2/25/2008 7:45:50 PM

Jon-
I'm surprised. I've always imagined Rove to be a conscious
perpetrator of evil, rather than someone with a lot of arrogance and an
alternative philosophy. How do I square the Rove that you portray with
the one who arranges for Don Siegelman to be tried by his loyal buddies
in Alabama, while the Justice Dept intervenes from DC to put its thumb
on the scale? Or the Rove who organized the jamming of Democratic phone
lines in NH on Election Day? Or the Rove who helped to engineer the
"terrorist attacks" of 9/11?
Perhaps there is a deep disconnect in his personality, so that he
can appear sincere when called upon to speak in public.
-Josh Mitteldorf

Josh Mitteldorf

2/25/2008 7:51:31 PM

Hi Josh,

Great point. I obviously cannot vouch for Karl Rove's inner drivers or his value system. However, I would suggest that the investigative-reporting-driven impression we have of Rove is a bit more damning than he really deserves, and that his impression of himself is a bit less damning and more forgiving than he really deserves.

He seems to have the ability to convince himself of the righteousness of his beliefs, and conduct exercises and plans to advance what he thinks is best for the country. The classic "means to an end" approach to advancing an agenda.

I would argue that we all do this to a certain extend, but his drive, ability, and fortitude puts his results into a category that is more easy to scrutinize (if you don't agree with him) or laud (if you do agree with him).

I get the sense that he thinks that all of the things that he has done are:

- constitutionally legal (he thinks that many current laws are not constitutional, so he feels he has every right to challenge existing laws)

- have precedent (sometimes conveniently in another context, but no matter)

- show true strength of character (going along with the current liberal interpretations of what America is is weak - strength comes from challenging the cultural status quo and going back how he interprets the founding principles of the U.S.A.).

It is my estimation that it is with this conviction that he devises and executes his plans, giving himself the psychic armor to combat the various "attacks" that are aimed at him.

Jon

Jon

2/25/2008 7:51:32 PM

Interesting insight especially as I am to hear Rove speak tonight. But your last paragraph goes beyond the pale. He should not be demonized? Are you f-ing kidding me? He is not going away? Then Federalist papers or not, you don't have a clue about this country and you are all but advocating for its destruction. Without a marginally fair justice system you cannot have a democracy.

Karl Rove belongs in prison. PERIOD. Catch yourself up on the Don Siegelman prosecution for starters where an innocent man resides in prison due largely to Rove. But that case is merely the tip of the iceberg. Rove may be smart but what truly sets him apart is his willingness to use the full force of the government, even if illegal, to achieve his goals. And in so doing he has all but destroyed the Justice Department and any semblance of fair elections in this country.

To suggest that he should be admired in any shape or form is truly sickening. We the people should demand equal and fair justice and that he be tried for his numerous crimes. Get some perspective.

HPM

2/25/2008 8:28:17 PM

I am not in the least surprised by this impression of Karl Rove as mega-intelligent, hyper-driven, and uber-arrogant. He would not have achieved his plethora of individual successes, nor his high position of influence if any of these attributes were lacking. Nor do I think it is a question of demonizing versus understanding the man. The capabilities are worth momentary admiration, but no more so than the calculating ability of an idiot-savant. Because, as Josh points out, this is a man who has no qualms whatsoever with putting the thumb (or more massive parts of the anatomy) on the scale to produce the desired outcomes. In an outcome-driven society it is easy to lose all regard and respect for process (it's boring, it's constraining, it leads to a win some-lose some record), yet it is that process that ultimately protects us. "Visionaries" like Rove, particularly when convinced that they tower above the muddled riff-raff that constitute the "opposition," at some point cross a line by further convincing themselves that all that process stuff (like, say, actually counting votes as cast, or actually waiting for actual "terrorists" to attack before declaring war on terror) is a vision-thwarting impediment and so dispensible. As Dylan Thomas wrote: "After the first death, there is no other;" once you cross that line and start cutting "procedural" corners, there's rarely if ever a turning back.

I think J.R.R. Tolkien would have understood Karl Rove very well. The wizard Saruman (a far more interesting character than the rather one-dimensional Dark Lord Sauron), succumbs to the lure of the Ring and falls from wisdom into what we might now call a Rovian folly. In this key speech to Gandalf, from whom he is cunningly trying to extract knowledge of the Ring's whereabouts, he lays it out: "As the Power grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. ...[W]e can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means."

So we see that Rove is hardly a new or mysterious phenomenon. He has had his antecedents throughout history, real and fictional. I do not deny him his vision any more than I deny FDR or Gandhi or Hitler his. "Knowledge, Rule, Order" do have their appeal. But there is a fatal laziness as well in those who, having industriously memorized The Federalist Papers (and lord knows what else) to serve their cause, then decide that if they cannot win a fair election they'll just have to steal it. Indeed it is a laziness of a higher and more malignant order.

