Monday, September 03, 2007

Rove and Repulsion

Within a longer post on media reverence for Karl Rove, Glenn Greenwald includes a quote from a Jay Rosen post about Rove and the media cult of "savviness."
Savviness--that quality of being shrewd, practical, well-informed, perceptive, ironic, 'with it,' and unsentimental in all things political--is, in a sense, their professional religion. They make a cult of it. And it was this cult that Karl Rove understood and exploited for political gain.

For Greenwald, media reverence for Rove is outdated because Rove didn't prove to be so savvy after all. Why would anyone consider Rove to be very savvy considering the disastrous way that Rove's initiatives on the war, social security privatization, and immigration have worked out for Bush administration? Why would media stars like Gloria Borger and David Broder still view Rove as the ultimate authority on practical politics given that Rove's client George Bush is one of the most unpopular presidents in American history and the Republican Party is dispirited, demoralized, and worried about a major defeat in 2008?

Part of the answer is simple. Rove returns the phone calls of people like Broder and Borger and feeds them little nuggets of information they can use in their columns and reports. Rove has an encyclopedic knowledge of red-state places like Texas and Alabama that media members are ignorant about and he is more than willing to share that information. "For our pundit class, Karl Rove is the North Star of what they do -- he provides their instructions, their leaks, their scoops, their access . . ." Partly because he helps them with their work in this way, media people think of Rove as a good guy who helps them get their jobs done. Like most people, media people appreciate this kind of thing.

Hillary media people should take note.

As Rosen claims, media people like and identify with Rove's political shrewdness. But Rove is not just shrewd, he is a repulsive person who has a fantastic amount of energy and enormous talent for exploiting people's weaknesses and prejudices. The Beltway media don't adore Rove just because he's smart and successful. James Carville and Mary Matalin are both smart and successful but nobody adores either one of them. The media adores Rove because they are tremendously fascinated by the Rasputin-like repulsiveness that inhabits everything Rove does. In fact, Borger and other Beltway media types have been so fascinated by Rove that they've decided to represent the full range of Rove's political immorality as a kind of innocence and save their contempt for Rove's critics rather than Rove himself.

There is no doubt that Rove is repulsive. From his earliest days as a campaign consultant, Rove campaigns have been dominated by vicious and dishonest attack ads, playing up the bigotries that potential Republican voters have about gays and blacks whispering campaigns about opponents, and phony prosecutions for voter fraud. According to a 2004 Atlantic article, Rove's approach is to be so brazenly unethical that both the media and opponents are left confused and unsure how to respond. Rove's mendaciousness has been so pervasive that it's difficult to identify any particular manuever as "the quintessential Rove." However, I'll mention two examples--Rove's successful effort to whip up anti-gay sentiment during the 2004 presidential campaign and his equally successful whispering campaign about John McCain's sanity during the 2000 South Carolina primary.

For the political media, Rove's combination of smarts, success, and repulsiveness is irresistible. It's an odd symbiosis. From the media's perspective, the unethical repulsiveness of someone like Rove makes his smarts and success particularly compelling. At the same time, the fact that Rove has been successful on a large scale provides the media with a post hoc justification for Rove's repulsiveness and in fact transforms it into a form of grand beauty and innocence. For the media, Rove's successes from 2000-2004 not only made him smarter, they made him more attractive and even more innocent than his critics.

Ironically enough, Karl Rove remained a media icon even as he was becoming an albatross around the necks of the Republican Party. The media might not notice it, but that wasn't the case with Congressional Republicans.
















been such disastrous political mistakes that Greenwald wonders how anyone could consider Rove to be particularly savvy at this date.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

The best description of Rove was not even about Rove. It was of a fictional character, specifically, Michael Myers, the masked sociopathic killer in Halloween. Here it is:"The darkest souls are not those which exist within the hell of the abyss, but those which break free of the abyss and move silently among us."- Dr. Sam Loomis (Rob Zombie's Halloween)

I rest my case.

Anonymous said...

The best description of Cutnpaste was not even about Cutnpaste. Here it is:"Dee, Dee, Dee" -Carlos Mencia

I rest my case.

On a fictional comment about a fictional character in a movie completely unrelated to anything you present it as evidence of. That is far funnier than caric using quotes from surfermag.com as evidence of right wing evilness.

Anonymous said...

Of course, ef, you know from my response to that, that the Hari article appeared in The New Republic and he's an English journalist from the Guardian or Independent, but I guess that "surfer.mag" joke was just too funny to pass up?

