Here's why all this matters. A critical part of what's gone wrong these past few years has been the tendency of a war president to bully opponents, distort their meaning, use base emotional appeals when we need far more rational discussion about how to counter a very complex, terrifying Islamist threat. The kind of campaigns Rove ran in 2002, 2004 and 2006 made all this far harder. It reduced important debates about priorities in the war, detention and interrogation policies, the wisdom of long-term enmeshment in the Middle East, the difficulties of securing loose nukes, the excruciatingly difficult calls on which allies to trust and how - into dumb-ass contests about who is the biggest bad-ass, who is a treasonous wimp and which opponent most belongs in a French hair salon.
« Bernie Mac--I haven't forgot | Main | Mark Penn revealed » Basically10 Aug 2008 11:10 am
Andrew on Rove-ism:
Comments (7)Comments on this entry have been closed. |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Wow, you're up early.
My question is, to what extent is this inevitable? That in wartime, there is always this element of stupid macho stuff, and contests of who is pure American vs "tainted" with foreign-ness. I was not alive when we were fighting other major wars so I don't know
Also,that attack is such an integral part of the Republican message, it seems to me, that it is hard for me to imagine it any other way. For example, remember the "macaca" video with George Allen? What was actually saying? It was that he, George Allen was a real Virginian and Jim Webb was not (and needed to be welcomed to the "real world of Virginia?) and was allegedly with Hollywood people at the time. It is the attack on Obama, and the backbone of the whole "effete liberal vs red-blooded conservative" thing.
Also, to what extent could this have been avoided with a better defense/counterattack by Dems? People will do what they can get away with when it comes to most things, including campaigning.
The problem is that you don't win wars by dividing the home front, but you can sure start wars and win tight elections that way. If FDR and Truman had spent WWII constantly attacking Eisenhower and the Rockefellers as traitors, winning WWII would have been harder. In addition, FDR and Truman would have had more of a basis calling the likes of Prescott Bush (who may have been doing illegal business in Nazi Germany), McCarthy (who sympathized with the Nazis when put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity) and the GOP backers who made up the Business Plot to overthrow FDR and install a fascist dictatorship all traitors.
The thing about the rovian kind of attack, that McCain has now resorted to (which we all thought he was too classy to stoop to), is it is so boring at this point. Aren't Americans tired of being frightened into their vote? Doesn't it get old at some point? We've had this kind of thing for eight years. I just can't stand it anymore. If we have an American electorate that is -- after the last eight years-- still stupid enough to vote fear over personal needs -- we really do deserve what we get.
sometimes sullivan drives me crazy because there are elements of american life and culture that he just doesn't quite grasp. like lots of matters surrounding racial issues.
but at other times, he nails it, in a way that only he can nail it. the stuff about rove-ism is one of those times when he gets it.
This bit from Andrew's he post reflects baseless Beltway logic, though: "The American public wants to move on from this. That's why Obama emerged; and that's why McCain emerged. Both had actually bucked some of the extremes in their own parties."
Come on. When have the "extremes" of the Democratic Party had any control over anything? And the fact that they were right about invading Iraq ought to be worth something.
The idea that the base of the GOP wants to move beyond Rovianism is... lacking substantiation. McCain happened to survive in a weak field, outlasting the transparently absurd Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney, and the plutocrat wing bete noir Huckabee. The rank and file GOP is much more riled with Obama hatred than support for any candidate, ideas, or policies.
This idea that "Rove-ian tactics" are partisan is a joke. Was LBJ a Democrat? Or Bill Clnton? Could these perhaps be winning tactics, as much we don't like them?
Might I also add. The dropping of the Foley charges right before the Nov. '06 election by Rahm Emanuel was a classic "Rove-ian" move by the Dems. And a good one at that. Let's get past the idea that hardball tactics are partisan GOP tactics. If Republicans are the only one that get to use bullying, Democrats will be a minority party.