Karl Rove, who is President George W. Bush’s deputy chief of staff, recently announced he would be stepping down. Rove is a well-respected political strategist, conservative intellectual and student of American history. He’s also the chief architect of Bush’s two presidential victories.
What does Rove’s resignation ultimately mean for Bush?
Most Democrats are elated. They believe Rove’s departure will further weaken an already weak president. This will reflect badly on the GOP’s presidential candidates, who will distance themselves from Bush’s policies in a last-ditch, desperate attempt to hang on to the White House.
Most Republicans are disappointed. They’re frustrated with Rove’s perceived role in Iraq, mass firing ofattorneys and the Valerie Plame affair, among others. They also feel the timing of his departure — and departure itself — will leave the administration in total disarray and cost them the White House.
Who’s right? Surprisingly, both are wrong.
One reason why many people, including myself, admire Rove is his ability to think outside the political box. So, while the conventional wisdom might be that Rove should stay to preserve Bush’s legacy, his departure might save it.
Rove was, and would have remained, a permanent fixture in the Bush administration. But the longer he remained with Bush, the more likely it became that history would never have seen the president as being his own man.
When Rove leaves, Bush can appoint a new senior adviser to help modify Rovian-style policy positions and potentially implement a more conservative political approach.
As Michael Gerson wrote in The Washington Post on Friday, “Rove’s main influence on the Republican Party has not been a series of tactical innovations but a series of strategic arguments.” With Rove on the way out, my guess is the Bush administration will shift to a more tactical position.
For instance, Iraq is all about tactics. Most people recognize that Iraq remains a dangerous battlefield, and mistakes have been made. It’s up to Bush to turn the tables on Democrats, anti-war activists and the liberal media to prove that the U.S. should stay the course.
There are many positive news stories on Iraq: Nine cities, including Fallujah and Abu Ghraib, are no longer in al Qaeda’s hands; half of Baghdad is free from totalitarian rule; new marketplaces have been built; Iraq’s soccer team recently won its first AFC Asian Cup; and democracy and freedom are starting to take effect.
While these stories won’t remove the sting of soldiers dying in Iraq, they’ll show that the situation isn’t as hopeless as some believe.
The domestic economy is also about tactics. The stock market and dollar have sharply declined, largely caused by collapses in subprime mortgages and hedge funds. Hence, Bush must assure worried investors that, by and large, the economy is actually in good shape.
Inflation and unemployment levels are low, while job and wealth creation are high. The GDP grew by 3.4 percent in the second quarter. And the stock market is likely in a short-term period of self-correction after an extended period of growth — which means that things will turn around.
The Bush administration needs to start setting the country’s political and economic agenda again by re-emphasizing conservative principles of less government, lower taxes, and more individual liberty and freedom. And it needs to show why the U.S. must maintain a role in building and protecting democratic ideals worldwide.
This will only happen if Bush reverts into a tough, confident, independent and tactical leader. For the sake of his party, country and legacy, he needs to become that leader.
And if Bush succeeds, Rove’s political gamble will have paid off.
Michael Taube is a Canada-based public affairs analyst and commentator.