Re: Rove. I remained disgusted by the South Carlina campaign and the Swift Boat bullshit, but what always amazed me was when he bugged his own office and when he whispered that Ann Richards was a lesbian. He's a class act. The bugging was so offensive, it borders on criminal. And the smearing of a war hero, while destroying the records which demonstrates the hypocrite was a hypocrite was the icing on a career that even Lee Atwater would look askance at.

Nothing restrained Rove: the truth, ethics, his alleged Christianity, he was beyond embarrassment. The only people who ever controlled him were the Bushes. When they canned him, he went groveling back for more. That's a reason to admire Barbara's family: they make bad people beg.

Anonymous said...

the Hari article appeared in The New Republic

Missed the earlier comment. Still, given a choice between the two which would you link to?

Anonymous said...

So Rove is back to being an evil genius. I wonder how he managed to not figure out how to finagle a third, or event permanent Presidency for W ?

Anonymous said...

Rove has always been very good about elections, JD. He appeals to the worst in the electorate. It's on policy grounds where he's as incompetent as his boss, although I will give him credit for trying to stop the GOP base from chasing 41 million (and growing) Hispanic voters to the Dems. Alas, the base was too smart for that.

I look at it as a good thing. For the longest time, those numbskulls were quiet and the country prospered. Damn Nixon and Goldwater for waking them up. The Baptists can get out of Statehouse and back into the church.

PS Since, JD, you are a Michael Savage Republican, and not a church going evangelical voter, the above doesn't apply to you. The "hate gays" and "abortion" voters just pruriently vote with you and your high-minded ideals. You oppose gay marriage, because blah, blah. Your cohort opposes it because it hates the gays. It's not your fault.

Anonymous said...

I cannot stand Michael Savage. I know that he is a complete quack. Painfully wrong again.

Anonymous said...

I didn't say you were Michael Savage. Nor did I say you were a Michael Savage fan. I said you were from the Michael Savage wing of the Republican Party.

You aren't a religious voter and you're not a plutocrat. You are a Goldsteinian/Savage-esque Republican. Disdain for the "emotional" left, unquestioning support of the Armed Forces, political derision of minorities (not racism, mind you, just a view that minority politicians and policies can't be trusted 'cause they vote Democratic), hatred of the UN, lover of "security" and disdaining of foreigners who won't do what they're told, etc.

It's a Michael Savage/Dick Cheney version of Republicanism rooted in a grab bag of AEI and Cato philosophies: you know, fuck the whiny poor, the French, the college professor know-nothings, the vacuous Hollywood star...they're all dumb and we're smart and right.

You might not like Savage (who does?), but if you listen to his shows he derides liberals, hates Jessie and Al, thinks the RoE in Iraq are too pussy, hates the UN, think every Muslim is out to get us,etc. His topic list is the topic list of Protein Wisdom (except Savage is a vicious homophobe).

If you added Dan's muscular Catholicism and Jeff's comedy to Savage's show, you a) wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the three of them, and b) you'd have a much better show.

Don Imus = defended by both
Media out to get the US = believed by both
gay marriage = both opposed
war against Iran = both in favor
Haditha = bunch of innocent guys
Scott Beauchamp = both have fervent hatred
McCain Feingold = both opposed (vigorously)
John Edwards = both say "clown"
War on terror suspension of civil liberties = both in favor (vigorously)
Hillary = both see a Commie bitch
Kerry = twice (or more) traitor to the nation
Plame = Wilson lied, Libby secretly not guilty
Global warming = both laugh
etc, etc.

You may hate him, but you're a member of his wing of the GOP.

Frankly, there's just no underlying belief. It took me a lot longer than it took the Professor to arrive at that conclusion, but the more I thought about who was threatening me and placing the personal contact info of commenters on his site, the more it occurred to me that he doesn't have a philosophy, just a set of almost random beliefs. I can think of no public figure more random than Savage.

Anonymous said...

If you ever listened to Savage, you would know how wrong you are. However, since you prefer to argue with those stereotypes in your head, there is nothing I can do to persuade you otherwise.

When have I derided a minority? Disdain of foreigners? Examples, please.

Haditha - So far, they are turning out to be a bunch of innocent guys. Your point?

Beauchamp - Anybody who cares a tiny bit about the truth should have a healthy disdain for him.

Maybe I ought to come up with some vile person who shares your beliefs, make up a laundry list of things that I profess you to believe, and then show how you and Minister Farrakhan are alike.

Anonymous said...

