The Creaturely Myth
James O. Tate reviews Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight • by Karl Rove • New York: Threshold Editions • 608 pp., $30.00
There is—there must be–all the difference in the world between an autobiography and a novel written in the first person. Are we clear? Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Living History, for example, has much in common with Charles Dickens’ David Copperfield or even Great Expectations, with the obvious exceptions that the “truth” seems to be fiction, and the fiction seems to be true. So then, we are not clear. And possibly an autobiography should be read as though it were fiction—at least, Karl Rove’s narrative should be read as fiction. And I recommend this approach for one particular reason: The book is much more comfortable to consume as a mythic artifact than as a discursive account of life and politics.
Dickens’ Great Expectations obviously has an ironic title, and to appreciate the point, we have to read the book alertly and even think about what we remember. Such an approach would not bear fruit with the Rove romance, however. His book has a title that is the opposite of ironic, whatever that might be. Courage and Consequence is about neither the one nor the other. The subtitle is even more anti-ironic: What is a “Conservative” and what is “the Fight”? No one would learn anything about those questions that she did not bring with her to the text. I don’t think that the readers of this journal need any explanations about courage, consequences, conservatism, or conflict, but perhaps there may be some use in noting what this first-person narrative signed by Karl Rove indicates about these and other matters of interest and concern.
So, speaking impersonally about personal matters, I note for the record the mythic aspect of the early years. Karl Rove is far from the first hero who had a mythic birth, a confused parentage, and even a tragic background, particularly as it relates to his mother’s suicide. His functional father was not his biological father, and the story has been dwelt on in the blogs in an attempt to associate Rove with homosexuality, a political spin that need not detain us. So much for the early years, somewhat tinted with rose. They would have provided a Freudian with a field day, a romancer with a gold mine, and a mythographer with a hedge fund. Our creative approach is paying off already!
OK, so let’s check out the Bildungsroman aspect—you know, the education of the hustler as a young man. Now what happened was that Karl Rove became, at a young age, a political operative or hack, a spin artist, a consultant, an expert about the arcane manipulations of politics in the ward-heeler sense of the word. If you are interested in focus groups, polling, and the manipulation of issues and debates, there might be something of some slight interest for you in this book. But as for education—while there is experience—there is little to be found here. In Bill Clinton’s autobiography, we learn that a college professor threw a copy of The Republic on the floor and pronounced to his class, “Plato is a fascist!” In Karl Rove’s text, political thought began with Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley, Jr., and National Review was a “weekly.” Karl was a Westerner, Karl related to Texas, and Karl liked the Bushes. That was the education. Like the Clintons, Karl was a college politician, and like them, he never grew up. Unlike them, he was a College Republican, and unlike the Clintons, he never obtained his college degree. And it shows.
Turning from the mythic aspects, we look now to aspects of myth. Karl is self-conscious—he knows that he is a myth. His 34th and final chapter is entitled “Rove: the Myth.” What is the Myth? The Myth of the enemy is that he is a little troll who looks as if he were drawn by Charles Addams; the myth of the narrative is that he is not. The Myth is that he is a weirdo and, what is worse, an unscrupulous liar and bullslinger who has done incalculable damage to the people who supported George W. Bush; the myth of the narrative is that It Just Ain’t So. The Myth about his inhumanity is contraindicated by his second marriage and the son of that marriage; but the myth of the narrative omits entirely the recent DIVORCE NO. 2.
Therefore, much of the narrative is required to overcome the Myth with a myth. Question: What must you do, when they say you are a space alien in disguise? Answer: Refer frequently to your human (not alien) emotions, your human mistakes, your human love, and your human fears in the form of understandable bodily discomforts and human embarrassments, yet still omitting DIVORCE NO. 2. Examples: “I felt like vomiting”; vetting candidates is like “a proctology exam”; I “salivated” at the thought of using research about Al Gore, etc., etc. Love of Abraham Lincoln and of rock music are other hallmarks of humanity. So is the loyalty to Bush, who was right about Iraq. But just here the mythology becomes so over the top as to lose all persuasiveness.
