The Washington Post editorialized about Rove's failing to recreate Mark Hanna's Republican majority. Harold Meyerson pinpointed Rove's failure like this:
Could there have been a more profound misreading of the American temper? As political and policy czar rolled into one, Rove should have understood that Americans craved the security of a controllable border and a predictable and decent income. Instead, Rove's wish was father to the thought: Realignment required dismantling Democratic programs. It required winning more Hispanic voters (never mind that on economic issues, Hispanic voters are resoundingly liberal). It required the Rove program. Damn the torpedoes.
Tie that observation with Eugene Robinson's view in this paragraph:
Rove announced he was quitting as White House deputy chief of staff in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, saying that while he knew some people would claim he was just trying to elude congressional investigators, "I'm not going to stay or leave based on whether it pleases the mob ." That's the man, right there in that quote: Benighted fools who don't blindly trust his honesty or fully appreciate his genius are nothing more than "the mob."I guess I am now member of a mob. I question his honesty and his claim to genius. I wholeheartedly doubt his understanding of American history.
Mark Hanna did get William McKinley elected President. However, Hanna disliked Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt supported William Howard Taft in 1908 and then turned on Taft in 1912. The split between Taft and Roosevelt lead to Wilson's election in 1912 and he stayed in office until 1920. Reaction against World War One lead to Harding's election in 1920. Roosevelt being dead, the Republican Progressives had nowhere to go. Harding's death brought us Calvin Coolidge and when Harding chose not to run, we got Herbert Hoover. Herbert Hoover had one of the best resumes of any presidential candidate, the country appeared prosperous, and all appeared well until 1929.
Let us not forget a few other factors of 1900-20: 1) the Socialists ran a very strong third and 2) the Republicans remained the party that saved us from the secessionist Democrats, and 3) the Democrats were still the party of the South. The Populists, the Grangers, and free silver Bryanites were also roaming about. In many ways, there were more political and social issues catching fire or close to catching fire during this period than during our own time. After all, can anyone remember if there was a Socialist candidate for President in 2004?
Hanna's conservative Republican party did not really survive Theodore Roosevelt. Whatever loyalty the public gave to Republicans after 1919 ought to be put down as more of a reaction to Wilson's War and the Democrats being identified with the Confederacy than to any grand strategy of Mark Hanna.
Ronald Reagan stood a better chance of creating a Republican majority than Karl Rove ever did or will. Reagan failed to do what FDR did between 1932 and 1936: expand his political base to such an extent as to change the balance between political parties. With FDR the Democrats changed from the party of states' rights, the secessionist South, Bryanite radicals and big city machines to become a party of the people, the worker, the farmer, Northerner and Southerner, and the party of the national government. It is amazing that it stayed together to 1965.
Rove's theory was to strengthen but not expand. The Republican big tent became an enclosure. The Post ends its editorial on Rove with a very good question:
The GOP's wipeout in 2006 would suggest that Mr. Rove did not achieve this goal, notwithstanding his brave parting words about Republican victory in 2008. And if the manufactured polarization of the Bush-Rove years did not even serve its ostensible purpose, then what was the good of it?
Comments for this post
