Karl Rove, the political genius behind George Bush's two presidential campaigns, is resigning from the Bush White House at the end of the month.
The Wall Street Journal describes Rove as "arguably the most influential White House aide of modern times."
And that's a good place to start discussing Rove's legacy.
1. Electing an Unqualified President. As "the architect" of the Bush 2000 presidential campaign based on "compassionate conservatism," Rove was the person most responsible for bringing George Bush into the White House. Bush had little knowledge of either domestic or foreign policy. As a result, policy responsibility in the Bush White House was divided between Rove himself and Dick Cheney and both of them have exercised power in such irresponsible and disastrous ways that the country will take years if not decades to recover. In this sense, most of Rove's legacy will be a long, tedious effort to deal with the after-affects of Bush incompetence.
2. Forging a Permanent Democratic Majority. As a superficial student of history, Karl Rove liked to compare himself to Mark Hanna, the GOP fixer who ushered in a long era of Republican domination by getting William McKinley elected. Actually, the results were almost exactly the opposite. Rove's relentlessly divisive version of conservatism was the single most decisive factor in energizing the Democratic blow-back. By promoting the war as a partisan issue, Rove guaranteed that any initial support of the war by the Democrats would be halting and resentful, single-handedly spurred the mushroom-like growth of the liberal blogosphere, and gave the Bush administration no margin for error if the war didn't go well. Now, the Democrats who have an opportunity for long-term political domination if they can take advantage and they'll have Karl Rove to thank for that.
3. The Rove Consulting Tree. Part of Karl Rove's legacy with the Republicans will be the proliferation of Rove proteges as Republican campaign managers, consultants, and strategists. That means that the Republicans might be running campaigns around gay rights, gun control, and religious extremism for decades to come. By that time, Idaho might be the only reliably Republican state in the country.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
My god Caric, now you're claiming that Rove made the Dems turn against the Iraq war? It's not because it was ill conceived and immoral anymore, it was ROOOOOOOOOOVE! Is he that evil, or are the Dems that easily influenced? Do we want Dems running our country if they'll believe anything they're told?
Too funny.
No, ef, Rove made the war partisan (am I the only one who remembers his computer disk from 2002?) and thus, when it went down, the Republicans were the ones tied to the prow.
Fascinating profile on Rove in this issue of the Atlantic.
Of course! Rove did it, thanks timb. And there I was running around thinking Rove did it. Couldn't have anything to do with the Dems trashing the effort before the ink on the authorisation they voted for was even dry that made it partisan though.
Fascinating smear piece on Rove in this issue of the Atlantic (or are they important and relevannt questions to which Americans deserve answers).
Important and relevant questions when they are smearing the likes of Rove !
Prof. Caric - You assert that President Bush is the most unqualified President in history. After brushing up on your Constitution, could you please explain how he is unqualified?
Where did I say Bush was the most unqualified? What I did say was that Bush was unqualified because he "had little knowledge of either domestic or foreign policy." One could also say that Bush was unqualified by temperament and discuss his lack of curiosity, his rigidity, and his history of alcohol and drug abuse. All of that adds up to somebody who was very unqualified to be president. There is an argument that Bush is the worst president in American history, but I don't know about "least qualified."
1. Electing an Unqualified President.
My bad, you just called him unqualified. However, the Constitution of the United States would beg to differ with you.
How is John Edwards or Barack Obama "qualified", given your criteria?
US Constitution. Article II. Section 1.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Profesor Caric - please explain how President Bush is unqualified, given the specific qualifications outlined in the Constitution.
Let me try an analogy on qualifications before I discuss Karl. If I were to bring to you a 35 year old (there's the age requirement), who was born in the U.S.), to parents who were born in the U.S. (that oughta quell some of our more jingoistic "righties"). And for the truly 19th century thinker, let's say this is a white male. Happy?? (Probably not, but I'll go on anyway.) I have exceeded the qualifications outlined in Article II Section 1. So by the strict interpretation of the Constitution provided by "anonymous", we have a viable candidate, right?
But, what if this 35 year old who was born in the United States is afflicted with a mental challenge of some kind? What if this 35 year old American, who fits every qualification cited is unable to surpass the cognitive ability of a 12 year old, or an 8-year old, or a 4-year old yet the public perception is that he is in full possession of his faculties? What if all he can really do is repeat, in very erudite tones what someone else tells him to say?
Or, what if this person has average or even above-average intelligence but is insane? A sociopath perhaps? Incapable of distuinguishing between good and bad. Unable to experience empathy, sympathy, or any of the range of human emotions one might want in a leader?
I didn't see a qualification for mental accuity, sanity, or for that matter any physical qualifications in Article II Section 1. An age and a certain number of years as a citizen. That's it.
I was not present when these qualifications were written and agreed to but I'm guessing the Framers were counting on some common sense. Do you need the constitution to be your guide if you learn that a candidate or an office holder lacks adult mental capacity? Would you still cling to Article II Section 1? If it were determined that this constitutionally qualified individual were incapable of human emotion, or perhaps a serial killer, would Article II Section 1 still be your only guide?
Given that you actually cannot see Bush's rather obvious shortcomings, and you felt the need to ask Ric what makes GW less than qualified, I wonder if perhaps the Framers should have been a little more specific. If for no other reason than to spell everything out in all capital letters so the folks who really need EVERYTHING single qualification and disqualification spelled out for them will understand. The folks who cannot judge. The folks like you "anonymous."
