 |
|
||
|
|
|
 Charisma Isn’t EverythingPosted on Aug 14, 2007By E.J. Dionne WASHINGTON—Karl Rove and I have something in common: Both of us treasure a campaign poster from the 1972 elections. The poster, which Rove hung in his Texas political consulting office, was from the re-election campaign of Illinois Gov. Richard Ogilvie, a reform-minded Republican moderate. It was adorned with the slogan: “Charisma Isn’t Everything.” No doubt our shared lack of charisma drew us both to this campy relic. But Ogilvie’s progressive Republicanism spoke more to my political affections than his. Rove will be remembered for an approach that drove millions of Republicans and independents of Ogilvie’s stripe into the Democratic Party. With Rove leaving President Bush’s White House, much will be written about his style of politics. But the key question is whether Rove succeeded on his own terms. His objective was grand. In an interview in 1999, Rove predicted that the 2000 election would be like that of 1896, when William McKinley created a new Republican majority that went on to control the presidency for all but eight of the next 36 years. As Rove saw it, McKinley built a dominant party by changing its message and appealing to new voter groups. George W. Bush would be this era’s William McKinley. Advertisement Rove liked Napoleon’s adage: “The whole art of war consists in a well-reasoned and extremely circumspect defensive, followed by rapid and audacious attack.” He would defend Republicans against charges of hostility to the poor, public education and minority groups, and then attack Democrats with whatever came to hand. This set up Bush’s victory over Al Gore in the U.S. Supreme Court, and from there, Rove went from strength to strength. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, he used the national security issue to capture both houses of Congress in 2002. The terror issue, along with “rapid and audacious attack,” defeated John Kerry in 2004, and fortified the Republicans’ congressional majorities. Yet just two years later, the bottom fell out. Bush could now become not William McKinley but Herbert Hoover, the man who ended the very Republican era for which Rove has such fondness. What went wrong? Rove’s key missed opportunity came after 9/11. Instead of using the period of national unity that followed the terrorist attacks to build a broad Republican coalition rooted in Dwight Eisenhower-style moderation, Rove sought to create a narrower but tougher ideological majority willing to pursue such conservative dreams as the partial privatization of Social Security. But a “51 percent strategy” leaves no room for error, and Bush proved very error-prone. Relentlessly attacking Democrats on national security meant that Bush’s opponents had no stake in his Iraq policy when things started falling apart. And Rove may have drifted away from his empathy in 2000 for the middle toward an increasing stress on “turning out the base.” While Rove is a movement conservative shaped by the rise of a Southern-inflected Republicanism quite different from that of Richard Ogilvie, he is also an electoral pragmatist. In 2000, Rove adjusted to rhythms of the Clinton era and ran Bush as a far more moderate candidate than he actually was. By 2004, Rove decided that the middle was overrated and he turned out Republican conservatives in droves. The bill for this game plan came due in 2006 when moderates and independents flooded to the Democrats and left Rove’s Republican majority in tatters. Rove’s friends will say that, absent the Iraq war, his blueprint could have worked. But Hoover would have been fine, too, without that annoying Great Depression. Paradoxically, Rove may have been too partisan and too ideologically committed to build an enduring partisan majority. His strategy of polarization called forth enormous feats of organizing by Bush’s opponents. In mobilizing Bush’s own base, Rove also mobilized an alternative coalition fed up with the politics of the right. In giving Bush’s enemies no quarter, Rove left behind an angry “mob”—his word from Monday’s Wall Street Journal interview—ready to strike when the opportunity presented itself, as it inevitably did. Bush expressed warm gratitude to his “dear friend” on Monday, and why not? It took Rove’s genius to make Bush president. But the enduring Republican majority of his dear friend’s dreams still awaits its architect. E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is postchat(at)aol.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation 
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
How the Anti-Semites of Hezbollah Have Sent Anne Frank Back Into Hiding
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
By Louise, August 21, 2007 at 10:45 am #
#94936 by MungoGerald on 8/14 at 6:00 pm
“Rove followed a similar path from Watergate to Abu Ghraib, by knowing (especially) what not to do, and knowing how to manipulate lesser psychopathic intellects. Simply put, he is a Nazi in all but the clothing.”
