Rove the "System Coach"
Like Steve Clemons, I'm vacationing this week, but unlike Steve, I'm in a place that's exotic only in terms of representing many of the extremes of American society: Daufuskie Island, South Carolina. This used to be a remote Gullah barrier isand, before resort developers and golf-course designers discovered it. Indeed, this whole region of South Carolina used to be so poor and pre-modern that U.S. Senate field hearings on malnutrition and even starvation in the area back in the 1970s led to the creation of the Food Stamp program.
Now the Gullahs are few and far between on Daufuskie, though their culture and cuisine live on. Parris Island, one of two Marine basic training bases, is just across the water, as is Hilton Head, that massive hive of upscale, tacky recreation. In other words, this is the South in all its contradictions, which probably puts me in the right mood to comment on the recent troubles of that great diagnostician of the underside of southern politics, Karl Rove.
Now the Gullahs are few and far between on Daufuskie, though their culture and cuisine live on. Parris Island, one of two Marine basic training bases, is just across the water, as is Hilton Head, that massive hive of upscale, tacky recreation. In other words, this is the South in all its contradictions, which probably puts me in the right mood to comment on the recent troubles of that great diagnostician of the underside of southern politics, Karl Rove.
Here in the sports-crazy South, Karl Rove is immediately identifiable as a particular type of Team Coach: a System Coach. This is a guy who has a particular strategy for playing his game (football, basketball, baseball, or whatever); tries to organize players to work within his system; and usually does well, unless the game changes and the system no longer works.
Rove's System for playing the political game is well known: keep your base happy; target and pander to a few key swing constituencies; choose issues to talk about that achieve the two above strategies while undermining the opponent's financial base; stay on the offensive; use polarization to disguise the extremism of your agenda and tactics; never admit mistakes; and exploit the rules of the game (especially in terms of media coverage) to your absolute advantage.
While Rove's System draws on a whole host of political antecedents dating back to the Tweed Ring, it's still unique as a comprehensive, one-size-fits-all strategy. So Mark Schmitt is right: the System can survive the potential fall of its designer. But the bigger question, as Mark also suggests, is whether the Rove System itself no longer works. Has the game changed, and are Rove and his acolytes like the football coaches who couldn't adjust to the ball-control passing offense; the basketball coaches who never figured out the implications of the three-point-shot; or the baseball managers who paid no attention to the construction of bandbox hitter's parks?
Like Mark, much as I dislike Karl Rove, I am far less interested in seeing him shuffle off to Tennis Prison than in seeing the demise of his System. It worked brilliantly for a while, but now it's bumping up into the objective reality of its total irrelevance to the challenges actually facing the United States.
Rove's System for playing the political game is well known: keep your base happy; target and pander to a few key swing constituencies; choose issues to talk about that achieve the two above strategies while undermining the opponent's financial base; stay on the offensive; use polarization to disguise the extremism of your agenda and tactics; never admit mistakes; and exploit the rules of the game (especially in terms of media coverage) to your absolute advantage.
While Rove's System draws on a whole host of political antecedents dating back to the Tweed Ring, it's still unique as a comprehensive, one-size-fits-all strategy. So Mark Schmitt is right: the System can survive the potential fall of its designer. But the bigger question, as Mark also suggests, is whether the Rove System itself no longer works. Has the game changed, and are Rove and his acolytes like the football coaches who couldn't adjust to the ball-control passing offense; the basketball coaches who never figured out the implications of the three-point-shot; or the baseball managers who paid no attention to the construction of bandbox hitter's parks?
Like Mark, much as I dislike Karl Rove, I am far less interested in seeing him shuffle off to Tennis Prison than in seeing the demise of his System. It worked brilliantly for a while, but now it's bumping up into the objective reality of its total irrelevance to the challenges actually facing the United States.
Advertisement
The Wishbone, the West Coast Offense, the Triangle,...all the way to the Rovian Heighten the Contradictions Polarization strategy.
I think a key part of the Rove game relies on gaming a press core that has found itself in a rut of conventions. Eventually, the media will re-evaluate, and I will hope, eventually come up with the understanding that objective truths should not be reported in the Democrats say...but Republicans counter template.[i.e "Democrats sya the Deficit is at an all time high, but Republicans counter that it is ...]