Now, on to Rove. Bush's brain (frankly if I were Rove, I'd be royally pissed if someone referred to me that way.) So how will Karl be remembered? Will they dwell mostly on his skills of the back alley arts of politics? Will they finally acknowledge what a lot of us have known from day one; that Rove was architect of the worst administration in America's history? Will they finally admit that George W. Bush was never interested in history or in domestic or foreign policy, he was only interested in politics? And will it ever be acknowledged that in Karl Rove, W found someone who insured that political calculation overruled the national interest?
At home, for six years, Rove forged a rather awkward ruling majority for conservatives, tying the wealthy and the religious right in one of the most bizarre marriages-of-convienience history has ever seen. His calculation led directly to the most corrupt administration and congress in memory, to an economic policy that enabled the wealthiest few to capture all of the rewards of the previous administration's economic growth, to historic inequality and a corporate crime wave from which ordinary Americans may never fully recover.
In Rove's Washington, political calculation was all. Bush trampled conservative principle to support the "No Child Left Behind" federal intervention into public education so he could appeal to parents concerned about the public schools. And then he walked away from his own reforms, breaking his promise on adequate funding, and allowing his appointees to mismanage the whole effort. Bush signed onto the prescription drug benefit to counter an appealing Democratic program, but then allowed the drug lobbies to write the legislation, squandering billions on subsidies to the insurance and drug companies. He moved to "privatize Social Security," endangering the one Universal Social Insurance program the American people have, in the political hope of creating a generation of Republican investors.
Abroad, Rove stood with the neo-cons who scorned the "reality based community." For Rove, Bush, Cheney, et.al the US could create its own reality. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were used to turn the president into a "commander in chief." The vital reconstruction in both countries was botched, starved of funds and troops, even as Rove was having the president declare "mission accomplished," American soldiers were going to begin dying on a scale undreamed of.
Worse, Rove immediately used the September 11 attacks for partisan political purpose. He pushed for trampling the laws and constitution of the country to make it appear that the president was strong and my party was weak on security. He had the president charge the leaders of my party with being weak on security because they tried to protect the basic rights of workers herded into the gargantuan Department of Homeland Security. He turned 9/11 and posturing on the war into a partisan instrument at the Republican convention in 2004. He helped "re-elect" the president at the price of dividing the nation and embittering our politics.
Characteristically, after Katrina, the president belatedly named a special advisor on the crisis. You guessed it, Karl Rove. And Rove's policy was to disperse the displaced, largely African American and Democratic voters to fifty states, with no plan to bring them back home. Provisions were made for Mexicans in the US to vote in the Mexican election and for Iraqis to vote in the Iraqi election, but none were made for those dispersed from New Orleans. For Rove, even the tragedy of New Orleans was turned into a political advantage.
So, until the sunlight began to uncover the filth in 2006, Rove was successful. He helped steal an elections in 2000,2002 and 2004. He helped engineer conservative control of every institution in Washington. He and his president had their way suceeded for a while and then, ultimately,failed.
And even though the House, and to a limited extent, the Senate have been liberated from Republican control, we will pay the cost of that failure for decades to come.
Wow, just wow. I guess this is why you usually copy and paste. Your own thoughts are a bit sensational.
It is curious. You people can't get enough of vomiting whatever comes into your minds when it comes to posts about your dubious choices in political heroes. Do you ignore the posts such as "Life, And All That Jazz" about day-to-day life because you fear that you will find it more difficult to hate and revile someone when they become human to you? So you fear losing the symbol of everything you think you should stand against when that symbol becomes a father and a husband with friends? Where does the hate stop with you people? Is it worth the price of your own humanity?
todd mayo - You have the audacity to preach to others about hate? Go back, wipe the spittle from your chin, and read what you write prior to pressing "Publish Your Comment".
As a wise man once said (and I paraphrase, Republicans think Democrats are wrong. Democrats think Republicans are evil."
You are the perfectly example of this, yet somehow manage to project your hatred onto others. Well done.
By the way, why do you hate the mentally challenged, todd? What would make them unqualified to be President? Nothing, except for your bias. The Constitution was written by men that had a far greater grasp of the English language than you or I. If they wanted to limit the qualifications to social science professors, or trial lawyers, they could have. They chose not to. All of your hypotheticals - yes, they would all be qualified. Would I vote for them? Nope.
So, you voted instead for someone who had little interest in domestic or foreign policy, had a history of alcohol addiction and cocaine use, and drove a couple of businesses into the ground? Why?
Ric - For somebody with a PhD, you have a surprisingly generic view of politics, and people. Suffice it to say that your description is not the one I would choose.
I prefer politicians with little interest in domestic policy, as left to their own devices, politicians of both parties tend to screw things up. Having said that, other than asserting so, you have provided no evidence that he was uncurious about anything. For a dumb hick, he sure fooled all of those highbrow east coast liberals, didn't he?
His foreign policy has pretty much been in relation to 9/11, so I am guessing that his ideals had a meeting with the real world that many others never encounter.
History of alcohol addiction? Is that a personality flaw? Character flaw?
Cocaine use? Prove it. Even if true, is that a personality flaw?
Drove a couple businesses into the ground? Made a shitload at one too, but let's ignore that. How many businesses have you started? How many did Gore start before he got ran out of town? How many did Kerry start?
The money George Bush, conservative gadfly, made was because of the government. He was brought on board the Rangers, because his name carried weight and they needed a media face so they could ram their stadium through the legislature. Having done so, and profited immensely from the eminent domain of many local properties (where's that Kelo outrage now, righty?), they sold the team to a new guy at a 500% percent profit. Profit made explicitly by fleecing the taxpayers out of their money and transferring to a bunch of rich Texas oilmen.
That's not business like I learned in school. That's politics and it illuminates the way he ran the country.
Post a Comment