Open Letter to Jacob Weisberg

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Dear Mr. Weisberg

I wanted to take a moment to applaud you for your January 24 interview with Terri Gross. The Hater in me was thrilled at your article The Misunderestimated Man, which seems to have been the germ that grew into The Bush Tragedy. Deeper examination of President Bush's life has drawn you to surprisingly sympathetic conclusions.

In a political climate where the Democratic party is often characterized as complaining or being mindlessly "anti," your reasonable, even compassionate perspective is refreshing. Thank you for that. Not to sound high-minded or anything -- I am contemptuous of this presidency and its dogged supporters, I just feel that your tone plays better in the same arena where the phrase "blame game" can be coughed as a serious response to the pursuit of accountability.

I also wanted to make a comment regarding your remarks last summer as a member of the Summer "B" team on the Gabfest.

You said "the liberal and Democratic loathing of Karl Rove is almost completely explained by envy," and how "they go on and on about how terrible he is, how ruthless, how dishonest he is, what they are really saying is
'we want our own Karl Rove'."

I believe that you are correct when you name him most meticulous skillful tactictian of our political era. However, your comments step beyond your own astute political senses and into a realm of speculation regarding people that you appear to have little understanding of.

Managed microtargeting and segmenting the electorate and voter turnout is one aspect of Rove's tactical brilliance, and perhaps one that played the most important role in Bush's re-election campaign -- but it's not the legacy he will be remembered for. When you say "Rovian Tactics," what people think of is an argument that attempts to purport virtue as weakness. (or just shitty & deliberate deception.)

Certainly there are Democrats who have shown themselves to be perfectly willing to operate on this level, and I suppose the recent Clinton campaign attacks on Barack Obama are the best example of this. Perhaps I am being naive here, but I like to think that there is a sizable hunk of quietly chaffing progressives who believe in the principles of the Liberal Enlightenment, and also believe that distortion attacks are beneath these principles.

It's hard to argue that Rove has not had a tragic impact on our political discourse. While I do not desire for the Democrats to continue down this path, I just wish you had made a distinction between Democrats and Liberals.

Keep doing great work, Mr. Weisberg.

Best Regards,

Carl Mitsch



postscript

"Some equate Rove’s strategy of attacking opponents’ strengths to political genius. I equate it to a level of underhandedness never seen before in American politics. This strategy blindsided McCain during the primary race for the 2000 election when the Rove machine inferred that McCain’s POW experience left him mentally impaired and again in the 2004 election when Kerry’s heroism was swift boated. Let’s hope this strategy has outgrown its usefulness, for we can expect the Rove machine to attack the strengths of whoever wins the Democratic primary. You might think that impugning one’s presidential metal because of their race or gender is too politically incorrect not to back fire, but I bet that Rove doesn’t."

-Colin McEnroe