In the Arena

Rove

Well, this is a surprise. I thought Karl would be there to turn out the lights and write naughty graffiti on the walls to greet the new administration in 2009.

Some hints about why Rove is actually leaving can be found in this excellent piece in The Atlantic by Josh Green, in which it is argued that Rove’s real agenda–as the man himself told Nick Lemann in the New Yorker many years ago–was to make the GOP the dominant U.S. party. But there was a fundamental incoherence to the strategy: to build a realigned Republican majority, Bush-Rove (or, perhaps, Bushrove) had to reach out to moderates, but his electoral strategy was to build and win from a (fairly nutball) base on the right. And the few attempts Bushrove made to build a larger coalition–immigration policy, for example–were shot down by GOP extremists.

My guess is that Josh Bolten, the pragmatic chief of staff, greased the skids for Rove to leave–that the mere presence of Rove stood in the way of trying to build a new, better relationship with Congress for the last 18 months of this dread regime.

Finally, Rove is right about 2008, if not about his reflexive demonization of Hillary Clinton: this may not be a Democratic walkover. Indeed, the surest way to make it a close election is to ape Rove. You can’t run from the base and then try to govern from the center. You can’t govern from the base and succeed. This is not a plea for half-a-loaf moderation: on some issues, like universal health insurance, corporate (especially oil company) tax breaks and a tax system that treats wealth far more leniently than work, there are real distinctions that should be made. But there’s a smart bipartisan national security policy to be promoted, now that Bush’s pre-emption has been proved a failure. And there may even be some common ground to be had on global warming. A smart Democrat will do both–stand on principle, and find areas where a larger coalition is possible. A smart Democat will study Rove and do the opposite.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Gary Cameron / Reuters

    The Foreclosure Deal: Obama and the Banks Win Big While Homeowners See Modest Reward

    Those of you who have read our previous coverage of the back and forth between the state attorneys general and five major mortgage servicers know that the settlement announced on Thursday is a massive, complicated, multi-year deal negotiated by the country’s most ambitious public prosecutors, its most powerful financial institutions and some of the highest-paid lawyers in New York City. There are several levels to judge it on: the help it gives homeowners; its benefit for various political players; and what it may do for the economy. But overall, it’s a clear win for Obama and Democrats, a qualified win for the banks, and a minor, belated victory for homeowners.

    Romney: 'I Misspoke'HuffPost Politics

    Mitt Romney’s Sweet Spot: Just Conservative Enough

    Why is Mitt Romney having trouble winning over the conservative Republican base? One reason is his lack of political finesse, an air of dorky rich-guy aloofness that reminds some people of John Kerry. More important, however, is his ideological profile. In almost every important way, Romney’s policy platform is more moderate than those of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Gingrich  offers a much more conservative tax plan, along with crowd-pleasing ideas like his plan to sic federal marshals on “radical” liberal judges. Santorum carries a blazing social-conservative torch, championing ideas like a constitutional ban on abortion. Both Gingrich and Santorum talk quite openly about the virtues of bombing Iran. Romney’s temperature runs cooler in all these areas. Not to mention his past record of pro-choice, pro-gay rights positions. As Jon Chait notes today, the GOP establishment is defending Romney but also working hard to push him to the right.

blog comments powered by Disqus