The Architect Is an Open Book
By: Kathryn Jean Lopez
National Review Online
Karl Rove -- the George W. Bush confidante who needs no introduction -- has written a memoir of his life in politics, Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight, which is released today. It includes an intimate look at Rove, his family -- which has come under attacks from his political opponents -- and his formation as a conservative. Rove took questions from National Review Online’s Kathryn Jean Lopez about the book -- including on the roots of Rove’s William F. Buckley- and Barry Goldwater-influenced conservatism, and Rove’s regrets on weapons of mass destruction and Trent Lott. And read on to learn the topic on which Rove feels the need to expose the “sorry excuse[s]” of Pres. George W. Bush.
KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: Early copies of your book got out, and the media, understandably, is mostly interested in what you have to say about Iraq. Well, that and Colin Powell getting push-ups out of you. From your vantage point, what’s the most important news in this book?
KARL ROVE: What I tried to do in the book is to step back, pull back the curtain, give people a clear look about what I've learned about politics, and share what I was privileged to see, especially during my White House years. I write about the myths that have grown up around me and those years and set the record straight in a way I hope the reader sees as well-researched, durable, and interesting.
Writing a book was an arduous, challenging process that I enjoyed more than I expected, and it left me with even more respect for people who do this for a living.
LOPEZ: You have some regrets. One of them I was surprised by: You wish you had helped Trent Lott keep his spot as Senate Republican leader. Why? Would that have been the better outcome for the Republican party? For the country?
ROVE: My point was somewhat different: Lott blames me for forcing him out as Senate majority leader following his comments suggesting America would have been better off if a segregationist had been elected president in 1948. But there was a moment when I could have offered advice that might have kept him from losing public support and forfeiting the trust of his GOP senatorial colleagues. I didn’t take the moment to disagree with his rosy (and incorrect) assessment that the issue was going away. Pressing him to do an immediate and full apology that showed he understood how badly he had offended many Americans might have kept him in the majority-leader post.
LOPEZ: You have a chapter titled, “Bush Was Right on Iraq.” Did Newsweek vindicate you last week?
ROVE: What Newsweek did was report on the almost miraculous progress that’s been made in Iraq since the surge went into effect in 2007. I certainly think that the emergence in the heart of the Middle East of an Iraqi democracy -- and it needs to be said that we’re still not home free yet -- strengthens the case that Bush was right on Iraq. It opens important possibilities.
The world is a better place now that Saddam is gone: He was a brutal dictator who started wars and destabilized the Middle East. He led a rogue regime that constantly thumbed its nose at the demands of the world. And Iraq was a home to terrorists.
LOPEZ: In the book you ask: “So why did President Bush choose to go after Saddam Hussein in the first place? Wasn’t it a diversion from what should have been the real goal, which was to defeat al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan?” Is that your greatest regret, that the Bush administration didn’t answer that question compellingly long ago?
ROVE: No, it is that we didn’t tackle a more damaging narrative, namely that Bush lied about the presence of WMD. This was a cynically political attack unleashed by unprincipled leaders of the Democratic party, who knew better but were willing to unleash it because it would corrode President Bush’s credibility if it was not refuted.
LOPEZ: There is a newspaper clipping about Scooter Libby on your desk “because it reminds [you] of how brutal politics can be, and because it captures a moment that is well known but widely misunderstood.” What would be an accurate understanding of the Libby incident, for the sake of history?
ROVE: There was no underlying offense in the Plame affair. Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage leaked Plame’s name to Robert Novak and was not charged. The criminal-justice system is a poor way to resolve what are, essentially, political disputes; our constant resort to it demeans the criminal-justice system and undermines the legitimacy of the political process.
If no crime was committed in Armitage’s leak to Novak, then why years of investigation and an indictment over a disagreement between a journalist and a government official over an issue of what was said to whom? The process was a meat grinder and went on far too long when no law was broken.
LOPEZ: You write very intimately about your parents, clearly more than you’re fully comfortable doing. But, you write, “There is something to be said about setting the record straight, especially when it involves your kin.” Is this, too, what you mean about the “brutality” of politics? Have there been moments when you saw a cure in sight for the “raging, incurable case of Potomac fever” you describe catching during a trip to D.C. early on?