Excellent Comment!
Report thisBy PACRAT, August 19, 2007 at 10:14 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The “Smirking Vacuum” cleans house by getting rid of Rove -too late!
Rove didn’t leave the House of Shame in triumph, he left it as a failure.Bush had to unload him, but he did it too late. Don’t blame or credit Rove with bringing the country down - Bush is still the one who did it!
Impeachment is what might restore our nation’s integrity!
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, August 18, 2007 at 9:52 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Anyone who thinks ANYTHING has changed is invited to bid on this great bridge that runs from Manhattan to Brooklyn.
Rove’s resignation mean nothing, just like Karen Hughes’s resignation changed nothing. Bush will STILL be on the phone to his Martin Bormann several times a day.
Report thisBy CalvinistHobbesian, August 18, 2007 at 12:44 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Rove’s defenders blame the war. I guess they don’t remember how hapless and rudderless this administration was before 9/11. Absent that, there would have been no war and Shrub would likely have just vacationed his way to defeat in 2004. Who knows, without the 9/11 enabled resurgence in Dubya’s popularity, Gore might have run again and won.
Report thisBy cyrena, August 15, 2007 at 8:10 pm #
#95123 by Outraged on 8/15 at 9:25 am
How hard is it to gain prominence and prestige through corruption? It qualifies and validates the fact that those who do, do so precisely because they DO NOT have the capability to secure it any other way.
Sorry E.J. but theyre going down.
============================
EJ,
I ditto Outraged.
Report thisBy Outraged, August 15, 2007 at 1:25 pm #
Re: #94936 by MungoGerald on 8/14
Excellent post, I absolutely agree.
E.J. Dionne,
Apparently you have a fetish for lying, crooked thieves? Just as you felt this inane compulsion to find Murdoch’s “strengths” and “accomplishments” amid his tawdry and low-life lying and purposeful deceit of a nation, so you seem to find a grandeur with Karl Rove.
For me, it crystallizes your devotion to “heroes” who’s only accomplishments were gained UNDERHANDEDLY! How hard is it to gain prominence and prestige through corruption? It qualifies and validates the fact that those who do, do so precisely because they DO NOT have the capability to secure it any other way. Rove isn’t the “brains” behind the president, and even if he were, how hard would THAT be? He’s an unempathetic a**hole!
Rove and his ilk, have caused starvation, division, deformities, pain, amputations, rape, torture, cruelty and death. Even as we speak, our nation, as well as many others, are now endangered by a growing terrorist faction which his “brains” has helped to nurture. Somehow E.J. you seem bent on finding the silver lining in this aggrandizement of hypocrisy.
Then you speak of “Rove’s missed opportunity” making the implication that the man was this towering stronghold of intellectualism, but he made “just that ONE mistake”! When reality outlines a man, who, made one mistake after the other and spent the better part of the day trying to figure out how BEST to cover it up!
E.J. it is nauseatingly obvious that you don’t want to let your “buddies” down. Sorry E.J. but they’re going down. And no amount of “soft-porn” political “reporting” is going to calm the raging waters.
Report thisBy jozero, August 15, 2007 at 12:05 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
You realized that 500,000 babies ‘killed’ in Iraq is hogwash yes ?
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html
Report thisBy MungoGerald, August 14, 2007 at 10:00 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Much like the “middle-management” Nazi’s who infiltrated the US intelligence community after WW2 (keyword search - Elizabeth Holtzman FOI), Rove survived the Watergate years by flying under the radar, to later infiltrate the US government. He was a small player then, but a player nonetheless, in the dirty tricks department of Donald Segretti of Watergate fame. Rove managed to avoid indictment, and later became the ball carrier for the extremist right wing of the Repugnican party that found it’s zenith in the person of George W. Bush (aka The Decider Guy). Rove cut his teeth on Watergate, as a DC insider, much like so many others of the Washington insiders (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Poindexter, Negroponte, Hadyn…etc, etc, etc) who infest this executive branch, and learned valuable lessons in how to cover one’s ass in avoiding prosecution.
