The failure of Rovian politics
Karl Rove is an electoral genius, well, sort of.
His history of dirty political ploys and divisive politics have taken him and his current client to the apex of the political sphere, but it is precisely the same tactics which made him so successful at winning election after election which are now responsible for Bush's current standing in the eyes of the American public.
At any other level of political office in this country, a candidate is able to run a campaign based largely on political attacks and outright misrepresentations certain that once elected to office, the attention of the vast majority of his constituents will fade. A reputation bolstered by one or two key votes on defining issues is then enough to maintain the facade through to the next election cycle no matter how many quiet votes are cast against the interests of the constituents.
But, this tactic breaks down with the presidency because of the constant high visibility of the office. Every little mistake and lie is front page news. There is no slipping off the front pages for the president and the truth has a nasty way of eventually slipping out.
Karl Rove sold George Bush as an honest, pious, straight shooter who would protect us from all evil in the world, but the very nature of the fishbowl in which the president lives, made the maintenance of this image a full time job and eventually impossible. Remember how much talk there was about this administration always being in "campaign mode?"
And, now, if you look at the Bush poll numbers, it is precisely these traits on which George Bush was sold that he is scoring the most badly. Is the president honest? Do you believe the Whitehouse has a plan for Iraq? Terrorism? Iran? Even the pious characterization has taken a significant hit among the evangelicals, the only segment where it really mattered.
What has happened is that, unlike a congressman, or even a governor, the presidency lacks the ability to step back away from the press, gain some time and distance, and then retool, rebrand, and remarket. And as people become aware of the lies they were sold during the election, their opinions become substantially more negative in a permanent and contagious way. If he's not honest, he's probably not pious, either, and maybe I should look at that "security president" thing again.
And, not only are people developing these negative opinions against the previous positive traits that were sold, but those changes are very likely to be nearly permanent. Once you believe a president to be dishonest, what would it take to change your mind? Once you believe the president isn't pious, any action he takes will be viewed as a political move rather than the genuine action of a moral man.
(I recognize this post leaves aside the massive impact of poor policy. I recognize that Iraq, Katrina, and economic policy play a huge part in the poll numbers, but I wanted to explore the collapse on personal qualities as a thought experiment.)
Also: I'm starting to feel that Plame jones again. I'm anxiously awaiting the next development in Fitzgerald's investigation which may well be the indictment of Karl Rove.
His history of dirty political ploys and divisive politics have taken him and his current client to the apex of the political sphere, but it is precisely the same tactics which made him so successful at winning election after election which are now responsible for Bush's current standing in the eyes of the American public.
At any other level of political office in this country, a candidate is able to run a campaign based largely on political attacks and outright misrepresentations certain that once elected to office, the attention of the vast majority of his constituents will fade. A reputation bolstered by one or two key votes on defining issues is then enough to maintain the facade through to the next election cycle no matter how many quiet votes are cast against the interests of the constituents.
But, this tactic breaks down with the presidency because of the constant high visibility of the office. Every little mistake and lie is front page news. There is no slipping off the front pages for the president and the truth has a nasty way of eventually slipping out.
Karl Rove sold George Bush as an honest, pious, straight shooter who would protect us from all evil in the world, but the very nature of the fishbowl in which the president lives, made the maintenance of this image a full time job and eventually impossible. Remember how much talk there was about this administration always being in "campaign mode?"
And, now, if you look at the Bush poll numbers, it is precisely these traits on which George Bush was sold that he is scoring the most badly. Is the president honest? Do you believe the Whitehouse has a plan for Iraq? Terrorism? Iran? Even the pious characterization has taken a significant hit among the evangelicals, the only segment where it really mattered.
What has happened is that, unlike a congressman, or even a governor, the presidency lacks the ability to step back away from the press, gain some time and distance, and then retool, rebrand, and remarket. And as people become aware of the lies they were sold during the election, their opinions become substantially more negative in a permanent and contagious way. If he's not honest, he's probably not pious, either, and maybe I should look at that "security president" thing again.
And, not only are people developing these negative opinions against the previous positive traits that were sold, but those changes are very likely to be nearly permanent. Once you believe a president to be dishonest, what would it take to change your mind? Once you believe the president isn't pious, any action he takes will be viewed as a political move rather than the genuine action of a moral man.
(I recognize this post leaves aside the massive impact of poor policy. I recognize that Iraq, Katrina, and economic policy play a huge part in the poll numbers, but I wanted to explore the collapse on personal qualities as a thought experiment.)
Also: I'm starting to feel that Plame jones again. I'm anxiously awaiting the next development in Fitzgerald's investigation which may well be the indictment of Karl Rove.
posted by mikevotes at
7:27 AM
3 Comments:
This is a good example of my reasoning, (above comment). An excellent analysis, and worth the read.
How else do you think we outlanders can come to grips with the idiosyncrasies of the US system?
By
Cartledge, at 10:43 AM
Would Rove's strategy work better with a different candidate? George Bush, for all his Rovian virtues, seems pretty flawed to most of us once the p.r. veil has been peeled back. I wonder if Rove was working with, say Giuliani, how the outcome might be different.
By
Reality-Based Educator, at 12:47 PM
That's a good question. Maybe.
I think the flaw in Rovian politics is that he assesses the election's geography and then tries to fit his candidate into it instead of stressing the candidate's already present values and trying to sell the candidate on his true strengths.
Now, Giuliani might be a better fit for the current landscape, but Rove would have to put up blatantly false characteristics to sell him to the evangelicals, for instance. Whether those would be revealed as deceptions in as spectacular a fashion as Bush's integrity, I don't know.
I do think a stronger character like a Giuliani wouldn't have let Rove push him around so much which would probably mitigate the reality crash. Bush pretty much sold his soul to Rove. He was just a lump of clay before he met Rove.
I don't think Giuliani would let it go that far.
Again, thought experiment, just letting whatever comes out come out.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 2:19 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home