I have come to learn through bitter experience that Karl Rove’s autobiography cannot, finally, be productively compared with Victorian fiction (though some paragraphs of Esther Summerson still come to mind). Superior analogues suggest themselves from horror movies of the 1950’s: Invaders From Mars (Menzies, 1953), for example. The boy sees the flying saucer land behind the sand dune with the wordless chorus and then notices that his suddenly harsh father has a . . . thing . . . on the back of his neck. Or more obviously, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (Siegel, 1956): Pod People keep Kevin McCarthy from doing Dana Wynter, and everybody thinks he’s crazy because the trucks are driven by College Republicans. If this is McCarthyism, count me in, and as for snatching the body of Dana Wynter in 1956, count me in again as well—even, or even especially, when she was bad. I don’t see yet any analogy with The Creature From the Black Lagoon, but I’m working on it. The SEQUEL NO. 2—The Creature Walks Among Us—has got to be the answer.
This article first appeared in the August 2010 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.
Entries(RSS)
No gentleman living in these times would write a book about himself. Mr. Rove, however, doesn't have that limitation. The question then becomes should anyone in these times be interested in reading about Mr. Rove. I am pleased to see that a man of Mr. Tate's caliber has answered with an affirmative no.
That George Bush's coatman was once a towering figure in his country and his party shows the moral bankruptcy of each.
One aspect of the book that struck me as patently fake was the use of "me" instead of "I" in a number of cases, e.g., in a caption under the first photo after p. 276, "My older brother, Eric, and me with our mother..."
Even given the low state of editing in today's publishing houses, I have to believe that the use of "me" was deliberate attempt to hit just the right tone, "sure I'm the president's #1 adviser but really I'm just a regular guy like you..."
Phony as a three-dollar bill.
What makes this autobiography of a political pollster and spin doctor any different than any other political pollster and spin doctor of any president of the past 120 years? Nothing new here. While JFK was banging the ladies, his pollsters were molesting little boys.
If Rove didn't graduate from college, then I've changed my mind about this shyster selling stinky sow meat to christians.
What does divorce have to do with character? You sound like a dried up old feminista, or your typical castrated American marxist.
Karl was hired to elect a dude chosen by the powers-that-be. That is called... political patronage for being in the right place at the right time and nothing more.
"No one would learn anything about those questions that she did not bring with her to the text."
I have noticed that lots of writers use "she" and "her" where I might use "he" and "him". At the risk of exposing myself as a Philistine, does anyone know the purpose of this convention (using the feminine)?
There is a nice woman that works for my wife and once was employed by Rove's consulting group in Dallas. She told he was a nice man and amiable employer. My reply was I'm sure he was and is. But is he not without principal and idealogy, and the political objective is all that matters to him? Her response was affirmative.
Rove's barren political philosophy was apparent over a decade ago when he readily made known that he wanted to re-create the Republican dominance of 1897-1932. However, that epoch of Republican dominance was itself submerged by the Progressive Era in which two Republicans, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, and one Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, built up the centralized, bureaucratized state. For Rove, as long as Republicans were elected, the manner in which they ruled was absolutely irrelevant.
@Derek
How consistent would you say the GOP has been on its stand on most matters?
@Jon
"I have noticed that lots of writers use “she” and “her” where I might use “he” and “him”. At the risk of exposing myself as a Philistine, does anyone know the purpose of this convention (using the feminine)?"
It's a convention used not to offend women.
No, no, one need not rant about language convention drudges and unnecessary feminism. We - meaning those of us in the B-school or corporate or marketing environment - just use it to keep the activists away. Stuff like that is taught in business communication courses for this reason. That's all there is to it.
The use of she is not a convention used to avoid annoying women. The purpose is to degrade men--and the English language. Rules of grammar and usage are not egalitarian: they create distinctions and distinctions are invidious--even apart from the suicidal ideology of feminism, which is a rebellion against human nature. Obviously, Prof. Tate is being witty in adopting this feminist convention so popular in English departments. Of all the men who write for Chronicles, he would be near the bottom of the list on a scale of political correctness.
