Experts
Ken Adelman
Vice-President, Movers and Shakespeares; Fmr Member, Defense Policy Board; Fmr. Dep. U.N. Amb.
Recent Activity
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.
October 24, 2008, 3:45 PM
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.
October 24, 2008, 3:45 PM
"Words, words, words." Hamlet appreciated and loved them. We do as well. Or at least, we should since we're getting bombarded with words during the back-to-back political conventions. Hamlet's creator, William Shakespeare, used words with more finesse than anyone in history. Plus, he had the greatest insight into human nature than anyone, ever. With these two gifts, the Bard can give us insights into the speechifying we're witnessing in Denver and St. Paul. Hillary delivered a stem-winder last night, doing I thought what she needed to do to get her supporters to support Obama. Yet given all the suspicion surrounding her motives, the pundits were more skeptical. If among them, William Shakespeare might react to Hillary's speech by saying, "We need more light to find your meaning out." (Love's Labor's Lost). Anticipating Thursday night, the Bard would have nothing but praise for Barack Obama's rhetorical skills, and say, "His words are a very fantastical bouquet" (Much Ado About Nothing). Shakespeare described John McCain's reaction to Obama's eloquent speeches, indicating a hint of jealousy from the ole' war horse: "I want that glib and oily art -- to speak and purpose not" (King Lear). Last week, of course, Sen. Obama selected Joe Biden as his running mate. He's sure a respected Senator, known for his foreign policy knowledge and his perpetually happy demeanor. Shakespeare describes what Joe and his wife must have done right after receiving Obama's call to join the ticket: "They threw their caps as they would hang them on the horns of the moon" (Coriolanus). But Joe Biden is also known for leaving no thought go unsaid. Some Americans may, after listening to his incessant talking over the coming weeks, agree with the Bard: "Zounds, I was never so bethumped with words" (King John). Regardless, it now comes as welcome relief to listen to the three fluent Senators, rather than President George W. Bush. Of him, the Bard once quipped, with some understatement: "He was not born under a rhyming planet" (Much Ado About Nothing). Many of us thought, after President Bush spoke, "He has been at a great feast of languages and stolen the scraps" (Love's Labor's Lost). With the campaign in full swing, we'll hear more from the full-throated Bard, who has the most apt, insightful words for every political development. After all he, like Hamlet, sure loved words.
August 27, 2008, 8:36 AM
"Words, words, words." Hamlet appreciated and loved them. We do as well. Or at least, we should since we're getting bombarded with words during the back-to-back political conventions. Hamlet's creator, William Shakespeare, used words with more finesse than anyone in history. Plus, he had the greatest insight into human nature than anyone, ever. With these two gifts, the Bard can give us insights into the speechifying we're witnessing in Denver and St. Paul. Hillary delivered a stem-winder last night, doing I thought what she needed to do to get her supporters to support Obama. Yet given all the suspicion surrounding her motives, the pundits were more skeptical. If among them, William Shakespeare might react to Hillary's speech by saying, "We need more light to find your meaning out." (Love's Labor's Lost). Anticipating Thursday night, the Bard would have nothing but praise for Barack Obama's rhetorical skills, and say, "His words are a very fantastical bouquet" (Much Ado About Nothing). Shakespeare described John McCain's reaction to Obama's eloquent speeches, indicating a hint of jealousy from the ole' war horse: "I want that glib and oily art -- to speak and purpose not" (King Lear). Last week, of course, Sen. Obama selected Joe Biden as his running mate. He's sure a respected Senator, known for his foreign policy knowledge and his perpetually happy demeanor. Shakespeare describes what Joe and his wife must have done right after receiving Obama's call to join the ticket: "They threw their caps as they would hang them on the horns of the moon" (Coriolanus). But Joe Biden is also known for leaving no thought go unsaid. Some Americans may, after listening to his incessant talking over the coming weeks, agree with the Bard: "Zounds, I was never so bethumped with words" (King John). Regardless, it now comes as welcome relief to listen to the three fluent Senators, rather than President George W. Bush. Of him, the Bard once quipped, with some understatement: "He was not born under a rhyming planet" (Much Ado About Nothing). Many of us thought, after President Bush spoke, "He has been at a great feast of languages and stolen the scraps" (Love's Labor's Lost). With the campaign in full swing, we'll hear more from the full-throated Bard, who has the most apt, insightful words for every political development. After all he, like Hamlet, sure loved words.
August 27, 2008, 8:36 AM
Ken Adelman is currently vice-president of Movers and Shakespeares, which conducts executive training through leadership lessons from Shakespeare. Ambassador Adelman began teaching Shakespeare in 1977 at Georgetown University, and later with honors students at George Washington University.During the Reagan Administration, Ken Adelman was an Ambassador to the United Nations and then Director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, accompanying President Reagan on his superpower summits with Mikhail Gorbachev.Adelman was a philosophy major at Grinnell College and then attended Georgetown University, where he received a Masters in Foreign Service Studies and Doctorate in Political Theory.He is the author of five books -- including co-author of Shakespeare in Charge -- and hundreds of articles, was for 20 years national editor of Washingtonian magazine, and for six years a member of the Defense Policy Board.
While living in Africa from 1972 to 1975, Adelman translated for Mohammed Ali during “The Rumble in the Jungle” heavyweight championship fight in Zaire, and participated in the Zaire River Expedition, venturing down the Congo River on the 100th Anniversary of Stanley’s exploration.
