Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
We're pleased to welcome Paul Alexander to the Inkwell to discuss his book,
"Machiavelli's Shadow".

Paul Alexander is the editor of the essay collection Ariel Ascending:
Writings About Sylvia Plath and the author of Rough Magic, a biography of
Plath; Boulevard of Broken Dreams, the best-selling biography of James Dean;
Death and Disaster, a book about the death and estate of Andy
Warhol;Salinger, a biography of J.D. Salinger; and The Candidate, a
chronicle of John Kerry’s presidential campaign. This summer saw the
publication of Machiavelli’s Shadow: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove, an
examination of the politics of Rove, as well as the release of an updated
edition of Man of the People, a biography of John McCain.
     A former reporter for Time, Alexander has published nonfiction in The
New York Times, The New York Times Magazine, New York, The Nation, The
Village Voice, Salon, Worth, The New York Observer, George, Cosmopolitan,
More, Interview, ARTnews, Mirabella, Premiere, Out, The Advocate, Travel &
Leisure, The Los Angeles Times Book Review, Biography, Men’s Journal, Best
Life, but mostly Rolling Stone. In Europe, his nonfiction has appeared in
Paris Match, Gente, and The Guardian.
     Alexander is a graduate of The Writers’ Workshop at The University of
Iowa and a member of PEN American Center, the Screenwriters Guild, the
Authors Guild, and the Playwrights and Directors Unit of The Actors Studio.
In the fall of 2002, he was a Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford
University. He lives in New York City.

And leading our interview will be our own Patrick Lopez.

Patrick Lopez grew up in Houston and has resided in Austin for the past 20
years.  He comes from a long line of Texans interested in politics.  New to
Austin at the end of the 1980s, he watched Rove rise from being just another
Austin political consultant, to defeating the undefeatable Ann Richards, to
engineering the former “permanent Republican majority.”  He has long
been fascinated by Karl Rove and the mythology of Karl Rove.
  

    
Welcome to the well and the inkwell.vue conference, Paul!  Thanks for
sharing a bit of your time to talk about Machiavelli's Shadow.

I first learned about your book when I came across, and was riveted by,
the Katrina chapter that was excerpted in Salon.  For those of y'all who
haven't read it, the excerpt is still up at
<http://www.salon.com/books/excerpt/2008/06/06/rove_katrina/index.html>

Karl Rove has emerged as one of the most colorful and larger than life
political figures in recent years.  From his earliest years in politics,
serving on the College Republican National Committee, Rove
established a reputation as both a savvy campaigner and an expert in the
art of dirty politics.

Rove’s reputation and legend began to grow in the late 1980s when he
engineered a series of defeats over formidable opponents.  However,
many of Rove’s campaigns, besides being victorious, included
questionable and dubious components.

Rove’s reputation and legend for both political acumen and dirty trickery
reached a high point soon after GW was first sworn in as
president.  Subsequent policy missteps and disasters tarnished that
reputation and the infamous interview on NPR with Bob Siegel about
“THE math” added a buffoonish cast that has stuck with Rove ever since.

Finally, here is the question that I would like to open the interview with:
Why does this book matter?  Why should anyone care about what a former
advisor to a soon to be departing president did?  Is it just a matter of
interesting stories of a scoundrel's shenanigans, or are there other reasons
that people should try to understand Karl Rove and his role in the Bush
presidency?
  

    
One might hope for some preventive effect...
  

    
First of all, thanks for having me. I look forward to having a
discussion about my book, "Machiavelli's Shadow," as well as what's
happening on the political landscape in general.

I think my book is timely because it gives us a chance to look back at
Bush the candidate and Bush the president and, at least from the point
of view of politics, see what he -- through Rove -- was trying to
achieve. Current opinion polls indicate that the public is pretty
unhappy with Bush's overall achievement; at the moment there are not a
lot of accomplishments to which this administration can point with
pride. In fact, the vice president is so unpopular he doesn't plan to
attend his own party's national convention this summer.

But what was the goal? According to Rove, he -- and we must presume
Bush -- wanted to go to Washington and establishment what Rove himself
would call "a permanent Republican majority." That was the overriding
objective, and my book examines how Rove went about trying to
accomplish that goal -- and the consequences of his actions. My book
matters, I think, because it is worthwhile to document such agendas in
politics, especially since our form of government is based on having a
two-party system, not a one-party permanent majority.