If we are to excuse such a barbaric expression of male self-loathing as convenient, why not follow Origen and just get rid of the whole problem of virility?
Since its founding, the Republicans have been consistently in the pocket of big business. The rare time when they did not do Wall Street's bidding was in the Progressive Era, an era that Rove apparently approves. Rove is the sort of Republican who would vote for a liberal Republican like Jacob Javits over a conservative Democrat like Sonny Montgomery.
Toddard @5 "I have noticed that lots of writers use “she” and “her” where I might use “he” and “him”. At the risk of exposing myself as a Philistine, does anyone know the purpose of this convention (using the feminine)?"
It was introduced in most college english departments in the 80's as part of the imposition of feminist ideology. If students did not use the feminine reference from time to time in their writing assignments, points were deducted and the impression of being a rube or hay seed was spread throughout the class. It was the same for poetry and prose. Any student at the time who would not admit the two were the same thing in essence, was considered a backward primitive type creature who should have considered one of the trade schools such as hotel and restaurant management or auto-body repair. Looking back on it all,including my own education and career, I can see that they were correct about the trade school idea but for all the wrong reasons. As an underwater welder I could have retired by now and renewed a private education in the classics. As it is, my families health care alone is so high I will need to work as a hired professional until I draw my last breath from this tired old earth while the priest breaks out the Holy oils. I hope this explanation helps a little.
How consistent would you say the GOP has been on its stand on most matters?
They built on sandy ground from the evry beginning so their foundations are always shifting. What they have perfected in recent decades is the Big Lie. That is to say, the whopper that is so fat nobody even notices when a bite has been taken from it. Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq was a recent example but there are others more numerous and severe. Supreme Court nominees, lower taxes, Mainstreet over Wall Street, and expanding freedoms around the globe are some of the more notorious whoppers served rare to hungry conservatives. Yet since the Civil War these examples are just small potatos compared to the original beef they were serving up North. But don't forget the national democrats, they were the first to recognize that all politics is local so of course their big claim to fame was "buy local" I have heard, I do not know, that they too have had success with the Big Lie. These political techniques are like fads, they come and go, some say the next fad will be the Tea Party "throw the rascals out" scam. But this too is a big lie ---only symbolized in small letters. I hope this helped answer your question or at least cheered you up about all the hope that remains on our political horizon.
@Robert
Wow, that's pretty harsh treatment from English professors. They deliberately disparaged and showed down people they didn't like?
Well of course. Advocacy teaching was all the rage back then; even still made pretensions of Academic Freedom. The only subject that was not allowed to be taught or advocated was the tradition. I have heard by way of a german philosopher, Josef Pieper, that in India the tradition is not ridiculed or even engaged at the University level by the dialectical sciences. They run on two seperate tracks where Sanskrit(theology)is learned and sciences are also. In the West spiritual truth is made manifest. i.e. If there is no difference between a man and woman, this truth should be taught. Any comments?
The upgrading of Karl Rove's actions to that of now embracing a "political philosophy," is risible. He is a well paid political operative hired to test which way the wind is blowing, and then act accordingly to win elections, principles be damned - nothing more, nothing less.
Kove's recent ascent to stardom after his near destruction of the GOP in the elections of 2006/08, can be summarized by the words: his total inability to separate the real world from his and that of his paymaster, the Younger Bush. From early in the second Bush term, Rove consistently and eagerly told GWB and anyone who would listen that amnesty of illegal aliens, under the rubric "comprehensive immigration reform," would win the GOP sustainable majorities among Hispanic voters. Further, he treated with contempuous scorn anyone who disagreed: (then) Rep. Tom Tancredo, who knew the real score, was told by Rove never to have his shadow "darken the White House" with his presence. What is genuinely forgotten is that Rove sold that bill of goods to the GOP leadership despite its known unpopularity amongst the overwhelming majority of its membership.
