Posted by David Wilmot, dave@oceanchampions.org
Turd Blossom quit! Amazingly, instead of jail he's going back to Texas (please, no Texas jokes). August is typically a quiet month in Washington DC. Karl Rove, President Bush's most trusted advisor, among other things, shattered the calm with his surprise announcement that he will leave Bush's side later this month (and make millions of dollars telling his story). I can't think of any specific impact his departure will have on our oceans. Yet, to my disappointment, I believe Rove's legacy may well include a shifted baseline.
Partisan politics is nothing new in America (for anyone who believes presidential campaigns are significantly nastier these days, take a look at Jefferson versus Adams circa 1800...it was ugly). However, Rove unlike most ideologues and many partisan politicians who come up from the partisan trenches for fresh air from time to time made EVERYTHING political. It was all about the power and winning (elections and fights - not issues and legislation).
Could this be our new baseline? All politics, all the time!?
Some have described Rove as a "fanatic" or worse. Arianna Huffington in her post today described Rove's "profound unwillingness to allow evidence to get in the way of belief." Stephen Colbert's truthiness is no joke when it comes to Karl Rove. I lamented (yelled) something similar last night when listening to Rove's farewell. My wife took this opportunity (after I stopped yelling at the TV) to encourage me to read the book Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts. In this well-reviewed book, social psychologists Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson explore our need to self-justify and explain that the engine that causes self-justification is cognitive dissonance - the uneasy feeling we have when we hold two ideas that cannot be reconciled. Sounds interesting.
I have already added the book to the pile on my nightstand and as soon as I find out if Harry Potter kicks Voldermort's butt, I'm going to dig in. I'll let you know, if I learn anything useful.
Comments
as much as i have a distaste for the man and his values, rove's political genius was certainly realized in his success in shifting the overton whindow of what is politically possible... since commonly held ideas, attitudes and presumptions frame what is politically possible and create the window, a change in the opinions held by the public should shift it... move the window of what is politically possible and those policies previously impractical can become the next great popular and legislative rage...
ocean policy minded conservationists need to learn well and develop similar acumen... of course, an ear to power wouldn't hurt...
Posted by: Rick MacPherson | August 14, 2007 2:17 PM
Rick, I agree. I suspect not a single Republican or Democrat back in the 1980s honestly believed Rove could create a Republican majority in Texas. And the re-election of an unpopular president in 2004 remains beyond description. Rove has the uncanny ability to see the entire playing field, while others are trying to get off the line of scrimmage. In addition to vision, he is a brilliant tactician. He did indeed revolutionize what was politically possible.
I also agree, distaste aside, there are lessons to be learned from this man. Some of us have tried. How else can I explain a marine biologist getting into electoral politics on behalf of the ocean (that would be me). The challenge is to learn the lessons that make us stronger advocates (winning is everything), while maintaining our humanity, humility, and hope (willing is NOT the only thing).
Finally, I will sleep better with Rove in Texas as opposed to the White House...
Posted by: David Wilmot | August 14, 2007 3:29 PM
How will Karl Rove and the Bush-Cheny years look a decade ahead?
Basically, America will still have a two-party system, and one of those will be holding the White House. However, if it is the Republicans, it is doubtful if they will be following Rove's "God, Guns, Gays and Terrorists" strategy (for the first two, against the last two).
In a period when the polls tell us that the US is evenly divided, Rove will be remembered as someone who activated key constituencies sufficently to capture the White House two terms running with a particularly mediocre candidate (or worse). How he did this was not particularly ethical (the rumours about McCain's illegitimate black child in the South Carolina primary, the Swift Boating and disrespecting of a man who did some service to his country, etc.)... and he will be remembered for that too.
But the goal of an eternal Republican majority ... turning the US into a one-party state by influencing elections through foul means? If that is what Rove was about, then he was a bigger threat to democracy than al-Qaeda. But it is easy to see that such a strategy is self-defeating. A party in perpetual power gets so sleazy, arrogant and unpopular that it eventually gets voted out.
A good example was the Britain of Mrs Thatcher, whose Tory party looked totally invulnerable and it Labour opponents correspondingly incompetent for fifteen years. Yet it is those opponents (revitalised in the New Labour of Tony Blair) who now look invulnerable, and the Tories incompetent.
Pro-"Faith", anti-Gay, aggressive foreign policies may have worked as a temporary expedient. However, the "Faith" coalition seems to be collapsing, the anti-Gay strategy is played out. One can only feel that if the Democrats seize the opportunity, they can pull on the Republicans what Tony Blair did to Mrs Thatcher's Tories. That would be the best monument to Karl Rove - two or more terms in office for Democratic presidents.
Posted by: Toby | August 15, 2007 12:59 AM
"Rove has the uncanny ability to see the entire playing field, while others are trying to get off the line of scrimmage. In addition to vision, he is a brilliant tactician. He did indeed revolutionize what was politically possible."
His edge was not really strategy. His 'edge' was what a friend called "the psychopath's advantage"; the willingness to do things which are unexpected, becaue they're evil. He took smear campaigns and lies to depths not seen for a while, with a totally amoral attitude. His one real cleverness was that he'd attack his opponent's strength, using the big lie for it's greater credibility (among those desiring to believe, and sophomoric sh*ts like so many elite MSM journalist).
Even so, in the end, his greatest advantage was probably that his candidate, Bush, was a tool of the economic elites. It's a lot easier rowing the boat when you're going downstream.
Posted by: Barry | August 15, 2007 5:57 AM