My book also matters because Karl Rove will play a role in the fall
election. According to a mass email James Carville sent out on June 30,
the Republican Party -- not the McCain campaign -- is setting up a
527, funded to the tune of $250 million, that will be run by Rove. If
this is true, as stated by Carville, look for Rove's past dirty tricks
to be used once again, all outside the direct control of the McCain
campaign. 
  

    
One of the most disturbing chapters in your book focussed on Alabama, the
governer's race in 2002, and the subsequent persecution of the Democratic
candidate, Don Siegelman.  This episode includes so many factors that
frequently seem associated with Rove--there is the strange shift in the vote
tally that takes the victory away from Siegelman and hands it to Bob Riley
and a politically motivated prosecution that seems to kneecap a rising
Democratic star.

After the book came out and after I read it, there was a strange
development that i can't make sense of.  Lamar Smith (R-TX), the ranking
member of the House Judiciary Committe submitted a list of 14 questions to
Rove regarding the prosecution of Siegelman.  Rove submitted written answers
to these questions.  To all of 14 questions Rove repeats the answer below,
either identically or with slight variation:

        "I have never communicated, either directly or indirectly, with
        Justice Deparment or Alabama officials about the investigation,
        indictment, potential prosecution, prosecution, conviction, or
        sentincing of Governor Siegelman, or about any other matter
        related to his case, nor have i asked any other individual to
        communicate about these matters on my behalf. I have never
        attempted, either directly or indirectly, to influence these
        matters."

(I retyped the quote above, any typos, errors, etc. are mine).  In addition
to providing that answer to the 14 questions, Rove also supplied some
additional material.  In typical Rovian fashion, the additional material did
not illuminate anything about Roves involvement either.

Did you see Rove's written answers?  What did you make of this?  Can you
discuss the Siegelman case a bit and put any developments from this summer
into context?
  

    
Paul, welcome.  I'm well into your book and am already regaling my
friends and acquaintances with stories of Rove's youth and early
campaigns.

This is a nightmare that you report above:

"the Republican Party -- not the McCain campaign -- is setting up a
527, funded to the tune of $250 million, that will be run by Rove. If
this is true, as stated by Carville, look for Rove's past dirty tricks
to be used once again, all outside the direct control of the McCain
campaign."

It looks like he'll be able to do absolutely anything he wants with
that kind of money and then a quick pardon, after the election, and
before Bush leaves office.  Yes?  

Is there any reason to go on living?
  

    
At the very least, the last line in "Candide".
  

    
<rik>, thanks, but I don't garden.

Firstly, I believe all bad things about Rove -- his history is
interesting, but his "accomplishments" say it all.  The Bush Residency
is all the legacy that Rove needs, an utter failure for Bush, Rove, and
the US.

Paul, I was wondering about your telling the tales of the two
biographies, that it is all very much from the view of those two. 
Herskowitz seems like a nice guy caught up in an amazing fog of "WTF is
going on."

But then again, he's an old friend of the Bush's; how sympathetic can
he be if even believable?  And, of course, Hatfield seems to be just
downright insane thinking he could marry without revealing his past
(and current parole status!) much less write a book about a
presidential candidate.  

I reveled in those two stories, but now come away thinking, hmmm, why
should I really care about either of them and their perspectives on the
attempted biographies?
  

    
The combination of the well funded 527 group run by Rove and this line
from <7>:

  "The Bush Residency is all the legacy that Rove needs,
   an utter failure for Bush, Rove, and the US."

is interesting.  

Do you think Rove, in an effort to revive his reputation (or, in other
words, to refute any notion that there has been a "Fall of Karl Rove")
will be relatively more visible/up front about his activities in this
election?
  

    
I should have posted in this up in response #4, but here is a copy of Rove's
responses to Lamar Smith's questions abou the Siegelman case:

<http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/siegelman-rove-answers>
  

    
(NOTE: Offsite readers with questions or comments may have them
added to the conversation by emailing <inkwell@well.com> -- please
put the author’s name in the subject line. Thank you!)
  

    
I read the excerpt of your book on Katrina and dropped my jaw.  Then
my cynical side kicked in and I was able to pick it back up.

If you are able to uncover such Rove machinations now, what can we
expect when Bush leaves office?  Most of the protections would be off
and more people would be willing to talk.  

I remember Teapot Dome from my high school history class presented as
a major politcal scandel and then an object lesson. Will this pale by
comparison? 
  