But while the attempted resurrection of Rove's reputation as a prescient political observer is bizarre and unwarranted, his case is not alone: the also loathsome moral midget, former NY Governor, Eliot Spitzer, now has his own tv show.Only in America!
ubi deficiunt equi, trottant aselli: where horses are lacking, the asses get to trot.
Vatvince @16
Anybody who has ever noticed the eyes of man would say of Karl Rove,"He has beady eyes." This says all that needs to be said about such a man. Just look at his picture on the dust cover: A snake for instance, has "small beady eyes".
Karl Rove and George W. Bush still think that amnesty was wise and failure to enact it was one of the biggest disappointments of the Second Bush Administration. Wait until November, when George W. Bush's ghostwritten book comes out, to read more in the way of Bush-Rove obtuseness on illegal immigration.
Rove and Bush want amnesty for illegals for different reasons. Rove's delusional thinking is it would give the GOP majorities with longevity. Bush wants amnesty because he thinks they deserve it and wants to feel good about himself and his ignorant Eastern romantic beliefs(myths)of Texas being stolen from Mexico and subsequent bad treatment of Mexicans at the hands of real Texans.
Bryan,
You are absolutely correct. Rove thinks that "if you get the politics right, the policy stuff will take care of itself."
Bush thinks, "Do the right thing, and the politics will eventually work in your favor." This is why they rose to the top so fast as a pair of "winners" in modern politics -- there wasn't a principled bone in Rove's body or a brain in Bush's. Put nicely it was pure politics ---- there wasn't a thing Rove wouldn't do, and nothing that Bush could do. A wonderful and winning combination for success in either side of the current duopoly.
@Robert
Yes, not just Indians, but Eastern people in general compartmentalize their beliefs.
They keep their strict value-free sciences in one place, and their religious beliefs in another, and then hold both views simultaneously. Scientists here also do that!
It's very strange. Egyptians, for example, will learn all about the solar system in high school science classes, and then learn about the earth being flat in their Koranic classes. That's an extreme example, but a genuine one.
I find it discomforting. Some day, a man has to confront Truth and resolve Contradictions. If he can not, he should just go on and assume he can believe anything.
"I find it discomforting. Some day, a man has to confront Truth and resolve Contradictions. If he can not, he should just go on and assume he can believe anything."
Yes, there is always a certain tension between revealed or divine truth and human experience and understanding of such revealed truths. The book I was referring to by Josef Pieper in which all of this is discussed and explored, is called, Tradition -- Concept and Claim. It is quite good in my opinion. Thank you for your response.
#21 perhaps Truth seeks and confronts men; and living with-not resolving- contradictions might be a wise option.
#23 Truth seeks.... men"
Yes, I believe this is true and could not help but mention the Hound of Heaven as a musical manifestaion of this mystery. http://www.houndsofheaven.com/thepoem.htm I know Tom will smirk at my posting it here because it is not a great poem but it is, in my opinion, a darned good one. It says more than what prose can say about your suggestion, but not all that can be known about who or what truth is seeking. Thank you r.a., for your thoughtful response.
Derek Leaberry wrote: "Wait until November, when George W. Bush’s ghostwritten book comes out, to read more in the way of Bush-Rove obtuseness on illegal immigration."
Although I will never buy a copy and will probably never read it, I can't wait. Here's looking forward to the pre-elections reviews which will be coming out in mid-October to remind the electorate what a disaster for the country and the GOP Bush's/Rove's stewardship really was.
I can't stand Obama, but the GOP must not be allowed to think conservatives will soon forget what an abysmal disaster to the conservative movement and that slapping more lipstick on the pigs bush and rove will be sufficient to repackage bad policies and ideas for resale to the same voters.
(BTW, I hear Bush's memoirs be called Decision Points. The comedians will have a field day.)
Decision Points:
Boxers or briefs?
Potato chips or Cheese Doodles?
"Green Eggs and Ham" or "My Pet Goat?"
Whom to bomb today? Iraq or Afghanistan?
Single or Two ply?
Which Amendment to violate today? 1st or 4th?