It is also worth noting how we got here. I cannot think of a way that Bush would be President if the following (pretty remarkable) events had not occured.
1. Lewinsky scandal opened the door for a Gore defeat (also 8 years fo decent governance made people think it was standard)
2. Butterfly ballots in Florida (and other election 2000 shenanigans
3. 9/11 - obviously Bush was already elected at this point, but he was clearly a 1 termer without an excuse, and a dramatic one at that, to hang his failures on.
July 12, 2005 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. Usually Rove is glorified as someone who's ahead of his time -- exploiting features of our current political life that others either don't see or elect to ignore (perhaps for moral reasons).
Perhaps you're right that the features he exploits are temporary, and that even subtle changes could bring the whole Rove System tumbling down. I hope.
But what Rove relies on is public ignorance, media complacency, and the efficacy of uinprincipled ruthlessness. It's hard for me to believe -- as much as I'd like to -- that such a strategy will fail any time soon, even if Rove himself fades from the scene.
July 12, 2005 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the above article is more an exercise in wishful thinking than the truth would allow. The Rove system, as accurately described by Mr. Kilgore, will work as long as the electorate allows it to work, and I don't see any significant movement of the electorate in a direction that would neutralize the Rove strategy.
In fact, the Rove strategy may become even more dangerous the moment Rove officially rides off into the sunset (whether it be this year, next, or many years from now). He has provided a name the opposition can unify against and rally to defeat. As lesser known Rove supporters adopt his strategy and become themselves system coaches, the Republicans may be relying on such techniques for a while yet into the future.
July 12, 2005 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's an open question as to whether Rove is really an especially skilled practitioner of anything. After all, say Theresa LaPore had designed the Palm Beach County ballots differently in Florida. Bush would have lost, people would have said Rove ran a decent campaign under difficult circumstances but made some key errors at the end after operating very well for several months, and only hard-core political junkies would know the name "Karl Rove" today.
There's a big tendency to overinterpret events that, in fact, involved an awful lot of random noise. Presidential elections are zero sum, so it's easy to think of things as grand victories that, in fact, weren't all that impressive or, in the case of the Bush 2000 campaign, weren't impressive at all.
July 12, 2005 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Winning isn't the only thing...it is everything.
Rove learned well from his mentor Lee Atwater and then improved on what Atwater did. I am not so sure the game has passed Rove by because Bush and the GOP are still winning. And until they are stopped I am not ready to pronounce Rove's strategies as dead on buried.
To quote Leo Durocher...
"Show me a good loser and I will show you a loser."
July 12, 2005 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Matt hit the nail on the head. And lets add that 60,000 people in Ohio change their vote and Rove's get out the base strategy is seen as a loser. Can't help but wonder if the Toledo Blade had broken the Coingate story in August or September '04...
Back to Rove, I think his strategy is simply all politics all the time, what matters is the perception you create in the public not any reality. Which I doubt is changing anytime soon. Now the question is who on the right is as ruthless and amoral as him to take his place? I guess we'll find out when the attacks on McCain start in the next primary.
July 12, 2005 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it should have been...
Winning isn't everything...it is the only thing.
July 12, 2005 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read somewhere that Saddam Hussein rewarded two types of person within his regime, 'those who were loyal and those who were expert.' In Bush's case, it's the former who have caused the most problems for our country on a range of issues, but especially regarding Iraq. It's the experts, however who have caused the most trouble for Bush himself: Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Eric Shinseki, David Kay, Anthony Zinni, Charles Duelfer, etc. and now possibly Patrick Fitzgerald. The difference in this instance is that the Republican Congress isn't in control of events - the legal system is. Fitzgerald seems to be signalling an impartiality that must have the White House scared senseless. Why else the political time-buying everything's gonna be juuuust fiiine defense?
July 12, 2005 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Atrios via the LA Times:
Luskin declined to say whether Rove knew that Plame was a covert agent, even if he did not know her name, which analysts said was a crucial factor in determining whether the law was broken.
Um, what? He to say?!?! That's not very good at all.
Does that mean his only defense is that he didn't actually use her name?
