CALCULATION, STRATEGY AND LONG-TERM PLANNING
MAKE HILLARY AND KARL OPPOSITE EQUALS
Today, while reading a New Yorker article about Karl Rove, I had an epiphany. The very character traits for which Hillary Clinton is most criticized – the calculation, the strategizing, the maneuvering - are precisely the same ones which for so long made Karl Rove so successful at winning elections. For almost a generation we Democrats have cried in our beer, wishing that we had a political strategist as methodical and cunning as Karl Rove. Now we do, and her name is Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton!
Read the following description of Karl Rove from a New Yorker article, ignore the substance and focus on strategy, and tell me if you could not just as easily remove the name "Karl Rove" and insert the name "Hillary Clinton"?
A variant of the "mark of Rove" is what might be called the "Arabesque of Rove", in which the Administration openly makes a political move, but its meaning is presumed to be something else. A policy that looks like an appeal to one group is actually an appeal to another—the locus classicus being Bush’s promise to "leave no child behind" in education, which gestures, not disingenuously, toward ghetto kids but drives up Bush’s poll numbers with suburban women.
Or something will be aimed simultaneously at both "base" voters, on the right, and "swing" voters, in the middle, like the slogan "compassionate conservatism," which moderates hear as "not all that conservative" and fundamentalists hear as "conservative and dedicated to serving Jesus Christ." Or the Administration will propose something that receives the universal approbation of respectable opinion and also fails to pass, but that actually has hidden benefits, such as distracting liberal attention from something else, or propitiating an important Republican interest group. THE NEW YORKER
People at DailyKos find it maddening that all of Hillary’s rhetorical moves are not clearly directed toward winning the hearts of progressives. Just as Rove put together majorities by fainting toward "compassion" while planning conservatism, Hillary constructs a majority by demonstrating her conservatism so she can implement her liberalism. Hillary Clinton is constantly criticized for being calculating and she is, just like Karl Rove who took George Bush and the Republican Congress through several elections, before Iraq sunk their party like a leaden weight.
Consider this description of Karl Rove:
Rove is both a fox and a hedgehog. He is the detail man of all detail men, but he also makes a point of doing more long-term strategic planning than other political consultants. For especially important campaigns, he produces written plans far in advance, mapping out the race in its entirety, and he’s famous for sticking precisely to the plan no matter what. Rove’s main goal over the next year and a half is making George W. Bush what his father wasn’t, a reëlected President—when I asked if he had mapped out the campaign, he said, "Don’t expect me to answer this question"—but he is too ambitious to want only that. The real prize is creating a Republican majority that would be as solid as, say, the Democratic coalition that Franklin Roosevelt created—a majority that would last for a generation and that, as it played itself out over time, would wind up profoundly changing the relationship between citizen and state in this country. THE NEW YORKER
In other words, Rove is "calculating", just like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is calculating. In political campaigns, is calculation such a bad thing? Isn’t "long-term strategic planning" the difference between victory and defeat, in finance as well as politics? Actually, calculation is a basic component of political competence that Democrats have lacked and often lost campaigns as a result.
Think about the 2000 and 2004 Presidential campaigns. Democrats were trying daily to decide what themes might be successful precisely because the long term strategic planning that would have dictated momentary strategy had been neglected by the candidates. That they were flying by the seat of their pants was obvious to voters and the media alike. "NEW GORE" Strategy Leads to Drop in Polls
DisplacedKnick
September 19th, 2004, 07:55 PM
This is kinda funny. Kerry's new strategy is to focus for a week on Iraq. I said in another post I think that's a horrible move - the more time he spends on Iraq the more time Republicans can dog him for his stands on it. Not sure which - whichever one they want to I guess. PACERS DIGEST
But the New Yorker points out that there is an alternative to that sort of guesswork: it’s called political science science! A New Yorker article describes the technological changes taking place in American political campaigns.
Technological developments—in general, the personal computer, the Internet, and e-mail, and in particular a data technology called XML—have made it possible for political organizations to have much richer information about individual voters. It used to be that you could find registered Republicans and registered Democrats, or heavily Democratic and heavily Republican precincts, but that was about it; now, because XML cross-references previously incompatible databases, you can easily blend electoral and commercial information (gleaned, for example, from mail-in product-warranty cards) and identify the people in Republican precincts who are most likely to vote Democratic, or Republican voters who can be moved by a specific appeal on one issue but not by the Party’s main over-all TV-ad pitch. (In the 2002 Georgia governor’s race, the Republicans were able to use pro-Confederate-flag material with rural voters without the major media markets noticing.) Both in Rove’s shop in the White House and in the Democratic National Committee and A.F.L.-C.I.O. offices, the air is thick with buzzwords like "niche marketing," "micro-modelling," "targeting," and "granular information." National politics, in other words, is turning into a very large version of the direct-mail business. THE NEW YORKER
Now, ask yourselves: If that accurately describes the current science of national politics, then which candidate for the 2008 Democratic nomination is most prepared by individual personality and advanced preparation to implement that political science for the Democrats? Hillary has been criticized for spending money in advance on massive mailing lists and voter databases. A New York Times graphic published weeks ago documented the massive Hillary Rodhman Clinton preparations for the 2008 elections that are already costing millions of dollars. NYT GRAPHIC
Meanwhile the WaPost ran an article some months ago entitled, "Democrats Data Mining Stirs Intraparty Battle", focusing precisely on Hillary Clinton’s determination to develop the technological prowess that Karl Rove used to methodically tear voters away from Democrats in past elections. Hillary clearly is "calculating" for 2008, but in precisely the same was that Rove did successfully for the Republicans for over a generation. WaPOST STORY DK DIARY
A July 23, 2000 Boston Globe article (via TalkLeft) describes what Karl Rove did to help Florence Shapiro, mayor of Plano, Texas, when she wanted to be elected to the Texas State Senate.