This is a very similar motif to that afforded some of the Nazi’s after WW2. They (the middle-management types) learned from the failures of their superiors (who were tried for war crimes in Nuremburg) what NOT to do…which was, to fight the US. Once they learned this, and the fact that the US was committed to, and obsessive about, starting the Cold War with the Russians, they had their trump card…anti-communism, aka the one thing they had in common with their US intelligence counterparts (along with an abiding love of war profits). One thing they didn’t have in common though, was superior intelligence…i.e. the US intel community wasn’t nearly as bright as they thought they were. As a result, the psychopathic Nazi’s they embraced, ended up twisting them to their own ends with their superior intellects (albeit evil).
Rove followed a similar path from Watergate to Abu Ghraib, by knowing (especially) what not to do, and knowing how to manipulate lesser psychopathic intellects. Simply put, he is a Nazi in all but the clothing.
Report thisBy felicity, August 14, 2007 at 7:57 pm #
The Rove apologists are all over the media. Ed Rogers, a Republican operative, unintentionally I’m sure, argued that had it not been for Iraq, Rove’s vision for a Republican America would have been realized.
According to Rogers, Rove’s domestic policies were brilliant in that they had the nation headed toward a perpetual Republican majority in all branches of government, perhaps into eternity; the problem was the Iraq war.
Too typically, tactians/strategists become so enamored with their “brilliant” theories that they become incapable of even noticing any existing data which might doom their theories. (Today’s Neocons are a classic example.)
Mr. Rogers’ ill-chosen defense of Mr. Rove, in the end, is why Mr. Rove is headed for Texas with his tail between his legs.
Report thisBy atheo, August 14, 2007 at 3:33 pm #
Philip Giraldi:
Neolibs and Neocons,
United and Interchangeable
When it comes to foreign policy, particularly as it relates to the Middle East, there is not a whole lot of separation between the Democratic and Republican Parties. Republicans tend to be more bellicose in their statements, but Democrats have more than made up for that with their steely resolve to take the fight to the enemy wherever he might be. Both Republicans and Democrats reflexively support Israel, and nearly all candidates are in agreement on a number of other areas, including an aggressive policy toward Iran…
Neoconservatives and neoliberals are really quite similar, so it doesn’t matter who gets elected in 2008. The American public, weary of preemptive attacks, democracy-promotion, and nation-building, will still get war either way.
The key to understanding the direction that candidates will take is to examine their foreign policy advisers. The candidates themselves, with one or two exceptions, know little about the world and its problems. They operate on a basis of packaged responses to set questions and are essentially looking for quick, soundbite solutions that will enable them to be characterized as strong on national security. How they think is processed and filtered by their advisers, most of whom appear to believe that the American public has an unending appetite for overseas adventures in spite of the fact that such policies have brought nothing but grief for the past 15 years. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are shy about using force…
The two leading Democratic candidates for president are undeniably Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Hillary…is unwilling to say that her vote in the Senate in support of the Iraq war was a mistake. She has also positioned herself with the Israel lobby through her pledge to disarm Iran by whatever means necessary and her threat to use nuclear weapons on terrorists. Her foreign policy advisers are a who’s who of neoliberal hawks, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who famously believed that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to sanctions was “worth it.” Clinton is also being advised by Richard Holbrooke, who is reported to be close to Paul Wolfowitz. Holbrooke is a possible candidate for secretary of state if Clinton is elected president. Holbrooke has been a supporter of the Iraq war…
Barack Obama is somewhat more enigmatic, but his recent ill-advised pledge to attack Pakistan if Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf does not do something about the Taliban and al-Qaeda shows that he is working hard to catch up… Obama is also accelerating his efforts to woo Jewish donors and to improve his standing with AIPAC, which has been suspicious of him because of youthful indiscretions that included expressions of sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians. He recently appointed Eric Lynn to develop an aggressive program of outreach to the Jewish community on his record of support for Israel, which he claims is unwavering. Obama fully endorsed Israel’s invasion of Lebanon last year, and he has also cited his more recent sponsorship of the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of May 2007… He has pledged that Iran will not be allowed to threaten Israel through its nuclear program, but he is vague on exactly what he would do to stop it…
It is very discouraging to note that the advocates of the Iraq war, which is almost universally seen as Washington’s greatest foreign policy blunder of the past hundred years, are continuing to play a major role in the shaping of policy for the next generation of political leaders of both parties.
