If Texas reporters James Moore and Wayne Slater have it right, the reasonable conclusion to reach after reading "Bush's Brain" is that Bush's leading adviser Karl Rove is a man who lives for political conquest and is devoid of principle. This is not an attack piece and the writers, well grounded in the Texas political scene, use quotes from well connected political operatives and others close to the base of political operations to tell the story of how Rove rose from Lee Atwater's running mate to acquire leadership of the Young Republicans, then launched a soaring climb that resulted in his current heady position as chief political adviser and, from many accounts, top policy formulator to the nation's chief executive.
The point that is frequently stressed is that Rove begins with the basic assumption that if you are a Republican you are a potential friend, barring primary competition involving a rival candidate, and if a Democrat an acknowledged enemy. Policies are embraced as an expedient, not as an objective for governing. A classic illustration stressed is the pressure employed by Republican Congressmen from farm belt states to change the Cuban policy supporting an embargo. Realizing that much money can be made both ways through free and open trade, many Republicans sought change and formed a committee to achieve that goal. Rove made a well publicized appearance at a Republican conclave and read these individuals the riot act, holding fast to the current policy. The reason did not stem from any philosophical position Rove holds. It relates to his belief that Bush cannot be reelected without votes from the hard Cuban right from South Florida, who oppose any dealings with Castro. To cover his own flank he has rationalized an argument that Castro needs to be overthrown from within and that we should do nothing to intervene in that process.
The authors note that Rove seeks to distance himself from Richard Morris, Clinton's controversial political adviser, who, along with the Democratic president, was denounced for taking positions because they were popular rather from any philosophical underpinning. Rove seeks to create a distinction that does not really exist. He does so through using debating skills he began honing in his high school days in Utah, which enabled him to argue any position in oratorical competitions. It all comes down to the same as the Morris posture, since the positions are taken to coincide with policies shaped to reflect popular voter opinion. This position is out of step with the man called the father of conservatism, Edmund Burke, who, in his legendary speech to the Electors of Bristol in the nineteenth century, proclaimed that a representative in a democratic government must shape positions he believes are best for the public, whether that same public then agrees or not. This should be done with the full knowledge that the individual is risking defeat at the polls.
While reporting the many instances of Rove opportunism, beginning with seminars delivered in his early days on dirty tricks, beckoning memories of the Nixon Era, the authors also refer repeatedly to Rove as a "genius," a term they often are quoting from other sources, particularly in the political consulting field. It should be remembered that by siding with the most consistently conservative elements of business, such as the tobacco industry, Rove is in a position to garner far more dollars under the current tragic political funding system than someone representing the polar opposite of his position, such as environmental protection, civil liberties, blue collar workers, and the impoverished. It is no accident that Rove cast his lot with the Republicans rather than the Democrats. Also, by having access to this much money, he is able to far more easily launch dirty tricks campaigns against political opponents. A tragic example resulted in two sincere and innocent public servants from the Texas Agricultural Commission doing jail time as a result of being on the opposite side of the political fence from Rove.
The book is essential but often sad reading. The sadness stems from appraising Rove himself. He appears to be a solitary figure who lives for power for its own sake alone. Based on experiences covered, including a lengthy feud with a next door neighbor, it appears that down deep there is a great void in his life and deeply rooted fears as well as, from the evidence presented, feelings of inferiority. His overly combative nature and hunger to in his view win, even in situations that do not need to be competitive, reveal deeply rooted fears. As in the case of Nixon, psychiatrists and psychologists would have a field day analyzing Rove. There will no doubt be a good deal of analysis concentrated on this controversial figure as long as he remains on the public stage.