ROVE: While I abhor the efforts of some journalists to distort my parents’ lives to launch political attacks on me, I don’t feel victimized. The writers in question were dead wrong, and the book gave me a chance to defend my parents, especially my father. It was but a small repayment of the many debts I owe to two people who loved me and whom I loved.
I was long ago cured of Potomac fever. While I continue to enjoy Washington and politics, I enjoy being able to spend most of my time outside the Beltway.
LOPEZ: You describe President Bush as “a conservative president.” And you go on to wage a defense of him as such. One of your explanations for the “myth” that he “was a moderate Republican who went wobbly on conservative ideas” is that he “lacks the harsh and judgmental edge of some other conservative leaders.” I can remember a time or two when he was viewed as being harsh and judgmental toward conservatives. I know he was on the receiving end there, too, but was there some sort of fundamental miscommunication on issues including immigration and the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers? (I was never convinced elitism or racism or sexism, for instance, was at the heart of most conservative criticisms.) Could the White House have approached its conservative critics differently? If you had to give advice to the conservative movement for more effective dealings with the next Republican White House, what might you offer?
ROVE: There’s a lot in there. Did the White House -- especially me -- underestimate the conservative animosity toward Harriet Miers, for example? Yes, but then some conservative opinionmakers underestimated or misrepresented Harriet Miers, too. Burned by the experience of Justice David Souter, when conservatives trusted the reassurances of the chief of staff to President Bush 41, these conservatives were in no mood to accept someone whose personal views were not intimately known to them. I understand that, and if I didn’t know Harriet, I may have reacted as they did. But I did know Harriet, and so I wish I had come up with appropriate ways they could have been reassured and become supportive.
But it is what it is. The nation got two strong and able young conservative justices, and people saw the character of a bright, principled, and decent human being in how Harriet selflessly withdrew rather than force a fight that would have cost President Bush enormous capital.
In terms of how the conservative movement should deal with the next Republican in the White House: It needs to balance principled critiques with an appreciation for political realities. No president, not even Ronald Reagan, will get a perfect score on a purity test once in office. Reagan, after all, raised taxes by what at the time was a record amount and signed an immigration-amnesty bill. A couple of his Supreme Court picks turned out to be less than satisfactory. And President Reagan still belongs on Mount Rushmore. You take a statesman in the totality of his actions.
LOPEZ: Was it odd for you, someone who self-identifies as a “conservative,” to find yourself at odds with conservatives throughout the eight years of the administration?
ROVE: Conservatives are a frothy mix, so no. I often found conservatives on different sides of the same issue, whether one of substance or tactics. This diversity is healthy, though it does lead in some quarters of our movement to an unfortunate tendency to view a narrow slice of the conservative alliance as possessing the only true beliefs of the entire movement.
For the most part, conservatives were quite supportive of Bush’s agenda -- from tax cuts to his war against militant Islam to Social Security reform to health savings accounts to traditional marriage to support of Israel to free trade and much more. The differences between most conservatives and their conservative president were fairly few and far between.
LOPEZ: In your experience, in Republican circles -- say, in a governor’s mansion or a White House -- does it make a difference whether you have self-identified conservatives in the room? Can you think of a time or two when conservative principles you brought to the table made a difference?
ROVE: Yes it does matter whether conservatives are in the room, especially whether a self-identified conservative is the decision-maker. And I will duck the second part of your question out of modesty.
LOPEZ: On gay marriage, you write of the president: “I am certain that members of his family, some friends, and his vice president didn’t share Bush’s strong support for traditional marriage.” If he was surrounded by so much opposition, what motivated him -- and you?
ROVE: This was an issue that was thrust into the spotlight not by us but by the judicial overreach of the Massachusetts Superior Judicial Court. Bush is a conviction politician; he believes certain things are matters of principle, worth defending and advocating even in the face of such pressures.
LOPEZ: Is preserving traditional marriage a winning issue (I ask as gay marriage now exists in the District of Columbia)?
ROVE: Well, the majority of Americans support a traditional definition of marriage, though sentiment is shifting. Opponents of same-sex marriage should be inclusive and thoughtful, not judgmental and angry. Increasingly, the defense of traditional marriage also requires some measure of political courage, since its opponents (and their allies in the mainstream press) are all too willing to paint advocates of traditional marriage as bigots.
