Geeks

Kevin Drum was stunned into incredulity by this snippet of interview with Karl Rove:

What's the biggest misconception about your role in the Bush White House?
That it was all about politics.

If that's the misconception, what's the overlooked truth?

Look, I'm a policy geek. What I've most enjoyed about my job was the substantive policy discussions. Being able to dig in deeply and, you know, learn about something, ask questions, listen to smart people, and form a judgment about something that was from a policy perspective.

I don't know about Rove in particular, but I've been consistently surprised since moving to DC of the extent to which the true policy geeks and the utterly cynical political operatives often really are the same people. These are the folks who while away their days ginning up dozens of bite-sized policy initiatives and selling them around to politicians. They're the ones who give you your targeted tax credits, and they're also the ones who are helping lobbyists sneak little tidbits in here and there. Hard-core ideologues often don't care that much about the details, because geeking out over the details means you're talking about incremental change.

But very practical people trying to win elections or do favors for key interest groups need to care about the details. As a result, to be an effective cynic, you really sort of need to be a geek.

Comments

And Sheriff Andy Machiavel is going to say something different?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 4, 2008 11:28 AM

So, basically, you and Drum are using "policy geek" to mean different things.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 4, 2008 11:28 AM

Yglesias defends Rove. Surely a sign the apocalyse approaches.

Posted by Al | April 4, 2008 11:30 AM

Hard-core ideologues often don't care that much about the details, because geeking out over the details means you're talking about incremental change.

Good post, but ehh, would that that were true. You can deal with ideologues in a certain way. You can't deal with people like Karl Rove who aren't committed to an ideology as anything more than a set of rhetoric to win elections.

I would say this is somewhat more accurate: The problem in DC is that policy wonks and political operatives sacrifice a commitment to what is "true" or "good policy" for a partisan political program designed to keep their people in power.

Posted by Joe Strummer | April 4, 2008 11:36 AM

Is this not just the difference between smart and dumb?

Posted by Pete Tiarks | April 4, 2008 11:37 AM

Shorter Karl Rove:

I like to listen to smart people with long experience in their field, then tell them what to do.

The unifying factor in all this is that these people are about power for power's sake. So of course they love running the government, because that is exercising real power. And politics in that sense is indeed just a means to an end for them, not the end itself, because in their view politics is just a mechanism for gathering power to themselves.

Posted by DTM | April 4, 2008 11:46 AM

Ouch, Matt! This is quite a bitchslap for the first review out of the box

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/bc0403jk.html

*************************************************

In Yglesias’s estimation, the terrorist attacks of September 11 have not changed the world scene appreciably; thus, the U.S. should return to the foreign policy approach it took during the Clinton years. He asserts that this brand of foreign policy—a “liberal internationalism” that places its hopes in multilateralism, international institutions, and a restrained role for the United States in international affairs —“was working well in the 1990s.” Never mind that NATO’s war against Serbia (which Yglesias says he supported) had to be undertaken without the blessing of the United Nations, or that most Democrats in Congress opposed the Persian Gulf War despite the large international coalition that waged it. Nor does Yglesias mention the Rwandan genocide, a 100-day slaughter of nearly a million people that the U.N. did nothing to prevent. Moreover, Yglesias does not grapple with the problems presented by an important “liberal internationalist” institution of the nineties: the post–Gulf War sanctions regime in Iraq, which took an enormous toll on the Iraqi people while simultaneously being undermined by Saddam Hussein. Avoiding arguments that weaken his case, Yglesias alleges that those who oppose his brand of liberal internationalism wish to transform the United States into an “imperial superpower that seeks to use its national strength to dominate the world and needlessly heighten conflicts.”

***********************************************

Ow!

Posted by Campesino | April 4, 2008 12:17 PM

I think Rove means by digging in the details finding out about those laws that would cover his ass once he did something illegal - you know, like the railroading of Siegelman in Alabama, or the outing of CIA agents. Fraud and treason. "As a result, to be an effective criminal, you really sort of need to be a geek."

