Letters to the Editor
-
Is this really surprising?
Let's face it, Karl Rove is distinguished from others of his kind only by his complete lack of scruples, decency, or principle. He is not a "genius". He is given credit for maintaining Republican ascendancy in the 2002 and 2004 elections, but it must be remembered that those victories very much depended on the aftermath of 9/11. Anyone political strategist without conscience or concern for the nation could have capitalized on the tragedy and horror of 9/11 to build their party by smearing the other side. Though political strategists are not by general nature moral people, it is doubtful that any would be so lacking in any goodness or decency as Rove. He thus used 9/11 in campaigns of blatant fear-mongering, division, lies, and smears during which he made it clear that he wanted a one-party state. That, and only that, is the extent of his "genius": he could go lower than anyone else. Is it any surprise then that he found failure after failure when it came to actually building constructive policies? Rove's genius was amenable to winning elections with repugnant tactics, but it ultimately produced victories that could not be effectively capitalized on, and thus majorities and electoral winners who could not govern. It is that inability to govern, combined with a pervasive lack of concern for ethics, that has led to a moment in which America stands very likely to turn a corner to a lasting progressive majority. There I think is Rove's ultimate legacy in his deficiencies: he was less a strategist than a tactician who did win victories, but they were Pyhrric ones. He won battles, but he lost the war (thank the gods and all that is good and holy).