Boy Genius. The Architect. The Man with the Plan. The Smartest Man in Politics. Presidential adviser Karl Rove is a man of many sobriquets, all of which reflect his reputation as a brilliant electoral strategist.
But in recent weeks, with Republicans beginning their most difficult campaign this decade, everyone — from bloggers to reporters for The New York Times — has suggested the unthinkable: Rove may be facing an election in which his candidates will lose.
Well, obviously.
This is a “noteworthy” observation only because Rove’s supposed mastery of the political dark arts has been described so reverently for the past six years that the candidates he backs have come to seem unbeatable.
In reality, Rove wins elections through a predictable combination of meticulous organization and aggressive tactics. His elevation to miracle-worker status is part of a broader political dynamic that reflects Republicans’ self-assuredness and Democrats’ self-doubt. And despite the new questions about Rove and the public disapproval of the GOP, it’s a dynamic that seems set to repeat itself this year — thus costing Democrats another election.
For Republicans, of course, all the hushed talk about Rove’s brilliance is a tactic to scare the competition. Rove’s boosters want candidates who oppose his own to think twice before every policy proposal, public appearance, and fundraising event: “How will Rove spin this? Am I playing into Rove’s hands? What is Rove planning?”
The goal is throwing Democrats off their game, and it often proves remarkably effective. For example, in the summer before the 2002 elections — when one might have expected the Democrats to be planning their own campaign strategy — the party held a Washington seminar about “Karl Rove’s secret strategy” for winning the election. That November, of course, the GOP swept to an unusual mid-term victory.
The greater damage done to Democrats by the Rove myth-making is self-inflicted, however. Democrats are so obsessed with Rove’s “evil genius” that they forget his tactics — from computer-modeled turnout drives to anonymous smear campaigns — are all part of the normal game of politics. The Democrats are like basketball players who helplessly watch Michael Jordan’s fadeaway jumper and then complain to the ref that it’s not a fair shot.
This unrelenting focus on “fairness” causes the party to flounder in the face of entirely foreseeable political offensives. The “swift boating” of John Kerry, for example, was a predictable attack from Rove, a strategist who has made a career of going after his opponents’ strengths. Rather than offering a substantive response to attacks on his military record, however, Kerry complained about the attacks themselves.
“I am tired of these Republicans who spend so much time denigrating Democrats’ … defense of our nation,” he said. “I’m tired of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.” A year later, Kerry was still decrying “the slash-and-burn, smear-and-divide tactics that have come to characterize the Bush administration.”
The fairness obsession is a familiar trap for Democrats. In the 1980s, frustrated by seemingly endless Republican control of the White House, the party blamed its losses on GOP strategist Lee Atwater (who, before his early death from cancer, was a friend and mentor to Rove). A desperate group of Democratic senators even convened a conference on campaigns “in the age of Atwater.”
But all the hand-wringing about Atwater did little. Ultimately, focusing on the opposition’s tactics was a way of avoiding responsibility for the party’s own lack of ideas throughout the ’80s. As Democrats discovered in the ’90s, the key to electoral success was neither decrying nor adopting the tactics of the Republicans, but offering instead a compelling candidate with a coherent vision — Bill Clinton.
Democrats have lost sight of that during the Bush years. But if there were ever an easy opportunity for the party to deliver a winning message, now is it. Newt Gingrich, of all people, even suggested a stunningly simple one: “Had enough?” Yet rather than hammer away at the administration’s failures, Democrats are still complaining about attacks from the GOP.
After Republicans marked the anniversary of Sept. 11 with a defense of the Iraq war and an attack on Democrats’ commitment to fighting terrorism, the party cried foul. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi criticized “cynical tactics” and the “politics of fear.” And despite their natural advantage against Rove, given the president’s low approval ratings, Democrats are still worried about the Boy Genius. Late last month, a leading official working for the Democratic campaign to retake the House decried the “nasty campaign tactics and the partisan divisiveness” of Rove.
What he didn’t say — and perhaps doesn’t realize — is that those tactics will succeed only if the Democrats let them.
Alexander Dryer works for the New Yorker in Washington.
