The Rove Wars

Every so often something happens in the political world for which I have an apt metaphor.  Recently, the undulating blogosphere of conservatives and Republicans rioted with the news that Karl Rove, former consultant and Deputy Chief of Staff to President George W. Bush, had formed another PAC with the intent to follow the William F. Buckley goal of "nominating the best conservative who can get elected."  This news and the way it's been reported has been viewed as anti-TEA Party.  Why am I compelled to relate a story like this allegorically?  Because it is an opportunity to really examine why political people feel the way they do - what makes them tick - and to rebuke same with the heart of the matter before we pull the trigger in the circular firing squad we've formed.

Rove has assumed an odd place in our political culture -- even the popular culture at large, to some degree.  The victorious political consultant who acheives celebrity in his own right is a new phenomenon in American society and history.  Over the past 35 years or so, Americans have begun to assume, enabled by the media, that no candidate arrives in the White House without a savant genius directing his every move.  The first person to acheive this notoriety was Hamilton Jordan, one of Jimmy Carter's lead consultants in the 1976 campaign.  This is ironic, given how when Carter was inaugurated he did not even have a Chief of Staff for over two years.  With the exception of Reagan (more on this in a minute), no recent President -- or serious nominee -- has seemed to ride into the White House without a Tonto.  Bush 41 had Atwater.  Clinton, Carville.  Then Bush, Rove and Obama, Axelrod.  But even some of the loser's consultants have parlayed their ineptitude into a decent paycheck:  Howard Dean's Joe Trippi has become what might be the first free agent of the punditocracy, taking gigs with both MSNBC and Fox in recent years.

Rove, however, has risen beyond the Robin role (or Batman, depending on one's level of cynicism about the process) that our modern media now expect when covering a presidental race -- any race, really, by now.  Among Republicans, Rove has taken on (or created) two roles for himself:  the GOP punching bag and GOP high priest.  He has become a kind of Republican patriarch we secretly feel the need to have in the absence of strong leadership (see previous paragraph, re: Reagan and keep reading).

The far right, TEA-party, same-old-angry-people who vote Republican have taken the Oliver Stone view of American politics:  that there's always an unseen godfather pulling the strings with the goal of ruining the country.  Because Rove understands the importance of PACs in federal elections and has worked hard to create them (not just his latest one in question, the Conservative Victory Project), many conservatives of the myopic variety have eagerly assigned Rove the role as Old Man Potter out to ruin Bedford Falls and vainly rename it.  (NOTE:  while Karl Rove works tediously to organize PACs in accordance with the law, the revitalized Obama Democratic Party has mastered the under-$200-donor loophole in the election code so as to obscure their contribution sources).

By contrast, mainstream GOPers (I refuse to use the disgusting misnomer recently created:  "establishment") turn to Rove by default when beaten and discouraged because he was the last guy to direct a winning presidental candidate.  Mainstream GOPers tend to include big donors who can support Rove's PACs.  Hence, Rove is able to create PACs, which are active everywhere.  But because Republicans struggled last fall, Rove and his PACs are now to blame.  So goes the love-hate persona Rove has been elevated to on the GOP side.

The Party's Rove relationship is a lot like The Clone Wars of the Star Wars Expanded Universe.  The Clone Wars were an interregnum period of manipulation and chaos during the rise of Emperor Palpatine.  Unlike the universe according to Lucas, however, the Rove Wars are a reflection of the vacuum of leadership that currently plagues the GOP.  To be sure, Rove himself has committed serious strategic missteps, especially in the areas of public policy (he alone is responsible for the spike in federal education spending; he also caused the defection of Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords in a 50-50 Senate back in 2001).  But is he a Sith Lord?  Of course not.

The Rove Wars are a reflection of a bad leadership model we have come to accept -- the one of Lone Ranger/Tonto or Batman/Robin  -- which brings me back to President Reagan.  I'm not sentamentalist, and I am not sure President Reagan would do as well in today's primary system.  What I am sure of, however, is that Presdent Reagan - quite the contrary to how he's been portrayed - kept his consultants at the consultant level.  Jim Baker, Michael Deaver, David Gergen -- all were talented men who took orders from a man with an exceptionally clear vision.  No, Reagan wasn't a wonk.  Yes, he could seem unempathetic -- a quality that is a must-have for today's candidate.  But he knew what he knew and he willed it to be carried out.  He didn't need someone to consult on agenda items that in some respects saved our country:  growth-oriented tax policy, defense against a well-organized Communist empire, and the proper role of government.

When will the GOP find someone to bring balance to the Force?  My ability to pick the next Jedi is muddled with my self-interest.  But I do know this:  hate, fear -- and I would add, envy -- these are the pathways to the Dark Side.