As a geek, you want to know that you can count on plausible deniability. For the rest, you can count on a sycophantic press establishment that feeds at the trough of the petro-defense industries, is bloated with millionaire talking heads and clueless kool kids, and never met a barbecue at a GOP honchos palatial estate that they didn't like.

Posted by roger | April 4, 2008 12:27 PM

I don't think Rove understands the difference between a wonk and a hawk. When your policies are driven by politics, you're a hawk. Period.

Posted by AKBY | April 4, 2008 12:45 PM

Ouch, Matt! This is quite a bitchslap for the first review out of the box...

OT, but--Shorter James Kirchick: "9/11 changed evar-y-thang and Yglesias, young, liberal, and naive, doesn't appreciate the magnitude of the Islamofascist threat."

What else did you expect from Kirchick?

Posted by James Gary | April 4, 2008 12:55 PM

O'Neill, Diulio, and even a recent Christian liaison all concluded that right from the start, cynical politicos made all important policy decisions in the Bush White House.

I think that a lot of the problems with the Iraq War have been partly the result of trimming military strategy to the domestic public opinion, and at times (Bush's recent "defining moment" statement) it seems that the reality sense has gone entirely and has been replaced entirely by PR gestures.

Posted by John Emerson | April 4, 2008 1:02 PM

...because so many successful POLICIES emanated from that lovably wonky, apolitically pragmatic Rovian White House....

P.S. Kirchick's weird rant at City Journal is so flamboyantly bizarre and defamatory that I think it will be a classic boomerang. Really, does the New Republic want to have in its employ someone who is not only "contrarian" but contrary to fact, McCarthyite in his accusations, and utterly incoherent in his analytical efforts? Oh, wait... Marty Peretz. I forgot.

Posted by elle loco | April 4, 2008 1:51 PM

That interview from GQ?

Why the fuck would anybody seriously entertain what Karl Rove thinks about the Democratic party's candidates, at least other than for entertainment value?

Posted by Jamey | April 4, 2008 2:09 PM

OT, but--Shorter James Kirchick: "9/11 changed evar-y-thang and Yglesias, young, liberal, and naive, doesn't appreciate the magnitude of the Islamofascist threat."

What else did you expect from Kirchick?

Posted by James Gary | April 4, 2008 12:55 PM

*************************************************

Sorry but Kirchick is exactly right in pointing out Matt's inconsistency in calling for a return to the halcyon 90's when our enlightened policy of "liberal internationalism" led us to ignore the UN if we wanted (Kosovo) or use the UN as an excuse to do nothing (Rwanda). His position boils down to the hackery of "it's okay if a Democrat does it."

Posted by Campesino | April 4, 2008 2:10 PM

P.S. Kirchick's weird rant at City Journal is so flamboyantly bizarre and defamatory that I think it will be a classic boomerang. Really, does the New Republic want to have in its employ someone who is not only "contrarian" but contrary to fact, McCarthyite in his accusations, and utterly incoherent in his analytical efforts? Oh, wait... Marty Peretz. I forgot.

Posted by elle loco | April 4, 2008 1:51 PM
************************************************

Is there supposed to be some factual rebuttal of anything Kirchick said in there somewhere???

Posted by Campesino | April 4, 2008 2:13 PM

Campesino, you musta got lost.... Better go actually read Kirchick's rant, in which he calls Matt an America-hater, musters him into the ranks of Hamas, and yadda yadda. This is not rational argumentation, it's defamatory wankery of the lowest order. Paging Roy Cohn.

