August 16, 2007

Why Is There No Liberal Karl Rove?

If Karl Rove was responsible for dividing America and shredding the Constitution – heady achievements for a political consultant – inquiring minds want to know:

Who is the liberal Karl Rove?

And since the answer is obviously, “There isn’t one,” perhaps we can glean something from asking why.

Karl Rove was not the first of his kind. Lee Atwater was. Had brain cancer not taken Atwater in 1991 at the age of 40, his mythical legend might have become every bit as gargantuan as Rove’s. The tactical architect of George H.W. Bush’s 1988 victory was – we were told – everything we were later told Rove was. A dirty trick artist, a base-panderer, a race-baiter . . . you know the litany.

The more Michael Dukakis was exposed as the self-impressed, far-left ideologue he was, the more this became evidence not of Dukakis’s shortcomings, but of Atwater’s dirty tricks. It was nasty negative campaigning, because the truth about Dukakis was nasty and negative – and Atwater told the truth.

Rove helped strategize his Bush to the White House, just like Atwater did for his Bush, but since he didn’t share his predecessor’s sad fate, he went on to engineer a successful re-election campaign and took a policy role in the White House.

The media attention devoted to the resignation of Rove – the White House deputy chief of staff, mind you – exceeds the coverage of any resignation since Richard Nixon’s. This is immeasurably silly, but by the time it happened, they could hardly help themselves. The media had turned Rove into the ominous man behind the curtain. It was the only way to fit recent news events into their template. How could George W. Bush win the White House? Especially in 2004, when they couldn’t pretend he really hadn’t?

It had to be the maniacally brilliant yet evil scheme of a ruthless manipulator who could throw red meat to the base, leverage “wedge issues” and, of course, scare the bejeezus out of people.

That provided the left with a way out of examining its choice of candidates and its ideological shortcomings. They deserved to win, they told themselves and everyone else. Only the diabolical dark lord Karl Rove, through his evil machinations, denied them the victories that the nation really wanted to give them.

When Rove left, one editorial page after another declared “good riddance.” The Chicago Sun-Times headlined a column, “Under Rove, U.S. Paid Hefty Price.” (Under Rove?) Reporters at an editorial meeting at the Seattle Times began cheering when Rove’s resignation was announced.

Karl Rove the Legend was surely the most important Deputy Chief of Staff ever in the history of ever. With almost unbridled power, he victimized the poor, destroyed his enemies and laughed all the way to Kingdom Come, just as Lee Atwater would have done if given the chance.

So, who are the liberal counterparts to Rove and Atwater? Who are the legendary Democratic strategists who inspire hatred and rage among Republicans? Who are the mad puppeteers wielding power behind the scenes and manipulating an unwilling nation on behalf of witless Democratic candidates?

There are none. James Carville? Please. Republicans love the guy. He’s funny. He married Mary Matalin and stood up at Rush Limbaugh’s wedding. Bob Shrum? Republicans love him even more. He’s run almost every Democratic presidential campaign in the past 20 years, and you know how those tend to turn out.

Conservatives don’t turn Democratic strategists into hated bogeymen, mainly because they so rarely engineer successful campaigns. But more to the point, when Republicans lose, they usually know why. Bush 41 lost because he raised taxes and didn’t finish the job in Iraq. Dole lost because he didn’t stand for anything.

Sure, Bill Clinton was insincere and disingenuous, but the Republicans’ inability to overcome that wasn’t the evil work of some strategist. It was because Clinton ran a better campaign and the Republicans deserved to lose.

The media’s notion of Rove as the most important political figure in America reflects its own obsession with political strategy as opposed to substance.

Bogeymen like Atwater and Rove earn their mythic status because Democrats can’t believe they can ever lose a fair fight. This accrues to Republicans’ benefit. If Democrats don’t think there is anything wrong with their ideas, fine. Let them keep running on them, and when they lose, let them cry foul and blame the next Atwater or Rove.

None of this, of course, shows much respect for the American voter, who is supposedly so easily manipulated by these rogue figures. It can’t be that you thought about the issues and made an informed decision. The dastardly wizard told you what to do, and now that Rove is retiring to his evil lair in Texas, we can only await the emergence of the next Republican dark lord.

Buh-wa-ha-ha-ha-ha!