Shapiro had heard good things about Rove, and she went after him. He became the strategist, but he was more than that. He was really an educator,
teaching her how to build political relationships (the lesson: People like to support a candidate they feel they can be in touch with), reminding her to look at the primary, not at the general election, preaching that she should never - not for a single moment - rely on her emotions, tutoring her in the technique of calculating every move.
"The skill I think Karl brings is to take the long view," says Shapiro. "He knows every possible move, and he knows every possible response. He lays out a plan for you that is day-in, day-out." . . . he helped her map a political strategy designed to play to her strengths. On it was education (it helped her reinforce her experience as a teacher). Also business (she owns a small advertising firm). And children (she has three). She learned her lessons well. She's been in the state senate for eight years. BOSTON GLOBE via TALK LEFT
"Building political relationships", "strategizing", "calculating every move". Those are the maddening qualities that enabled Rove to win over and over again, and they are the same qualities that leftists revile in Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Leftists revile their female Karl Rove for a couple of reasons. First, leftists want to see themselves mirrored in the political image of their candidate, forgetting that much of America is not like leftists are. America goes to church, loves the flag, wants a strong defense and doesn’t swear in public. (Dick Cheney notoriously told a Democratic Senator, "Go F, yourself" and look where Dick Cheney stands in the polls right now!")
Another reason for leftists' discomfort with Hillary’s calculation is that, for women, obtaining and wielding power are generally considered to be illegitimate goals.
Women's status evolution in society can be traced through literature, specifically through drama. As women began to step out from under their husbands' and fathers' thumbs, society saw an emergence of more dominating, independent female characters. The introduction of more female authors and playwrights gave rise to more dialogue from a feminine point of view and more desirable female roles. However, male writers also began developing their female characters. In addition to showing the evolution of women's role in society, drama also traced men's reactions to the female's new status. As the women gained higher status and independence, the roles for females written by several of the male playwrights became almost bipolar in relation to each other. WOMEN IN LITERATURE
Shakespeare’s Lady MacBeth encapsulated the society’s attitude toward women and power. The Encyclopedia Britannica says that Lady MacBeth is:
A strong, rational, and calculating woman, Lady Macbeth is determined to see her husband put aside his "milk of human kindness" to fulfill their ambitions to rule. BRITANNICA: LADY MACBETH
In Shakespeare’s play, Lady MacBeth is overcome with guilt for exercising power. But, Hillary Clinton has been unapologetically exercising power for decades. She has read MacBeth and rejected that feminine straight-jacket out of hand. She is determined to win, to implement liberal programatic goals that are the opposite of Karl Rove's, and she will never feel guilty or ambivalent for having done so.
The Matters of Principle Set Them Apart
Of course, what distinguishes Senator Clinton and Mr. Rove most are Clinton's career long dedication to her principles and Rove's utter lack of same. Clinton has fought for health care for all, regardless of ability to pay. She believes abortion should be "safe, legal and rare" and she opposes both those who would ban abortion and those irresponsible people who would use it instead of family planning. Clinton served on the National Board of Legal Services precisely because, like health care, she believes that everyone should have access to the courts, not just the wealthy and privileged. And she worked with Marian Edelman at the Children's Defense Fund, because Hillary knows are children are just as vulnerable as they are crucial to our nation's future. With a Mexican-American woman as chief of HillaryPac, her Administration promises to be the antithesis of the old white boys club of the Bush inner circle.
But a wagon load of liberal issues isn't worth a bucket of spit unless liberals actually take the Presidency so they can implement their humanitarian programs. And kumbaya strategies are notoriously ineffective when it comes to winning at hand-to-hand combat with Republican political operatives and defeating their national noise machines.
The question for 2008 is whether we want to win badly enough to accept that our chief strategist - our liberal Democratic Karl Rove - is a woman named "Hillary Rodham Clinton".
UPDATE: I have updated this diary, adding two paragraphs and a heading at the end, in response to an insightful comment by DumpTerry. Thank you.