable institutional flaws to work up much of an authentic fury when they make their appearance.

No, they're not acceptable; they are, on the other hand, inevitable.

And that's an imposingly hard truth for any politician to impart. From the horror of 9/11 to the potential horror of Flight 253 and in every horrific instance between, the clinical gathering of revealing intelligence has been the least of our problems. What becomes of that intelligence in human hands, however -- whether because of innocent ineptitude or even unpardonable ideological resistance -- is pretty much anybody's guess.

The closest Obama came to imparting that truth emerged from behind the scenes. Tellingly, in Tuesday's meeting the president "insisted that he was not interested in getting into a blame game," reported the Times via anonymous administration sources. "[T]he president called the events leading up to the attempted Christmas Day attack a 'screwup,' one White House official said, and told the assembled officials, 'We dodged a bullet, but just barely.' Mr. Obama, the official said, also told the group that he would not 'tolerate' finger-pointing."

You know, such as the intensely overheated, unscrupulous criticism radiating from the likes of Dick Cheney & Family -- O They of Unpardonable Ideological Resistance -- and their political allies among the GOP in general and more pointedly among right-wing crackpots in print, such as the Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer.

With every passing day, the latter and his diseased ilk become more fantastically unhinged and hysterically irresponsible, writing such imbecilic drivel as: "The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to play down and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face."

One can only recline in incredulity in the face of such prodigious rubbish. If anything, Obama has overreacted to the "terrorist threat we continue to face": Exhibit A, and perhaps the only exhibit needed, 101,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Yet, irony being the thematic stuff of great dramatic narratives, I eagerly note that Obama's calmest, most rational and most articulate defender amidst this national security kerfuffle has come from none other than the right: the above-quoted David Brooks.

Whom I'll quote again: "During the middle third of the 20th century, Americans had impressive faith in their own institutions ... [even though] there was a realistic sense that human institutions are necessarily flawed.... That mature attitude seems to have largely vanished. Now we seem to expect perfection from government and then throw temper tantrums when it is not achieved....

"[T]he system is bound to fail sometimes. Reality is unpredictable, and no amount of computer technology is going to change that.... Human institutions are always going to miss crucial clues because the information in the universe is infinite and events do not conform to algorithmic regularity....

"In a mature nation, President Obama could go on TV and say, 'Listen, we’re doing the best we can, but some terrorists are bound to get through.' But this is apparently a country that must be spoken to in childish ways."

QED, Dick and Liz and savage hordes of GOP propagandists and the rabidly foaming Charles, ad infinitum, from the right.

It's true that the conservative Mr. Brooks was, subtly, himself making an ideological point: the Burkean distrust of large, government institutions and realistic acceptance of human imperfection over -- as Burkean conservatism saw it -- liberalism's hopeless corrective strivings. But isn't it refreshing to read this kind of sedate, conservative intelligence -- whether one subscribes to its philosophical tenets or not -- in this era of ultraconservative hysteria?

Brooks & Co.'s rare mind harks back to that postwar brand of Republican Establishmentarianism that is now but a vague, historical memory; a conservatism that permitted authentic, honest debate. Brooks' contemporary conservative colleagues should be ashamed at what they've done to it, but they won't ... because they're shameless.