A Little Public Introspection Wouldn't Kill David Frum

Frum, today, explaining why he wouldn't have voted for the Iraq war in 2002:

For Americans, the issue was not Saddam's badness, but his nuclear weapons program. Knowing that the nuclear program was not a real threat, the invasion was too large a commitment. The world is a better place without Saddam, but as with everything, the question is one of costs and benefits. The costs to the U.S. were too high, the benefits to the U.S. too few.

Frum, eight years ago, explaining why opponents of the Iraq war are only a few degrees away from anti-semitism:

The antiwar conservatives aren't satisfied merely to question the wisdom of an Iraq war. Questions are perfectly reasonable, indeed valuable. There is more than one way to wage the war on terror, and thoughtful people will naturally disagree about how best to do it, whether to focus on terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and Hezbollah or on states like Iraq and Iran; and if states, then which state first?

But the antiwar conservatives have gone far, far beyond the advocacy of alternative strategies. They have made common cause with the left-wing and Islamist antiwar movements in this country and in Europe. They deny and excuse terror. They espouse a potentially self-fulfilling defeatism. They publicize wild conspiracy theories. And some of them explicitly yearn for the victory of their nation's enemies.

It's sometimes said, with some justification, that the right seeks converts while the left seeks apostates. And I don't mean this post like that. Nor do I mean it to embarass Frum. We all write dumb stuff sometimes, especially when we believe something passionately. 

What I mean to say is that I remember Frum's 2003 National Review cover story, "Unpatriotic Conservatives," very vividly. It was barely a month before the invasion, and Frum decided to organize a civil war within conservatism. Some of the people he goes after in the piece, like my old boss (long story) Taki Theodoracopulos, really are antisemites.

But Frum's piece did not draw very sharp distinctions. It did not rigorously distinguish between those with reservations about the Iraq war qua the war and those who opposed the war because of darker motivations. And in that slippage, it encapsulated an ugly period in American discourse, where fear and demagoguery substituted for reason. Its effect was to chill the opposition to a war that Frum now considers ill-regarded. My colleague at the time, Lawrence F. Kaplan, engaged in a dizzying, perverse bit of slander by asserting that a "chorus" of antiwar criticism was in fact antisemitic -- and it was those antisemites who were trying to stifle the discourse, not Kaplan himself.

And so this is what I mean. It's cool for Frum to no longer believe these follies. Perhaps he could provide us with some explanation for what led him to change his mind, and what his cooler head now makes of his earlier piece. It's not about relitigating the past; after all, I was a dumb-ass 22 year old war supporter myself. It's about grappling with your mistakes so you don't make them again. 

Comments

[Nemoleon]

It's a long story, sure, but if it's Taki Theodoracopulos we're talking about, there's time.

[Doctor Memory]

Boychik, this is From's entire schtick. He has made an entire career out of being ever so sad about how wrong the conservative movement was a decade ago (especially of course in such a way that betrayed basic conservative principles which are as everyone knows never wrong in and of themselves). The current behavior of conservatives in the moment is, of course, beyond reproach and not even really worth thinking too hard about: there will be plenty of time for that in ten years when his next book comes out.

[Jack]

"It's cool for Frum to no longer believe these follies."

But it's not cool to still *be* David Frum. Or anybody who launched the USA on the flight-path to war and still considers himself qualified to opine on national security issues. If you did that, even if your name is Matthew Yglesias or Michael Ignatieff, you officially have no clue about a) history and b) international politics.

[MD]

A basic tenet of modern conservatism (a la Irving Kristol) is that the strategic lie is perfectly OK in support of any given conservative cause. And so it's a very minor corollary that admitting mistakes is really bad conservatism form and generally not done because it pushes no agenda forward. Instead, simply spout what you believe today and let the reader wallow in his ignorance if you never detail how it is the exact opposite of a former opinion du jour. Frum is no different. He is part of a very large crowd of drum-banging, blood-pulsing war hawks who have done ZERO penance for being spectacularly wrong.

[beejeez]

Now that you mention it, MD, I can't remember the last time a conservative politician or pundit has simply said, "I was wrong."

Or am I wrong? Here's some incentive: I'll admit it if I am.

[Ian coleman]

Let's see Mr. Frum apologize to Erio Margolis, who was against the war and was proved correct time and again about its folly during its course. Mr. Frum made a point of criticizing Mr. Margolis by name, and now he thinks that just admitting the obvious, which was that he was wrong (An honest mistake? I don't think so, myself) makes it okay.

[jean power]

I just love the "anti-semite "card its my favorite.And people who now say ."Oops my bad " after calling for unnecessary war is precious.
Someone might ask Mr Frum which country he he lives to protect because it sure aint the U.S.And if he is working for anouther country why isnt he called out for it?

See first line?

[Attackerman]

Jean --

Can we not do this? Can we not intimate that Frum is more loyal to Israel than America (or Canada; he's still a Canadian, right?)? Please? Because when you do that, not only is it ugly -- conjuring up old stereotypes of Jewish manipulators maneuvering unsuspecting gentiles into their machiavellian machinations -- but it hits right at the exposed nerves of my Jewishness. And that makes me look at this post and think, "What have I unleashed? Am I actually... Bad For The Jews?" Which in turn makes me less inclined in the future to write these kinds of posts. So, if you like them, maybe hold off on comments like these, OK?

Spencer

[Ian coleman]

You just watch David Frum continue to find excuses to bomb Iran. This man wants the enemies of Israel to suffer terror and violent death. His Jewishness is in fact the salient cultural motivator of much of what he writes about foreign policy, and you'd have to work very hard at being naive to ignore it. Every time you point out that somebody who wants Arabs to suffer is a pro-Israel Jew, Jews scream that you're a racist. And if you mention that Jews use accusations of racism to quell debate, well, that's really racist, isn't it?

[mikey]

Two things. First, I think the "loyalty to Israel over and above loyalty to the US" applies to Joe Lieberman, as an elected official, much more than it applies to some two bit pundit like Frum. He can write what he wants, he CANNOT dictate policy.

Second, I think it's important to recognize that its ok to be 'pro Israel' without being in favor of the policies of her current government. I am a very Patriotic American, but I was deeply opposed to the Bush administration, and I have ongoing complaints about the Obama admin.

I SUPPORT the nation of Israel, but I HATE the Likud government and the madmen that are currently leading that nation. The ultimate outcome of their policies will be to destroy Israel, and just as I am opposed to the political opportunism of the current American leadership, I am radically opposed to the manipulations of the current Israeli leadership...

mikey

[Ian coleman]

It is difficult to separate Israel from the policies of its government because democratic elections have produced strong endorsements of Israeli atrocities. Consider the massacre by the Israeli Defense Force of 1300 Gaza Arabs in late 2004 and early 2005. This massacre was undertaken by the Kadima Party during an election season, as a demonstration of Israeli ruthlessness. The Kadima Party was rewarded in the subsequent election with a plurality of the votes. Israeli political parties now compete for votes by demonstrating their capacities for mass murder. That means Israel as a state is evil.

[leather shirts]

This is so very incredibly amazing. Couldnt thought that something as interesting as this was still in the oblivion. Your piece of work is just astounding. Congo dude..

[Curt]

But Frum doesn’t hesitate to declare the lives of up to 30 million other people an acceptable price. He doesn’t even linger over the matter: 18 words and he’s on to the next issue. Thirty million people. But he means well.