Good luck, but the Farrakhan reference proves my point. I said you couldn't stand Al and Jessie, and you just said you'd compare to one of the feared right wing's biggest bogeymen, despite a) Farrakhan is not part of the mainstream American political and, b) isn't a Democrat. Savage has the third or fourth rated talk show in the country and loudly votes Republican.

Oh, and I listen to him almost every evening for the 15-20 minutes it takes to drive home from school. I made the explicit connection between the Ric Locke's and Jeff Goldsteins of the the world on Tuesday, while I was listening to Savage declare the Haditha Marines innocent heroes. This despite that one has already plead guilty, one is in the middle of his Article 32 and the another is awaiting trial.

It reminded of PW's bald and gentle defense of Marines who shot at least 14 unarmed civilians and, guilty of a crime or not, did a lot more to damage US credibility than one private's story of running over dogs (especially, since I can link to at least two LiveLeak videos showing American soldiers filming each other being cruel to animals). But, people like Savage and you choose to laud the folks who shot kids (I don't think they would want to be called heroes for making horrifying and difficult decisions they made that day) and denigrate the kid no one ever heard of AND call it a conspiracy of the news media?!!

Speaking of tinfoil hats...

So, that works for me and it describes your wing of the GOP perfectly.

Anonymous said...

Evidence, timmah. Who pled guilty? How many have had the charges dropped altogether?

Savage is no more mainstream than Farrakhan, and listening to more than 15 minutes would show how divergent his views are from mine. But that would be inconvenient for your story.

Anonymous said...

Why do I do this for you? You can't read? Ask Karl, he's the math wiz.

Only two guys have had the charges dropped. One is at an Article 2, the other is awaiting Court martial, one pled guilty, three officers were sanctioned just today. Do a little reading.

I stated a fact, you could not refute it. i will repeat it and you can ignore it again: Savage has the fourth highest rated talk show in the country. Millions of conservatives listen each day, JD...millions.

Anonymous said...

corrected: Article 32

Anonymous said...

Because he has an audience, it makes him mainstream? Not even close. He is a fucking radio talk show host. Not a very good one. And not representative of anyone other than himself. You prefer to argue with fictional ideas of what people like me think, rather than with me. You prefer to lump everyone into a night little package, so you can attempt to discredit everyone by poking at one of the group. Ironically, that is almost the antithesis of your beloved identity politics.

Anonymous said...

Except I didn't make anything up. Had I done so, you would have trotted out the familiar Goldstein, Collins, BJTxs argument of "how's the cartoon in your head?"

I didn't need to make anything up. You hate/like the same things! Don't you get it?

I said above that I never called you a fan. If I called you a Goldwater Republican (which you are not), would you counter that you cannot be, because you never met him? Or that you are not, because you met him once and he rubbed you the wrong way, so, even though I share his beliefs, I'm not part of a larger descriptive name of people who believe the same things as him?

That is an illogical sidetrip away from my argument.

I said, as a shorthand, that you and your pals are part of a Savage wing of the Party. To be in membership of said group requires only that you believe the same things; not that you attend his family reunions or wear his commemorative "Michael Savage Radio Show" underwear!

Point is, JD, if you don't like the people who believe the same things you do (see list above), then maybe you should examine why that is.

You curse the Idaho Family Association, you curse Michael Savage, yet they represent the public face of your movement. Says either that you're in the wrong camp or, maybe, you don't know what camp you're in...

Anonymous said...

Here is where you are wrong. The Idaho Family Association and Michael Savage are not the public face of the Republican party, except to you.

Nice try though.

Anonymous said...

Quit mixing the Right and the Republican Party....

Anonymous said...

if you don't like the people who believe the same things you do (see list above), then maybe you should examine why that is

I'd much rather be in that company than OBLs. Any chance OBL chastising the Dems for failing to live up to their promises has caused you to reevaluate your position? How hard do you have to work to suppress recognizing that he is now championing your causes?

Anonymous said...

Ef, you're a dolt and, if you want to maintain stupid assertions, could you go back to PW and allow Jeff to slap with his cock of knowledge a few more times.

I think Hitler was in favor of lower taxes...how does i feel to be lumped in with him. Genghis Khan opposed universal health care; how does it feel to agree with him.

Do you understand how ignorant you sound yet or do we need to into a detailed examination of how George Wallace opposed affirmative action, Attila the Hun hated Scott Beauchamp, Mao was in favor of torure and wire-tapping, etc.

Moronic point

Anonymous said...

Wallace was a Dem. It is not hard to dislike Scott Beauchamp. Mao favored collectivist socialist policies, much like the modern Left.