[Mb-civic] Rove's Early Warning - E. J. Dionne - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

Rove's Early Warning

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006; A17

Perhaps it's an aspect of compassionate conservatism. Or maybe it's just 
a taunt and a dare. Well in advance of Election Day, Karl Rove, 
President Bush's top political adviser, has a habit of laying out his 
party's main themes, talking points and strategies.

True Rove junkies (admirers and adversaries alike) always figure he's 
holding back on something and wonder what formula the mad scientist is 
cooking up in his political lab. But there is a beguiling openness about 
Rove's divisive and ideological approach to elections. You wonder why 
Democrats have never been able to take full advantage of their early 
look at the Rove game plan.

That's especially puzzling because, since Sept. 11, 2001, the plan has 
focused on one variation or another of the same theme: Republicans are 
tough on our enemies, Democrats are not. If you don't want to get blown 
up, vote Republican.

Thus Rove's speech to the Republican National Committee last Friday, 
which conveniently said nothing about that pesky leak investigation. 
Rove noted that we face "a ruthless enemy" and "need a commander in 
chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the 
gravity of the moment America finds itself in."

"President Bush and the Republican Party do," Rove informed us. 
"Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many Democrats."

Rove went on: "Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview, and many 
Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn't make them unpatriotic 
-- not at all. But it does make them wrong -- deeply and profoundly and 
consistently wrong."

Oh, no, those Dems aren't unpatriotic, just security idiots.

Here's why the same approach keeps working.

First, note that phrase, "the same cannot be said for many Democrats." 
This is Rove's wedge through the Democratic Party. Rove has always 
counted on Bush's capacity to intimidate some Democrats into breaking 
with their party and saying something like: "Oh, no, I'm not like those 
weak Democrats over there. I'm a tough Democrat." The Republicans use 
such Democrats to bash the rest of the party.

Moreover, these early Rove speeches turn Democratic strategists into 
defeatists. The typical Democratic consultant says: "Hey, national 
security is a Republican issue. We shouldn't engage on that. We should 
change the subject." In the 2002 elections, the surefire Democratic 
winners were a prescription drug benefit under Medicare (an issue Bush 
tried to steal), a patients' bill of rights, the economy and education. 
Those issues sure worked wonders, didn't they?

By not engaging the national security debate, Democrats cede to Rove the 
power to frame it. Consider that clever line about Democrats having a 
pre-Sept. 11 view of the world. The typical Democratic response would be 
defensive: "No, no, of course 9/11 changed the world." More 
specifically, there's a lot of private talk among Democrats that the 
party should let go of the issue of warrantless spying on Americans 
because the polls show that a majority values security and safety.

What Democrats should have learned is that they cannot evade the 
security debate. They must challenge the terms under which Rove and Bush 
would conduct it. Imagine, for example, directly taking on that line 
about Sept. 11. Does having a "post-9/11 worldview" mean allowing Bush 
to do absolutely anything he wants, any time he wants, without having to 
answer to the courts, Congress or the public? Most Americans -- 
including a lot of libertarian-leaning Republicans -- reject such an 
anti-constitutional view of presidential power. If Democrats aren't 
willing to take on this issue, what's the point of being an opposition 
party?

Democrats want to fight this election on the issue of Republican 
corruption. But corruption is about the abuse of power. If smart 
political consultants can't figure out how to link the petty misuses of 
power with its larger abuses, they are not earning their big paychecks.

And, yes, the core questions must be asked: Are we really safer now than 
we were five years ago? Has the Iraq war, as organized and prosecuted by 
the administration, made us stronger or weaker? Do we feel more secure 
knowing the heck of a job our government did during Hurricane Katrina? 
Do we have any confidence that the Department of Homeland Security and 
other government agencies will clean up their act if Washington remains 
under the sway of one-party government?

Imagine one Super Bowl team tipping the other to a large part of its 
offensive strategy. Smart coaches would plot and plan and scheme. You 
wonder what Democrats will do with the 10-month lead time Rove has 
kindly offered them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301261.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060124/28eca14f/attachment.htm