Out of the water swimmers!!!! There are sharks in there! And blood!! It's very dangerous!!!
July 12, 2005 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If politics were football, Rove would coach the shoot and run, a goofy-mirror version of the run and shoot. Novak, of course, would be the roachback; too small or weak to carry the ball, though low and filthy enough to spread the offense.
As Josh details here, Novak flimsily claims he wasn't outing Plame as a CIA agent when he labeled her an "agency operative."
Yet, in this WaPo account from September 28, 2003, Novak admits notifying CIA of his intent to disclose Plame's name, whereupon CIA "urged" Novak not to disclose "for security reasons":
What isn't clear here? That Novak was specifically warned about "security reasons" arising from the disclosure of Plame's name which Novak subsequently ignored? That the CIA all but spelt out Plame's sensitvity without, per policy, confirming undercover status? That Novak's only defense in September 2003 was CIA's "very weak request" that Novak withold disclosure -- not whether Novak knew Plame was undercover or not?
If Fitzgerald has the means to prosecute a crime, an end should include the System Roach as accessory.
July 12, 2005 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may be more reasonable to say that Rove has done some things really well -- like finish off the Democratic Party in Texas, and effectively take over the political leadership of the state -- and other things he has done somewhat less well, like run a national campaign. The "System" works best on its home turf, where the terrain slants more to the right than in most other places, and where the task of aligning a party organization with a majority of mobilized voters is easiest to accomplish.
July 12, 2005 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have speculated about this previously, but today is the first time I've seen an article talking about Bolton's office in relation to the Plame leak.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/
July 12, 2005 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ed Kilgore said" Rove's System for playing the political game is well known: keep your base happy; target and pander to a few key swing constituencies...
I'm sorry, Ed, but I'm afraid your description of the "game" makes it very clear why Democratic strategists have been no match for their Republican counterparts. You guys simply do not get it.
From The Republican Nemesis:
“When historians look back on the current era in American politics it will likely stand out as the period when Republican cunning & marketing savvy completely dominated the political landscape. Obliging Democrats have thrown themselves into the fray with enthusiasm, armed with idealistic visions of civil “discourse”, only to be humbled repeatedly by their political masters. Republican strategists have been able to blend their astute grasp of marketing principles, human nature, & social psychology into a formula that delivers almost guaranteed success at the polls. While Democrats knock themselves out every election cycle trying to talk to Swing Voters about The Issues, Republicans have calmly focused their attention on winning The Image Campaign. Quite simply: Democrats lose because they don’t understand what moves their target audience.”
“The Issues might actually be important to many Swing Voters early on in a political campaign, but when both sides start to pick apart each other’s facts & interpretations, the typical Swing Voter quickly becomes confused. As the debate over The Issues drags on, Swing Voters realize that they don’t understand the details well enough to make an informed decision, so they end up relying on their impressions of the candidates. Republican strategists see this clearly. That is why they continuously try to create doubts in the minds of the Swing Voters about the character of the Democratic candidate. They know that it doesn’t really matter if they can’t find any real flaws in their Democratic opponents. Accusations, insinuations, & innuendo will work just fine. They hope to encourage voters to question the motivation and dependability of The Democrats. They try to create the perception that Democrats are “defective” in a disturbing way. By accusing, the Republicans suggest to Swing Voters that they are not [defective like the Democrats].”
“Republican strategists know they would rarely win if election results were always determined by a logical discussion of The Issues and nothing more (they know that most voters would benefit more from Democratic economic policies than from Republican policies). They know they must win the Image Campaign to have any chance of winning. That is why they are committed, now and forever, to negative campaigning...”
“The most important reason why negative campaigning has worked so well for the Republicans is because their negative attacks on the Democrats create a positive impression of Republican candidates, who appear—in contrast—to be individuals who do not possess the defects that they have accused others of having. They define themselves [positively] by defining their Democratic opponents [negatively]. On a visceral level, what the Republicans actually “stand for” in the minds of Swing Voters on election day is that they are not Democrats—those defective people who seem to have been born to ruin everything.”
You've got to start looking at the group-comparisons, social-psychology dimensions, guys...