And it is not just Rove, though he may serve as avatar for this time. We have quietly slipped into an era where the public itself has become, in effect, the enemy. There are always tensions between rulers and ruled, elites and masses, and it is precisely to titrate these tensions that the mechanisms of a democracy (that Rove, at least in his private and darker moments, finds so burdensome) are developed and refined. But it is evident that the corporate elites, now fully interpenetrated with and essentially owning the governmental and media elites, have decided that the future is too important to be left to the confused and bungling public. Like Saruman, like General Jack E. Ripper for that matter, they think they know better. And perhaps they do. The only problem is that to get the public to go along, you have to tell lies (lots of them), you have to stoke fear (lots of it), you have to gather "information" and crush dissent (when it finally wakes up), and ultimately you have to show your hand in the most brutal of fashions. We have seen it before and only our cultural historical myopia and our Great Wall of Denial prevent its general recognition. It begins with the self-justifying corner cutting of a most intelligent and even personable Rove but it winds up in a tragic and ugly place. Afterwards there will perhaps be time for analytical biographies groping, say, to establish the links of causality between Auschwitz and Hitler's mother's second cousin. But now is the time to support--with all the determination, courage, and sacrifice our chronically misinformed, sedated, and yes lazy culture can muster--that boring, i-dotting and t-crossing, more-or-less honest process of democracy that we are more priviledged than we apparently know to have been born into, and which Karl Rove, with his prodigious memory and intellect, honors, when it counts, not a whit.

Jonathan Simon

Jonathan Simon

2/26/2008 12:39:05 AM

HPM,

You say that I "don't have a clue about this country" and that I am "all but advocating for its destruction."

Really? Is this the kind of productive dialog that will create a cultural tidal wave in opposition to Rove's philosophies and tactics?

It is precisely this lack of discipline that lets Rove and the Bush Era succeed wildly. Waving your hands in frustrating, and attacking me in the process, is exactly the kind of lack of focus on substance that has allowed what has happened to, well, happen.

You say that "Rove may be smart but what truly sets him apart is his willingness to use the full force of the government, even if illegal, to achieve his goals." Well, yes, this is exactly his platform. He clearly interprets the States' Attorney Generals as political appointees to do the bidding of the administration. This is no longer "news" -- it's an unambiguous interpretation of the rules that Rove has advocated and executed on. The bigger "news" is that nobody has come up with a substantive rationale that would indeed prosecute against this interpretation. If nobody will prosecute, then it risks even being considered precedent.

You also say that "to suggest that he should be admired in any shape or form is truly sickening," and that I should "get some perspective."

I would counter-suggest that a sober analysis of a political nemesis is the very definition of gaining perspective.

All that said, I admire your passion and spirit for what you consider to be "right." Fight the good fight, but please make sure you look up once in a while to make sure you're hitting the right enemy.

Jon

Jon

2/26/2008 11:35:48 AM

Jonathan Simon,

Great points, all. And a good, accurate perspective on personality types. Since Karl Rove is really "nothing new" in this context, I think it is incumbent on those who oppose his specific version of righteousness to focus and work hard to blunt his progress.

It just seems that too often, Karl Rove's opposition is limited to harrumphing and scolding (see above for 'exhibit A' ). This is where Karl and I see things similarly - a disorganized, unfocused, some-would-say "lazy" opposition to his ideals and interpretations of the laws of the land. Where are the progressive think tanks arming the Democratically-controlled congress with thought leadership on how to turn the tide on executive overreach, Guantanamo Bay, etc? Where is the alternative plan for Iraq and Al Q'aida? Where is the Democratic solution for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? Where is the progressive version of global trade, esp. with China?

These might be out there somewhere, but if they're not readily available like Karl's vision is, it doesn't much matter what competing ideas are out there.

Jon

Jon

2/27/2008 10:25:22 PM

For those who are absolutely convinced that Karl Rove represents abject evil, and that I give him too much credit and begrudging respect, does this new info create any cognitive dissonance?

marcambinder.theatlantic.com/.../...in_obama_1.php

For what it's worth, I see this as 'exhibit A' evidence supporting my analysis of the man.

Jon

Jon

3/8/2008 9:41:35 AM

Jon,
Your discussion and report of Rove's speaking engagement is thought provoking. I also just signed up for your blog, "Our Karl Rove" which is excellent.

I do not, however, feel your 'exhibit A' above to be a very potent counter argument to Rove's abject "evil" representation. To propogate Obama's middle name for ill effect is foolhardy and could too easily back-fire. What you have already put forward as a surprising belief found in Rove (that being, his electrol integrity beliefs) trumps the above 'exhibit A' easily.

Ed Spicer