A mere moment after Democrats began applauding Karl Rove’s resignation last week, the atmosphere has changed to one of gloating and fear.
Liberal commentary is split about evenly at this point. The more brazen spectrum is triumphantly declaring that Rove’s resignation is more proof of an administration embattled from within and sinking fast.
Another group, more skeptical and paranoid, has quickly turned to theories that Rove’s move out of the White House is not a sign of retreat or defeat, but an aggressive step in support of the Republican bid for the presidency in 2008, or even in 2012.
Both the former and the latter reactions to the resignation display Democrats’ primary fallibility – an ineptitude in framing the debate, augmented by a constant reactive rather than active stance.
I don’t have a solution for this terminal condition, nor, obviously, do Democratic leaders themselves. It’s certainly not for their lack of trying, but I always get the sense that 21st-century Democrats are back-seat-drivers.
Sure they can nag you until your eyes pop out, that you should have turned left, but they only speak up after the country has passed the intersection and is heading in one hell of an unforgiving direction.
Though Democrats have a vision of the nation and want to be in office to lead it there, they will regularly be bested by Republicans because Democrats lack a certain type of moral character that allows one to go beyond what may be deemed prudent and appropriate.
Republicans, though rife with a vocabulary of Christian prudence, do have this relentless drive to push and stretch what is credible and appropriate. That is truly punk-ass.
Think about it. Who would be more natural in liberty spikes and a Misfits t-shirt- Nixon or JFK, Reagan or Carter, Bush (either one) or Clinton (either one)?
Actually I think Hillary Clinton could sport a mohawk quite nicely, but when it comes to fighting wars, invading sovereign nations and facing down a nuclear superpower, Republicans have more punk points than Shane MacGowan and Sid Vicious put together.
Sure, Kennedy had the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis, and Clinton had Somalia and Kosovo, but these don’t compare to the bravado of Panama, the Cold War arms race, Iraq, and Iraq again.
So, back to Rove – the epitome of aggressive domestic political campaigning. He is ruthless, determined, effective, flirts with illegality. In short he has a domestic record that is comparable to the Bush administration’s foreign policy record and 2003 invasion of Iraq.
With a reputation as the man behind the man, much like Dick Cheney, of course Rove’s adversaries are going to be suspicious when he says he’s done. Additionally they are jealous.
They’re jealous because with an individual as shrewd and effective as Rove, Democrats could have had Gore in the White House, or even Kerry.
But this comes back to that certain moral fiber. Republicans know how to attack and Democrats are generally poor defenders because they want to be attackers but lack the aggressiveness.
For Democrats this is scary stuff.
It’s scary because in this sense conservatives are extremely radical and unscrupulous. In comparison Democrats come across as victims – always seeking compromise, sharing, peace and hoping to all get along, but rarely able to take control of a campaign situation.
When Republicans like Rove go after a power position, they believe not in sharing power, but taking power.
Just taking power, whatever the cost, is a simple plan, and with its simplicity comes effectiveness. Democrats want to take power in order to share power, but this policy represents a basic weakness because it can be targeted as a paradox that signifies indecisiveness.
Once Democrats have to address such an accusation, a justified accusation at that, they’re on the defensive, reacting, fighting to stay above water and depending on the buoyancy of a political platform – pro-choice, anti-war, pro-social services, pro-environment – to float them into office.
So now many Democrats are very afraid. Rove, a very effective and shrewd political architect, is leaving the spotlight and the Democrats who fear the worst are jumping to the conclusion that he is planning another attack.
Some think he may be submerging in hopes of torpedoing Democratic presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
On the political timescale this would be a sudden move, and some days I get the sensation that both Obama and Clinton may just be capable of running each other aground by November 2008.
Other commentators say that the target is 2012. And if the performance of the Democrat-led Congress is any indication, a Democratic president from 2008 to 2012 would likely line things up just right for a Republican resurgence.
So let’s say that the Democrats take the White House next year. It may happen, but it will be on an anti-war plank and once in the house, that president will have to walk that plank.
Now, traditional Democratic behavior would drag U.S. involvement in Iraq through all four years and leave that party broadside and prime to be sunk in 2012 for continuing the current administration’s failure.
What that president will have to do immediately to have any credibility by 2012 is to pull a Republican move and unilaterally withdraw from Iraq – be a leader, take power, take control, and bring the Democratic vision to this country. Period.
Oh, and recruit Karl Rove.