Several years ago I think it was common in the press to overpraise Karl Rove as a genius, and these days the backlash has probably gone too far in the other direction. Adam Nagourney does, however, note the interesting wrinkle that among people who need to put their money where their mouths are -- candidates for office -- there are Rove protégés to be found scattered about all the major GOP campaigns. I suppose some of that could just be efforts to curry favor with the White House, but mostly it seems like a sincere judgment that whatever problems arose in 2006, and despite the small matter of the popular vote in 2000, that Team Rove really did have some prodigious skills.
« Bombs Away | Main | Would Rudy Giuliani Bomb Iran? »
Rove: Legacy
14 Aug 2007 08:10 am
Comments (11)
Rove's greatest "contribution" was that he understood how effective a brazen attack on an opponents strength's could be, and he understood how useful it was, as a matter of course, to never back down and admit error.
If the Bush administration hadn't been so utterly incompetent, I think Rove would have been pretty successful in the long run, not just the short run.
Rove's important for managing certain communities--Southerners and evangelicals, mostly, I think--whose importance in the Republican Party, and ultimately the country, he did the most to increase. Anyone think you're hiring Rove to take a shot at NJ? Doubt it.
Rove:
amoral
power junkie
brilliant tactician
strategic idiot
Rove succeeded in electing a weak candidate twice, the second time when he was already unpopular. The Republicans controlled Congress for most of six years. They appointed two hard-right Supreme Court justices. They rewrote the tax code. They rewrote the legal code, via the Patriot Act and unilaterally. They marginalized Congress. They completely reconfigured the international situation.
If a Democrat is elected in 2008, and if Congress becomes even more Democratic, how much of that will change? Don't get too optimistic; a lot of Democrats supported Bush's worst proposals. In particular, the occupation of Iraq is a fait accompli; none of the Democrats will dare to leave.
The future is in the making -- it's not a reality yet. That's what the Republican dismissal of "reality-based politics" is all about. Bush's initiatives have made a dead letter out of many of the options available in 2000 or 2002 -- the reality has been changed. This is Sharon's "facts on the ground" strategy.
Rove was an enormous success.
Well, to answer John Emerson's fatalistic take -- how much will change will depend on the size of the '08 margin and who is elected. Hillary wouldn't change things dramatically (though she'd make a solid difference); Obama or Edwards with a seriously Democratic-dominated Congress could move things far further faster. (Electing a Republican would of course doom us for decades) Don't assume the immediate past is certain prologue: elected Dems in 1929 were timid in ways that made something like the New Deal inconceivable; Republicans were trying to hold onto the Gerry Ford center in 1979, but after after election day, they were all Reaganites. Alot depends on the mandate from the voters and the leadership from the top.
As far as Rovean tactics being still employed (by proteges, etc.) -- what else does the GOP have for the near term? They've been losing public support on issues since mid-Clinton; it's only been the use of ruthless tactics (extraordinary redistricting, recalls, voter invalidation), shameless exploitation of its one trump card -- TerrrorTerrorTerror -- and demonization of the opposition that has kept the party competitive in this new century. All that was BARELY enough to eke out two of the closest presidential victories in history. Now, the situation is far worse: events, demographics, ideology and poor governance have ripped at least 5-10% of the population away from the party; yet the party's base has become even more fanatically devoted to following the path without deviation. Until there's a complete breakdown/cleansing/soul-search, I don't see what choice the party has but to run as down-and-dirty a campign as possible.
Or, as the old phrase goes, if you can't pound the facts, pound the table.
I hope the Rove generation becomes a photo negative of our Democratic consultants: a permanent class of unwitting albatrosses whose reputation outlives their performance by several decades.
The 2000 election depended upon Florida ignoring it's established methods of counting votes. So, yes, Rove's cleverness is to political genius as Willie Sutton's was to high finance.
Did "Team Rove" really have the skills? We'll know in 2008. Should the Democrats win the White House and hold onto Congress then those skills will be called into question.
It seems to me Rove's search and destroy mentality may have hindered the Republicans chances for a generation.
There are Rove proteges everywhere because people who work at the highest level on successful presidential campaigns get jobs on future presidential campaigns regardless of skill. Heck, people who work at low levels on unsuccessful presidential campaigns still manage to pretty constantly advance if they stay in the business.
If a Democrat is elected in 2008, and if Congress becomes even more Democratic, how much of that will change?
A lot. Anyone who thinks that a Democrat elected in 2008 will continue all or even most of Bush’s failed and unpopular policies is smoking something.
Re: Don't get too optimistic; a lot of Democrats supported Bush's worst proposals.
Not “supported”, but “tolerated” (because they were in the minority and had no way of actually and effectively opposing Bush).
Re: In particular, the occupation of Iraq is a fait accompli; none of the Democrats will dare to leave.
We will leave Iraq because a continued occupation is simply not possible, for reasons both local to Iraq and local to American politics. (See: Nixon withdrawing from Vietnam).
Re: Bush's initiatives have made a dead letter out of many of the options available in 2000 or 2002 -- the reality has been changed.
What makes you think reality will still the way it is? It changed once, why won’t it change again? Remember the old Chinese sage’s wisdom: ”This too will pass”.
Re: Rove was an enormous success.
Rove was a flash in the pan, a bright meteor that flamed out. Yes, he was successful, but then he was a failure. He hitched himself to the wrong horse and, worse, made no provision for a successor to Bush. Instead of Cheney he should have pushed for McCain as VP: McCain would have a T. Roosevelt figure to Bush’s McKinley bringing in new blood to the GOP coalition (and thereby broadening it into the true realignment majority Rove dreamed of), and he would have been the odds-on successor in 2008. Instead Rove led the GOP a into dead-end.
Comments closed August 28, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I'll probably revise this as I go along and here information that I've forgotten, but for now, I'll say it's necessary to separate his political advice from his governing advice. He was great at the former, at least for a time, but pretty bad at the latter.
Posted by Brian | August 14, 2007 8:28 AM