full article:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=11438
Report thisBy ocjim, August 14, 2007 at 2:09 pm #
Yes, charisma isn’t everything but accounts I have read of Rove’s first meeting with W indicated that Rove almost salivated over what he saw as W’s charisma. This was obviously the only building block Rove thought he needed to elevate mediocrity to political office. I see it as a challenge for Rove who needed to prove his superiority over others, many who saw him as a nerd in school. Rove’s drive to show others served to make us all pay for the self-deluded, megolamanic rule of W.
Report thisBy RickinSF, August 14, 2007 at 12:01 pm #
Given how determined the Democrats are to give this president whatever he wants, witness the FISA fiasco, I’m not so sure the permanent GOP majority hasn’t been achieved.
Report thisBy GodSend, August 14, 2007 at 11:23 am #
Hey, weather - don’t blow zephyrs when a storm is called for! The Devil’s fire needs to be fought with Holy fire!
The Devil comes in many disguises, including ‘mediocre’ disguises. 
He cannot be appeased or ‘reasoned’ with. Remember that his ‘game’ is DECEPTION - and he is VERY good at it (untold centuries of experience) 
I know you mean well, though
Report thisBy weather, August 14, 2007 at 11:01 am #
E.J.Dionne.
You are very charitable when regarding Bush’s tenured theft of the White House as something ‘mediocre’.
While an inept disgrace is far more fitting for this nadir of space & time for these United States, thanks to indeliable Ugliness of a few. We have alot of work to do to recover.
Report thisBy GodSend, August 14, 2007 at 10:53 am #
“NEVER AGAIN” - will Zionists seize control of America!
Report thisBy GodSend, August 14, 2007 at 10:26 am #
‘mediocre president’?!
You are NUTS!
Bush is the WORST president EVER! - and your ‘mediocre’ description makes you (and anyone else) a Zionist or Zionist sympathizer!
“There will be gnashing of teeth”. (YOUR teeth!)
WARNING to Congress and Bush:
MILITARY DRAFT = REVOLUTION! The entire country will be brought to a grinding halt and the REAL Holocaust will begin! (a little sooner than planned)
Report thisBy farmertx, August 14, 2007 at 9:49 am #
Der Karl would had a better chance in succeeding if he had a candidate that had some sense. That was his downfall.
Report thisShrub was the ultimate slacker. A privileged kid born with a silver foot in his mouth, as Ann Richards said.
He had failed at everything he had attempted before his daddy gave him the money to buy a 1/10% interest in the baseball team…which ‘qualified’ him to be Governor of Texas.
Texas is still reeling from his terms in office. Want to buy the Alamo? Make an offer to lil Ricky. Anything to avoid that tax bug-a-bear.
Shrubs’ only ‘accomplishment’ had been becoming a father. And, lets face it, a crack head can do that.
For me, the defining moment was on 9/11 in that 3rd grade classroom among his peers, when he just sat there, with that 1000 yard stare, because there was no one there to tell him how a leader should react.
But Karl Rove, a master at lies and disinformation was able to spin a masterful web of deceit.
Thankfully, over time folks that were still able to think for themselves woke up to the fact that Shrub didn’t have a clue.
Many Republican’s will admit privately that they wish they had never heard of the Shrub.
Of course, Der Karl is proud of what he master minded. Shame that it took so little to make him that proud.
By Hemi*, August 14, 2007 at 9:34 am #
E.J.,
You’ve captured the Bush/Rove years in a clear and unemotional summary.
Clinton was advised but not controlled by the Carvelle and Begalla team. Clinton’s personal miscues were testimony to that. That was scary enough. Rove had far more access and influence with the Bush administration. Scarier still is that the presidents and all of their men only run interference in the big scheme.
“The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes.” - Felix Frankfurter, Justice of the Supreme Court (1939-1962)
Report this