Posted by elle loco | April 4, 2008 2:15 PM

Kirchik's comment - "In Yglesias’s estimation, the terrorist attacks of September 11 have not changed the world scene appreciably" -

might not be true of Matt, but if you make the correct substitutes - "In the Bush administration's estimation, the terrorist attacks of September 11 have not changed the world scene appreciably" - you'd have things about right. After all, after seven years, the Bush administration has neither captured Osama bin Laden nor made any real effort to limit or respond to his group in Pakistan, and seems content to let him spend his time connecting up with an ever more powerful Taliban and generating terrorist attacks - as long as those attacks don't target the American "homeland" - and Osama, recognizing the rules of the game, has gone along with this. It is a win win situation for both sides - Bush gets a terrorist on tap threat that justifies enormous military spending, none of which has anything whatsoever to do with terrorism, and Osama continues to be a player. One thing Osama didn't calculate on is that Bush's foreign policy would push the price of oil up to 110 dollars a barrel, which has caused an inrush of money into Saudi Arabia that has pretty much smoothed over the discontent OBL planned to capitalize on. Hey, one for the moronic Bush crew and the warmongers! Meanwhile, returning to a view of the world that became obsolete around 1919, the Bush administration has taken its cues from America's brief and disastrous imperialist adventures. It has done this under the cover of a bodyguard of moral liars, like Kirchik, people who, bizarrely, have no special expertise whatsoever in any particular field, but have nursed their organ of moral outrage until it is hyperbolic and absurd. They know nothing of how to plan a project, or conduct an operation. They know pretty much nothing of the world. They are not even equipped, usually, to read or speak languages outside of English. They are the easy prey of D.C. confidence men, and the shills of war like Michael O'Hanlen or any of the Kagans.

Posted by roger | April 4, 2008 2:39 PM

Campesino, you musta got lost.... Better go actually read Kirchick's rant, in which he calls Matt an America-hater, musters him into the ranks of Hamas, and yadda yadda. This is not rational argumentation, it's defamatory wankery of the lowest order. Paging Roy Cohn.

Posted by elle loco | April 4, 2008 2:15 PM

*************************************************

Nope, you're the one who dropped the road map.

Kirchuck's just pointing out the incoherency in Matt's position. Ignoring the UN is good when Clinton does it (Balkans) but bad when Bush does it (Iraq II). Believing Iraq has WMDs is good when Clinton does it and bad when Bush does it.

Just political hackery. What do you expect when a philosophy major with no job experience writes on foreign policy?

Posted by Campesino | April 4, 2008 2:49 PM

Campesino, the guy's name is Kirchick. And life's too short. Have a good one.

I meant you musta got lost to wind up here; why waste your days among those for whom you have a level of contempt that admits of no distinction between actual argumentation and ad hominem animus that's utterly divorced from rational discourse? Clinical....

Posted by elle loco | April 4, 2008 2:56 PM

I meant you musta got lost to wind up here; why waste your days among those for whom you have a level of contempt that admits of no distinction between actual argumentation and ad hominem animus that's utterly divorced from rational discourse? Clinical....

Posted by elle loco | April 4, 2008 2:56 PM
************************************************

Nice strategy. Put up three fact-free comments full of ad hominems and your summing argument is to falsely accuse me of using ad hominems. Talk about clinical!

Posted by Campesino | April 4, 2008 3:33 PM

Camps, I don't think you're following me: I'm talking about Kirchick's ad hominem absurdities against Matthew Yglesias. But really--let's just forget it.

Posted by elle loco | April 4, 2008 3:55 PM

By the way, the politicos exercising power in the government don't actually need to know squat about what would help their friends in the private sector, because their friends in the private sector will be happy to explain exactly what they want to happen in terms of policies, regulations, legislation, staffing decisions, and so on.

Posted by DTM | April 4, 2008 4:02 PM

We lobbied NATO and NATO agreed. In short, we used international organizations. There's no indication that had NATO not gone along that we'd have intervened unilaterally in Kosovo.

In Iraq, under the Republicans we ignored the UN, but have (by way of noting insanity) used the cover of UN resolutions to buttress our handling of the people we've snatched away to Cuba. (You can't make this stuff up.)

But, hey, accuse Yglesias of ignoring arguments. It makes your argument seem straight from Jollity Farm.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 4, 2008 4:46 PM