James Kroeger
July 12, 2005 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a lot of truth and insight in what Mr. Kilgore had to say in his post. Being a Floridian I feel that Matt Yglesias and James Kroeger are on the mark as well.
I especially appreciated Matt's comment that elections are zero sum, as the 2000 election was the ultimate in desperate criminal activity at the state level and all that has followed does indeed seem to flow from that crime.
I also find it fascinating to think about the possibility that John Bolton played an important part in both the theft of the Florida 2000 election and the leaking of classified information to the Presidential staff, which made it possible for Rove to do his dirt.
Any sign that the press corps is developing Rove/Plame fatique should be the cue to raise hell.
July 12, 2005 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
...it's easy to think of things as grand victories that...in the case of the Bush 2000 campaign, weren't impressive at all.
The least prepared and least qualified candidate in American history came within half a million votes of possibly the most prepared and most qualified candidate in American history. That's one impressive campaign.
Yeah, Gore ran with all the down-home warmth and charm of a plaster cast of Imelda Marcos. But still.
Ditto 2004, replacing "within half a million votes" with "3 million votes ahead," "Gore" with "Kerry," and "possibly the most prepared and most qualified candidate in American history" with "a well-qualified candidate." And you can either replace "The least prepared and least qualified candidate in American history" with "An utterly failed incumbent" or just leave it as it is.
Rove may not be the best political strategist in the world, but he has consistently been the best in the arena. Aaron Burr didn't have to be the best marksman in the world. He just had to be a better shot than Alexander Hamilton.
July 12, 2005 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the CIA had come out and told Novak explicitly that Plame was undercover, they themselves would have been breaking the law.
July 12, 2005 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
And let's not forget the role the "polarization" strategy played in getting Jim Jeffords to jump across the aisle.
July 12, 2005 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would say that if Rove is a "System Coach", so was Carville. So it seems like a system that can work for both sides. That makes it unlikely to go away.
It's easy to miss the similarity between Carville and Rove if you think of the "base" as the hard-core interest-group figures. But if you think of who is THEIR base, it's easy. Rove's base is the Christian Right and the militarists--not the small-government crowd. Carville's base is the Snopeses and the angry white males--not the hard-core left. But both are exceedingly good at the "get out your base and make your opponent fight himself" game.
July 12, 2005 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taking a few steps back, it always seemed that the "System" is great for winning elections, and really lousy for actual governing. It's as if after they've won the election they look around the room and say, "well, what do we do next?". The only thing they know: pander to the base, split the opposition, and make sure the donors are happy.
July 12, 2005 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you on the <a href="http://deliciouspundit.blogspot.com/2005/01/bush-73-citadel-0.htm
l">college football metaphor</a>. If I may quote myself:
<span class="Apple-style-span">Okay, you say, but aren't the Bushies undefeated (politically)? Haven't they rolled up all opposition? Yes, but consider the opposition. The Democrats are like North Texas State or Vanderbilt -- creampuff opposition you schedule for homecoming. Or they have been. They might be a good recruiting year away from contention.</span>
July 12, 2005 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
James,
What you have described is Republicans have adopted political marketing tactics that are commonly viewed with displeasure by their target audience and are unethical at best. And it makes little difference to Republicans if it is all BS as long as they win.
That sounds an awful lot like what we get out of the Bush WH and this administration in general.
This doesn't reflect well on the voters that gave us Bush & Co. I won't make a comment in that regard but the implication is clear.
Not to mention how rotten and cynical a picture it paints of Republicans (deservedly?).
The callousness this displays for the average citizen makes me want to puke. And it also makes me wonder how far the Republicans will go (have gone?) to assure a win.
Considerations of this sort aren't pleasant. Do Dems (or anybody) really want to go down such an ugly road knowing what it really means? It implies an awfully bleak future for America.
thepeoplechoose
July 12, 2005 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might want to read my post from yesterday at www.politicalsports.com. Coincidentally I suggest many of the same things. I guess something is in the air. The sports analogy is quite appropriate.
July 13, 2005 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the CIA had come out and told Novak explicitly that Plame was undercover, they themselves would have been breaking the law.
Yes, this is understood; as in "the CIA all but spelt out Plame's [NOC] sensitvity without, per policy, confirming undercover status."
July 13, 2005 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink