The Most Dangerous Man in the World: Karl Rove

Karl Rove is hated. Reading his autobiographical book Courage and Consequence (My Life as a Conservative in the Fight) is a reminder of just how much he is despised. Time and again, he recalls examples of opponents who not only sought to defeat him, but who also wanted him dead or in jail.
This is especially curious in that his work makes him sound preeminently likable. But then again, likeability has nothing to do with the disdain in which his enemies have held him. Ironically, it appears to be his virtues that were the chief source of their contempt.
We may begin to understand this paradox by noting what happens when the shoe is on the other foot, which is to say, when liberals hold power. Shortly after Democrats passed ObamaCare, they became aware that opposition to this measure was as strong as ever. Members of the tea party movement, in particular, had been roused to high dudgeon.
To this liberals responded with moral indignation. They began by accusing their critics of racist and fascist inclinations. Somehow these opponents habitually shouted vulgar epithets that only sensitive left-wingers heard. Clearly something had to be done. These anti-democratic diatribes had to be silenced.
The point of this observation is that liberals believe in free speech—but only for themselves. If others are as vociferous as they in making their points, they interpret this enthusiasm as a threat to civilization. They—which is to say the liberals—consider themselves the epitome of enlightened civilization, hence anyone who opposes them must be a menace to progress and decency.
Which brings us back to Rove. When at his most influential, he was much more than a dissenting voice. He represented an enemy who had seized power from its rightful possessors. He was the face of that most dreaded of liberal bugaboos; the one who achieves victories.
So far as most Democrats were concerned George W. Bush was an illegitimate president. He was too stupid and shallow to be chief executive; and far too inarticulate to be leader of the free world. Worse still, he had stolen two elections from Democratic candidates who were far better qualified for the office than he.
And who was responsible for this injustice? It couldn’t be Bush. The man did not have the intellectual resources to make it happen. No, it had to be a power behind the throne. It had to be a Mephistophelean figure that pulled the strings. That man, of course, was none other than Karl Rove. He was the “architect,” the one who molded Bush as one might a piece of pliant clay.
It did not matter that several recounts of the Florida vote, often by liberal sources, confirmed that Bush came out ahead. Nor did it matter that Democrats were the ones who sought to change the rules after election day such that they could cherry pick votes only from the counties in which they were presumably strongest. It didn’t even matter that the Supreme Court came down decisively against them. Liberals were right and therefore deserved to win.
The only plausible explanation for these reverses was that the opposition had stolen the victory. They must have done something illegitimate, otherwise virtue and integrity would have prevailed. And who was the moving force behind this deviousness. Why it must have been that evil genius Karl Rove. Only he had the intelligence and malice to achieve it.
Did it matter that there was no evidence to support this thesis? It did not! Or did it is count that what was attributed to Rove was often physically impossible. No, it certainly didn’t. All that mattered was that someone did something reprehensible and he was the most likely contender.
When four years latter Bush defeated Kerry, this theory was confirmed. Rove might claim he had nothing to do with the Swift Boat Veterans criticisms of their nominee, but that could not be true. It had to be him. Only he had the evil brilliance to make it work. Only he could have thought it up or orchestrated its implementation.
Reading Rove, however, provides a very different interpretation. Allowing for the fact that his book must, to some extent, be assumed to be self-serving, his explanations nevertheless ring true. Whatever else Rove may be, he comes across as a modest and competent professional. Unlike his hysterical critics, he does not appear to be carried away by implausible conspiracy theories.
And this seems to be one of his greatest strengths. Precisely because he is not given to vengeful passions, he is better able to assess what works than his detractors. Moreover, this level-headedness most pointedly includes his mistakes. Rove seems able to admit when he is wrong and therefore to fix his missteps. He does not excuse them by blaming them on the fictional machinations of his opponents.
By the way, Rove makes it clear that Bush is neither stupid nor weak. The ex-president may have his limitations, but he also has strengths—strengths Rove was able to exploit for political purposes.
In any event, Rove’s book is a treasure trove of multi-faceted insights; insights concerning both his private and professional life. As a result, anyone with political aspirations ought to read it as Baedeker to campaign management.
But more than this, his is an account of how a shrewd, sensible, and amiable human being can make his way through the hazardous shoals of American politics with this sanity intact. Despite all the malignant abuse heaped on him, he has managed to retain his perspective and to avoid returning hatred in kind. In the end, I was rooting for him to come out on top—and he did.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University