printable versionHoover’s appointment of Rumsfeld ‘sad, ridiculous and contemptible’
Ten reasons why the appointment of Donald Rumsfeld to the Hoover Institution at Stanford as a distinguished visiting fellow is sad, ridiculous and contemptible:
1) It would be hard to think of a national leader of real power in our history whose tenure has now been so widely—almost universally—recognized by liberals, conservatives and everyone else as marked by arrogance, failure and incompetence.
2) In all the news stories I've read, no real, spelled-out separation was made between "Hoover" and "Stanford." Neither the media nor the public seem to be clear about the distinction. Thus, Rumsfeld' s appointment cannot help but taint the reputation of the whole university with both moral disgrace and intellectual shoddiness.
3) For those who value true patriotism (that is, pursuing what is best for the nation), it is insulting to reward a man with an honorable appointment who has done so much to harm the well-being of his country.
4) John Raisian, director of the Hoover Institution, says Rumsfeld has been appointed for his expertise as a member of an elite group consulting on the subject of "terrorism and ideology." Experts from all perspectives are pretty well united in agreeing that Rumsfeld's policies and leadership have been instrumental in spreading violence, promoting terrorism and strengthening ideological opposition to the United States. Thus, making Rumsfeld a fellow and a consultant on terror and violence would seem to have the zany effect of making Hoover look like a supporter of terror and unleashed violence. Why does the institution want to put itself in that position—much less, in the process harm both its own and Stanford's reputation?
5) In the last 15 years or so, the animosity between Hoover and the university had abated. This appointment will, I predict, cause much trouble for the university and the Hoover Institution.
6) The opposition to Rumsfeld is not narrowly political. Whatever one thinks of people like Newt Gingrich, George Shultz, Condi Rice or Vic Hanson (other fellows or fellows-to-be), these people have intellectual and academic experience and/or some measure of achievement. Rumsfeld's disastrous leadership is (in)famous in the military, the media, the political establishment and academia alike.
7) Rumsfeld, as head of the armed forces, had the responsibility of bringing the most deadly single criminal in U.S. history, Osama bin Laden, to justice—dead or alive. Incredibly, he did not, and hardly seems to care about his role in such inexplicable and egregious failure.
8) Rumsfeld does not seem able to take responsibility for his decisions: He foists off on underlings blame for torture, for corruption, for looting, for indiscriminate killing of civilians, for lying and for the whole sorry disaster that Iraq has been for America, the Middle East and the world.
9) There is a case to be made that he is a war criminal, that he knowingly deceived the American public in pushing for an unnecessary war and occupation, that he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction.
10) Rumsfeld seems such a man as Thackeray describes: "Always to be right, always to push forward, never to doubt: Are not these the great qualities with which dullness rules the world?" Such a man is unworthy of academic appointment at Stanford and—if Hoover maintains serious intellectual and ethical interests—at the Hoover.
Robert Polhemus
Joseph S. Atha Professor in Humanities