    
One of the consequences of the Democrats in Congress not being more
aggressive with Rove is that he is free to run a 527 in the fall
campaign, should that come about. James Carville would not have sent
out the email he did if such a 527 was not a strong possibility. Had
the House leadership been more strident in their investigation of Rove,
they may have been able to tie him up with legal problems enough to
keep him out of play. But that didn't happen, because Nancy Pelosi is
apparently worried about appearing partisan. How appearing partisan is
a bad thing is puzzling to me, especially since they would be going
after Rove, the ultimate partisan. But that has been Pelosi's thinking
--  and still is.
  

    
paul, have you ever met Rove?  If so, what was that like?

Has there been any response or reaction from Rove and company about your
book?
  

    
And what is going on with the contempt citation?  Will we *ever* see
him testify under oath?
  

    
> paul, have you ever met Rove?  If so, what was that like?

Yikes, I can hardly imagine.  We have relatively new neighbors down
the street, and the woman used to work for Rove.  Bush stickers on both
their SUVs.  Sour pusses.  My wife and I can hardly stand walking by
their house!  Often we can just SEE the ghostbusters level toxicity
sparking out of the their roof.  
  

    
Well, you can't blame them for being sourpusses.  The peasants are
always misbehaving!
  

    
Ha!

As long as we're sharing this kind of stuff, take a look at this clip:
      <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM0zJl9Bxk8>

at around the 4 minute mark (though the whole thing is worth seeing). 
It's footage from back in the days when Rove was merely Turd Sprout.  

He working in the office in the Nixon campaign charged with -- in Dan
Rather's words -- "embarrassing pundits who claim[ed] Nixon [didn't]
appeal to youth."
  

    
I want to know how he justifies what he does. I've never been able to
grasp that.
  

    
I first encountered George W. Bush -- and as a result Karl Rove -- in
1998 when Bush was running for re-election as Texas governor. I
followed Bush on the campaign trail as he was hitting, among other
places, these small towns in the Hill Country. Bush refused to talk to
me for that article because I was a national reporter and he was
running for re-election as Texas governor. Rove was always lurking in
the background at that time, as was Karen Hughes.

I then followed Bush on the trail in 2000 as he was running for
president. Again, Rove and Hughes were always around. I would see them
at events. Hughes was always composed and professional; Rove was often
willing to go to combat with reporters -- or anyone else who wanted to
challenge Bush. My impression of Rove was that he was controlling and
manipulative and brilliant. He knew exactly what he had in Bush as a
candidate -- in his mind he was a political showhorse -- and he was
determined to get him elected. No matter what he had to do in the
process.

Leading up to the 2000 campaign, I wrote a 10,000-word profile of Bush
for "Rolling Stone" called "All Hat, No Cattle," which depicted Bush
as an inexperienced, arrogant, deeply flawed man who had chalked up a
miserable career as a businessman. Every business he had run or sat on
the board of -- except the Texas Rangers baseball team, of which he
owned only 1.6 percent -- he had run into the ground. Needless to say,
Rove and company hit back hard when that piece appeared, and through
the years I've had the sense that Rove was aware of the critical pieces
I wrote concerning Bush, just as he has been aware of the publication
of my book about him. But I've never had a conversation with Karl Rove.
  

    
<http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6482734/all_hat_no_cattle>
  

    
Has Rove written anything that covers similar ground as "The Prince"?
Was Machiavelli addressing a person with similar credentials (or lack
thereof) as "The Decider"?

Are the other "man behind the throne" figures in history that compare
with Rove?
  

    
To my knowledge, Rove has never written anything, although supposedly
he is currently writing a book that may or may not have a publisher --
the record is not clear on that one, like so much in Rove's life.
Through the years, mostly what he has written -- or at least read in
public -- are speeches. And, certainly, he has never delivered anything
even approaching "The Prince" in sophistication or literary merit.

Rove began telling people years ago he read "The Prince" once a year
because that was the practice of Lee Atwater, his political hero.
Atwater claimed he read "The Prince" once a year to keep sharp his
Machiavellian skills. If that's what Atwater did, then Rove decided
that's what he would do too.
  

    

But, but, but Machiavelli would likely be appalled by such acolytes taking
his name in vain.  Of course, the eponymous author and the definition of 
the adjective have diverged and the adjective is now a mockery of the 
original.  But if, in fact, Rove actually read _The Prince_ annually, he 
would be without a blueprint, except, perhaps, for Bush's despicable 
cronyism.  Machievelli was a proponent of wise planning for his forays 
into brutality and he required them to be effective.
  

    
Detail, details ;-).
  

    
We know that people who are immersed in ideology, who believe that
they are 'right', are more apt to engage in unethical behavior to
pursue their ends. But Rove appears to believe in nothing. 

Are we to assume he is simply a sociopath, in pursuit of power? Is
that the only thing that moves him?