Why George Is So Dangerous (Or, the gap between politics and policy)

There is a gap between politics and policy. Good politics will get you elected. Good policy will improve quality of life. Good politics focuses on getting power over. Good policy focuses on giving power to.

If you were campaigning for the votes of medieval serfs, you'd probably win votes by speaking out against witches who curse crops and babies and generally make life miserable. Your promise to crack down on witches might even get you elected. By contrast, the policies you'd want to pursue to actually make life less miserable - policies like turning the commons into private property so as to encourage investment, weakening the grip of the church on communities, and encouraging free thinking - would be met with, at best, tepid support and advocating such policies might not just cost you votes but could, indeed, cost you your life. Because every era has its superstitions and cultural momentum, there has always been a gap between what makes for good politics and what makes for good policy.

For my nickel, no one has better illustrated the gap between effective politics and effective policy than George Bush and Karl Rove. The most obvious example of policy that made for good politics and bad policy was, of course, the invasion and occupation of Iraq. George and Karl were masters of politics and the two stooges of policy, a frightening reminder that voters can be easier to seduce than reality. And there is nothing more dangerous than a politician who understands politics but has little interest in policy. Such a politician can do even more damage than someone with evil intentions.

For me there is a key to distinguish between policy and politics lies in the difference between power over and power to. Good policy not only improves lives, it gives people power to do things that they couldn't otherwise. Policy that provides education to children whose parents can't afford it, that is policy that gives people power to. Educated women have more power to choose whether to have families and how many children to have. Education is a classic example of policy that gives power to. By contrast, policy that only lets certain kinds of people own property or vote or choose whether to control one’s own reproduction is policy that exercises power over. This power over might make for popular politics (the distaste of the masses for minorities like gays, blacks, and rich), but it rarely makes for good policy that actually improves quality of life.

As you listen to the candidates, listen for what they are proposing and the kind of power that seems to enthrall them. Do they want to limit what people can do in bedrooms and boardrooms or do they want to enable people, including the poor or the minorities in privileges the mainstream take for granted? The former often makes for good politics - the latter usually makes for good policy. The more we’re aware of this, the smaller the gap between the two. After all, the success of a democracy ultimately rests on a confluence between successful politics and successful policy. What we don't need next year is to embark on another 8 year learning experience.

Karl Rove & the Confusion of Politics and Policy

This, from Joshua Green's Atlantic article:

“It is a dangerous distraction to know as much about politics as Karl Rove knows,” Bruce Reed, the domestic-policy chief in Bill Clinton’s administration, told me. “If you know every single poll number on every single issue and every interest group’s objection and every political factor, it can be paralyzing to try to make an honest policy decision. I think the larger, deeper problem was that they never fully appreciated that long-term success depended on making sure your policies worked.”

It somehow seems fitting that Karl Rove's work in the White House ended about the same time as The World Weekly News quit publishing. Karl Rove had extensive knowledge of politics - he knew about the fears and tendencies of just over 50% of the American polity. Just as The World Weekly News knew that there was demand for stories about Bigfoot and UFOs, Karl Rove knew that there was demand for stories about the threat of jihad and individual greatness that could not be attained because of a government that taxes and regulates too much.

As it turns out, there is a correlation between politics and policy, but it has a time lag. Politicians can work on Americans' fears and give them a target for their anger, organizing a lynching party into the Middle East to avenge a wrong. At that point, the politics and policy diverge. Americans want revenge and they don’t' care about silly little clarifications about how Iraq had nothing to do with the tragedy of 9-11. Later, though, when popular politics leads to unpopular policy - the equivalent of loving chocolate but hating our fat thighs - Americans sour on the politics.

Karl Rove doesn't have a good sense of history. He defines himself as someone with a great sense of history, but he likes to point to McKinley as a president who, with Republican Party kingmaker Mark Hannah, redefined the GOP in 1896. Even this point, though, Rove misses. McKinley was assassinated and largely dismissed by history as an unimportant president. Teddy Roosevelt gained the presidency when McKinley was shot. Roosevelt was a Republican but one who Hannah put into the vice Presidency in order to remove from power. Roosevelt was a Republican but one who championed reforms that eventually led to his breaking away from the Republican Party and forming his Bull Moose Party. There were indeed major historical forces at work at the close of the 19th century, but it was not McKinley who was in touch with them but, rather, Roosevelt.

Mark Twain once quipped that "Wagner's music is better than it sounds." Because of Rove's assurances about parallels to McKinley, Bush now believes that his policies are more popular than they seem. Karl Rove's poll numbers could tell him how to win elections. They could not tell him how to govern. He could read poll numbers but not the course of history. Because he could not distinguish between effective politics and effective policy, this country is worse off than when he and George first set their sights on the White House.

Karl Rove's Legacy

It's hard to imagine a more succinct tribute to Karl Rove than this bit from the comic genius Dan Piraro, creator of Bizarro.



By the way, if you want to cruelly tease a friend, casually mention that you'd heard that Karl Rove has left the White House to get started on Jeb Bush's 2008 campaign.