Why do so many people suddenly not like Karl Rove?
Asked 2 years ago by Scott Wallace
Because his opinions are unpopular, as are many of his "moral" decisions.
Answered 2 years ago by laggingtom
What I have laid out below is one POSSIBLE explanation that would seem to fit the fact pattern we are witnessing. I have no way of confirming this, nor am I sure this is the true explanation. I'd of course welcome anyone adding any additional facts that might round this out or rule this out as a possible explanation. Here goes:
Ad Hominen Attacks against an individual person have long been among the most effective ways to convince people not support the IDEAS that person represents. This is true largely because people are flawed and everyone makes mistakes but for some reason, we all expect public figures do not. Moreover, the way in which mistakes made by anyone is presented can virtually always present any person in a suspect light. To be even more cynical, many personal stories involve sensitives and outside interests that put the subject of an attack in a rock/hard place decisions -- i.e. do i exonerate myself by hurting another person -- or are simply hard to disprove even if inaccurate. Long story short, people can always be attacked. It is much harder ,however, to attack ideas, especially when they are good and/or supported by a large group of people.
Because this method of "persuasion" is so effective and also so enduring (once disgraced a public figure is forever damaged), there appear to be a number of off-shoot political strategies that seek to create a situation where a political strategist can capitalize upon this very effective technique. Thus, the idea is, get me in a spot where I simply need to attack an individual, and I can ensure we win, they lose.
One age-old practice of this nature involves the two steps listed below:
(a) the face of and/or inspiration behind whatever cause/issue/group you wish to attack, i.e., when you think of republicans, think of Karl Rove or "Karl Rove is the mastermind behind republican electoral success in the last decade"; and
(b) a person that people on the other side universally respect and consider an expert and/or knowledgeable/trusted person on this issue/cause/group
This is actually surprisingly easy to do without anyone knowing for the simple reason that it benefits all involved -- for the time being. The target becomes well-known, "successful", sometimes rich, and is inclined to believe he deserves it all and its a result of his work (which he indeed may well deserve). And the groups who support the cause and individual likewise benefit and are happy for the attention.
The only people who might object, and this is actually the key, are the many other leaders behind the cause/issue/group who are effectively marginalized, silenced, and in a way, discredited by virtue of the fact that their relative standing is greatly diminished in comparison to the anointed "face of the cause."
Step 2: Of course there is as always a SECOND ACT to the theatrics. As you may have already figured out, this does not end well for the OPPONENT's cause.
If a group is successful at creating one (or maybe a select few) representatives that are accepted by all (foes and supporters of the issue) as a true speaker for the cause, then what you have is an INDIVIDUAL, that may be torn down with Ad hominem attacks.
As mentioned at the outset, its quite easy to discredit a single person. And, when the attack comes from many directions, it is, by its very nature, one person against a vast network of people. Not even a fair fight.
All that said, I don't know if that's what is going on here. I do know that Karl Rove is a back room kind of guy who suddenly became the "in front of the camera" famous, very wealthy and respected "voice and strategic mind" of the Republican party. Perhaps this was due to all of the great work he did for republican candidates over the years. Or perhaps someone decided to make him the "face of the cause." If its the latter, then perhaps this has something to do with the sudden spat of attacks against his credibility.
Remember, if the people building up the speaker are really the opposition then it is inconsequential to them exactly what kind of damage/outcome results upon attacking the target individual, the idea is just to do damage of some kind.
Thus, for example, damage could come in both the form of the group planning the attack allowing their representatives and voices to then use the discredited name of the target over and over and over for years to come. But, damage could also come in the form of the simply pointing to "chaos" or "civil war" or "disorganization within the Republican Party."
Again, these are just a few thoughts and speculation as to what may be happening. I have no inside knowledge, just general awareness of what has transpired and one potential explanation that would seem to fit the fact pattern we are witnessing.
Answered 23 months ago by AccurateWhetherMan
If you'd like to answer this question, login using one of the services below.
Do your part. Help this person by giving the best answer you can give.
Here's how the scoring works. If you vote a question up, it gains one point. If you vote it down, it loses one point. Same with the answers.
After a while, the more pertinant questions, and their best answers float to the top.
Remmeber, you gain reputation by giving great answers. Here's how it works:
From the same people
who brought you AskTheRight