LOPEZ: How did Bill Buckley influence your formation as a conservative?
ROVE: As a pre-teen, I eagerly read National Review at my hometown library and then devoured every one of his books I could lay my hands on. I even badgered the librarian to find some for me. He spoke at the University of Utah, and I was enthralled. After the speech, I had a chance to shake the great man’s hand. He was a huge influence on me, and his writings still are.
LOPEZ: You describe some important political lessons you learned early on. One of them was “not everybody votes.” In fact, many don’t. How do you see the tea parties affecting this reality?
ROVE: While some tea-party members are political junkies, most that I have meet were previously uninvolved or largely disengaged from politics. The bank bailout lit the fuse, but the explosion of spending, the flood of deficits, the dramatic attempts to expand government all caused ordinary Americans to become deeply concerned about the kind of country their children and grandchildren would inherit.
If the tea-party movement becomes a semi-formal auxiliary of the GOP, its influence will decline. If it becomes a third party, it will bring about the victory of its greatest adversaries. If it continues to style itself as a movement that holds the feet of all elected officials in both parties to the fire, then it will become -- like the pro-life, Second Amendment, and civil-rights movements before it -- a durable and influential part of the political landscape that has a particular force in drawing new people into political action and voting.
LOPEZ: Another lesson you describe is learning that “brand” matters. What is the Republican brand right now, and what is the Democratic brand? Can/should/will they change before November? By 2012?
ROVE: The GOP’s brand is strengthening, primarily due to the actions of President Obama and the congressional leadership of Pelosi and Reid. But it will not be enough to simply surf on the wave of discontent with the Democrats’ actions of the last year. Republicans -- driven by conservative lawmakers such as congressman Paul Ryan -- need to offer a positive and optimistic agenda on the issues that families talk about around the kitchen table, starting with growing the economy and jobs and restraining spending and debt.
LOPEZ: You write that you “often reminded people to put political considerations out of their mind and instead focus on making good policy. I agree with the saying that ‘good policy makes good politics.’ I let people know that I would take care of the politics down the road, or let the politics take care of itself.” Could one argue that the current White House is effectively operating that way, as they ignore the negative polls surrounding their health-care plan?
ROVE: Except that it’s very bad policy. Sometimes the right thing is unpopular: Witness the initial reaction to the surge in Iraq. Then again, other times, the unpopular thing is unpopular because it is bad policy. That’s the case with Obamacare. The president and his Democratic allies have dominated the public stage and the ad wars, yet their proposal has become progressively less popular as people have made their own judgments.
LOPEZ: You write a bit about Max Cleland. For history’s sake: Was he at all wronged by the GOP?
ROVE: I honor Senator Cleland for his service to our country and his state, but he has used his defeat in 2002 to defame his political opponents and create myths about his actions in order to portray himself as a victim. He has repeatedly said things about me, the man who defeated him, and that man’s campaign that are simply not true. I cite chapter and verse in my book.
LOPEZ: You used to do politics. Now you write about it. How do you like this new chapter in life? Do you prefer one to the other?
ROVE: I like doing both, and while I can’t and won’t go back to being a consultant, there are plenty of ways to stay involved in politics, and I’ll avail myself of some of them as appropriate.
LOPEZ: You love reading. How was it being on the other side of the book?
ROVE: Writing (and researching and interviewing) was lot tougher than I thought. And thank God for brilliant editors.
LOPEZ: What are you reading now? And are you and the former president still into reading contests?
ROVE: The president and I suspended our contest as we both tackled writing our own books. I suspect he will be reluctant to restart the annual competitions because he has been robbed of the sorry excuse he’d offer after losing each year: He was busy with his day job of being “the leader of the free world.”
I juggle several books at once and am now reading Gordon Wood’s Empire of Liberty and Xenophon’s The Persian Expedition, and finishing Joan Waugh’s U. S. Grant. I am reluctantly reporting weekly on this year’s reading at Rove.com, listing what I’m reading and recommending some of the volumes.
-- Kathryn Jean Lopez is editor-at-large of National Review Online.
article.nationalreview.com |
