How Rove Won
Jun 30th, 2005 at 8:26 am by Susie
Rove managed to link Iraq with 911 again, and to delegitimate the Democrats in the process. And he did it with the Democrats’ help.
Rove achieved this brilliantly – in one sentence!
“Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” [NY Times, 6/23/05]
When the Democrats took the bait, Rove reeled them in. Here’s what he achieved:
1. Rove changed the context of discourse, from Bush’s disaster in Iraq, to support for Bush in the wake of 9/11.
2. The Democrats had had the Republicans playing defense; Rove put them on offense and the Democrats on defense.
3. With the words “savagery� and “attack�, Rove evoked the frame in which war is the appropriate response. He thus made Bush the heroic Commander-in-Chief in the war frame, while making “liberals� wimps for wanting to deny Bush unlimited war powers.
4. Rove thus evoked the conservative branding of liberals as weak and conservatives as strong.
5. When the Democrats attacked Rove for his remarks and defended themselves, they wound up expressing support for Bush’s going to war after 9/11, and with it implicit support for Bush’s position in Iraq.
6. Rove made putative Democratic weakness the issue, and by negating the frame, the Democrats played right into his hands.
7. Moreover, using the word “liberal� and not “Democrat�, Rove made it look like any Democrat attacking his remarks was a lily-livered liberal, and that the party had been taken over by weak-kneed chickens – anyone against Bush’s use of the military.
8. This enabled the right-wing message machine to go to work, attacking the Democrats as being controlled by naïve unpatriotic weaklings – MoveOn,org, Howard Dean, George Soros, Michael Moore.
9. Rove, of course, stood tall and strong, sticking by his guns, with a loud chorus of supporters.
10. This enabled Scott McClellan, the administration mouthpiece, to call for a nation debate on conservative – liberal philosophy, beginning with the handling of 9/11.What should liberals have learned from reading the Rockridge Institute website and Don’t Think of an Elephant?
1. Start with resisting Rove’s juicy bait.
2. Spell out the progressive philosophy of Total Security – keeping a strong military while also supporting job security, pension security, and security in the form of health and education. Attack Bush for giving up on homeland security, failing to protect cargo shipments, nuclear and chemical plants, and so on.
3. Point out Rove’s attempt to cover up Bush’s disaster in Iraq, and dwell on the public’s repudiation of the Bush policy for good reasons.
4. Keep pounding on the Downing Street memo, pointing out how Bush doctored intelligence and sent troops to war on false pretenses. Goad him about there being no WMD’s in Iraq, but plenty in North Korea.
5. Attack Bush for weakening our military and our economy, while strengthening al Qaeda. Point out that Bush is al Qaeda’s best friend, since he is their best recruiter.
6. Raise the stakes. Point out how the administration has been using 9/11 for their own political ends; of using the war in Iraq as a pretext to carry out a radical political agenda at home, and to get re-elected. Point out the immorality of using American and Iraqi lives for political ends.
7. Use the opportunity to brand the right wing as political fundamentalists, showing the intimate connections between Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism.
8. Raise the question of whether the brutality arising from the US occupation of Iraq led to an anti-US reaction in Iran and the squelching of democratic forces there – exactly the opposite of Bush’s predicted result. In short, be pro-active, not reactive.But the Democrats helped Rove get Iraq identified with the war on terror again, characterizing the Democrats as unpatriotic naïve weaklings, and setting the stage for Bush’s address on June 28, 2005, in which he followed Rove’s lead and again framed the Iraq War in terms of 911 and the war on terror. This time John Kerry stepped in to help Bush, basically supporting the president’s position but offering policy-wonk modifications. The message: Bush is basically right, except for some minor twiddles.
The Democrats can learn from Bush and Rove: Stick to your guns and stay the course.
So George Lakos thinks we should just stand by and let Rove have his say? Has he already forgotten Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? John Kerry stayed “on message” while they attacked at will, and he lost the presidency over it.
This is why we don’t win elections any more.
So far, I’m not crazy about Lakoff myself. But since so many people think he’s brilliant (and he’s obviously influencing policy), I thought I’d put it out there for debate.
Lakoff’s strength is that he really understands, and can clearly explain, exactly how Republicans “frame” the issues. But he isn’t as good at coming up with sound bites for our side. In that he seems to have plenty of company.
I sometimes think of him as an excellent art critic who writes beautiful essays about paintings that make you see the art work in a whole new way and which deepen your appreciation for the work, but who can’t draw a straight line himself.
Considering how many newspapers had articles and headlines that focused on the failure of making the case to connect 9/11 and Iraq the past few days, Lakoff might be right about Rove’s plan, but I don’t think it’s working out well for the Republicans. And the argument that Bush turned Iraq into a terrorist state doesn’t really sell well either…
Rove certainly tried the old magic. My own view is that he did not succeed.
If you want to see a worst case scenario for shrub’s place in history see Juan Cole today. I think, unfortunately, that this assessment is far more likely than any other and my sense is that people are beginning to feel an anger towards shrub and his minions that is probably irreversable. Too bad the election isn’t next month.
Gug
How about we just offer Rove more money to leave the dark side.
The man has no heart and can probably be bought.
The WTC was bombed while Democrats were in charge and Democrats prepared indictments. Those responsible for that attack are sitting out the rest of their lives in a cell, nobody even remembers their names. Osama Bin Laden, on the other hand, is out there recruiting more terrorists every day.
Indictments worked. War failed.
When we are attacked, do you want Republican feel-good hoo-rah or Democratic results?
Shameful,
Power trumps riches, I’m afraid.
Mike,
Absolutely right; in fact this viewpoint was one of the few reasons I had any enthusiasm for John Kerry, since he had the skills and experience for a multi-pronged attack on terrorists’ support. He was inevitably mocked for a “law-enforcment approach,” of course.
[...] Suburban Guerrilla ” How Rove Won … party had been taken over by weak-kneed chickens ” anyone against Bush _ s … ” exactly the opposite of Bush _ s predicted result. In short, be pro … [...]
[...] Suburban Guerrilla ” How Rove Won … party had been taken over by weak-kneed chickens ” anyone against Bush _ s … ” exactly the opposite of Bush _ s predicted result. In short, be pro … [...]
[...] Suburban Guerrilla ” How Rove Won … party had been taken over by weak-kneed chickens ” anyone against Bush _ s … ” exactly the opposite of Bush _ s predicted result. In short, be pro … [...]