Lee Atwater was a Republican political strategist who advised President Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush. He was the political mentor and a close friend of Karl Rove. He has been characterized as the “happy hatchet man” and the “Darth Vader” of Republican party campaign politics. He built his power base by designing many of the techniques that have since become common in American political life, including the design and promulgation of “reputation-destroying rumors.”
Atwater died in 1991 at the age of forty from a brain tumor. Shortly before his death, he converted to Catholicism through the assistance of a Jesuit priest, Fr. John Hardon, S.J. As part of his process of repentance, Atwater released a number of public apologies and wrote letters to individuals whom he hurt throughout his career.
In an article for Life Magazine in February 1991, Atwater wrote:”My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood. The ’80′s were about acquiring — acquiring wealth, power, prestige. I know. I acquired more wealth, power, and prestige than most. But you can acquire all you want and still feel empty. What power wouldn’t I trade for a little more time with my family? What price wouldn’t I pay for an evening with friends? It took a deadly illness to put me eye to eye with that truth, but it is a truth that the country, caught up in its ruthless ambitions and moral decay, can learn on my dime. I don’t know who will lead us through the ’90s, but they must be made to speak to this spiritual vacuum at the heart of American society, this tumor of the soul.”
It is the corrosive influence of Lee Atwater and his protege Karl Rove that Senator Barack Obama is attempting to efface from America’s political scene. He has vowed never to use such techniques in his presidential campaign. Whether he wins or loses this contest, one can hope that he succeeds in inspiring other political aspirants to take the same stance against negative politics.
The politics of fear is destructive of the common good. Only a politics that struggles to enhance the dignity of the person, individual freedom, and human solidarity is worthy of the American people.
The end of Lee Atwater’s life is a continuing embarassment for those who have based their approaches on current political techniques. That the Republican establishment willfully ignored him at the end, after years of service to their varied careers and causes is a shame to them.
As a political pioneer responsible for much of the conservative movements current turn in power, he is ignored by contemporaries, likely because of his conversion of heart.
Now about Obama… it is worth listening to the right wing critiques about his approach to a culture of life.
Excellent post. Whether one agrees with Obama’s platform and ideas or not, one ought to be truly appreciative of his class and elegance in campaigning. I hope he is the first-fruits of a new politics in the U.S.
I like Obama’s enthusiasm, but alas, I am a bit more cynical than you are, Gerald. I doubt his sincerity. Only time will tell, of course.
I admire Obama’s mission to pull political discourse away from the divisive and partisan sewage that dominates so much of our discussions of political, social, and cultural issues. I don’t really agree with his take on many vital issues, but I think we’ll progress as a society better in resolving those issues if we work with one another and not constantly against one another. Obama’s victory represents a move towards a political framework of cooperation and sharing and debating of ideas and away from a framework in which parties and interests are forever trying crush and obliterate the other. It may seem strange to say this, but I think Obama would be bad on some particular political issues but good for the whole of our politics.
Obama is a vessel onto which people project their hopes and dreams. This makes you feel great on the campaign trail, because you “are part of something.” And those speeches! The rhetoric!
Yet we should ask – what is the substance? How does anyone who wants power view those who need our protection the most – the unborn?
Exactly, Mr. Jones. I have worked on many many a campaign and it has been my experience that Politics disappoints. Only my Governor has stayed true to her principals and so I continue to love her. She is similar to Obama in that she had little previous experience and was supported by the little people with little money, yet she won. But she also believes in the protection of children in the wombs so it was easy for me to support her.
I think Obama is a once-in-a-generation (at most) political figure – able to inspire and motivate people to think beyond themselves. There hasn’t been someone with his inspirational qualities in almost 40 years.
Kyle – bad on some particular political issues but good for the whole of our politics. I think that’s exactly right. I don’t like his stand on abortion, and wonder how progressive he’ll be on national health care, but I look forward to the potential for a conversation about these and other issues that moves beyond the dueling caricatures that currently dominate the discussions now: “Baby killer!” “Theocrat!”
Kyle said: “It may seem strange to say this, but I think Obama would be bad on some particular political issues but good for the whole of our politics.”
Your statement couldn’t be more fair. I agree with Matt. It is exactly right.
“It is the corrosive influence of Lee Atwater and his protege Karl Rove that Senator Barack Obama is attempting to efface from America’s political scene.”
Complete rubbish. Each party has its tacticians and campaign managers. Atwater and Rove were simply more skilled than their Democrat opposite numbers, such as the lamentable Bob Schrum. As for empty suit Obama, anyone who doesn’t believe that the Democrat party will not pull every trick in the book to get him elected if he gains the nomination, something I still consider unlikely, simply doesn’t know anything about politics. Obama gives a good speech, but he is a typical pro-abort liberal Democrat and he will need all the help he can muster to win,
Obama as Rorschach test?
http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2008/01/is-senator-obama-rorschach-test.html
Complete rubbish. Each party has its tacticians and campaign managers. Atwater and Rove were simply more skilled than their Democrat opposite numbers, such as the lamentable Bob Schrum.
Dogmatic denial. For once, it would be nice to see rational, critical thinking on the history of American politics. Atwater and Rove were skilled, indeed, and Gerald nowhere denied that. Nor did Gerald suggest that their “Democrat opposite numbers” were equally or more skilled, rendering this Republican apology irrelevant. That Atwater even felt the need to repent of his political maneuvering is telling in itself.
Jonathon says: “Obama is a vessel onto which people project their hopes and dreams.”
You are clearly correct. Obama does excite and inspire just as JFK, MLK, and RFK excited and inspired.
But there are others — Harry Dent, Lee Atwater, and Karl Rove among them — whose counsel has transformed political leaders into vessels into which people can project their cynicism and fear. It is this politics of cynicism and fear that has been shaping America since Nixon’s Southern Strategy in 1968.
Honest efforts to protect the life of the “unborn”, for example, have been greatly diminished by this self-defeating milieu. Indeed, every critical issue has been vitiated by such politics.
Obama is attempting to demonstrate a better way. His success or failure in this effort will say much about the future of American democracy and its ability to inspire the world’s populations through the power of example. Even if he were to lose, he has already forced candidates to think before going negative. For this reason, Huckabee deserves credit for his last minute decision to not go negative in Iowa. It is now dangerous to cynically manipulate the electorate after the fashion of Dent, Atwater, and Rove.
At bottom, the end does not justify the means. Why? Because the means always determines the nature of the end that is achieved. Indeed, that is why the end does not justify the means!
Donald says: “Each party has its tacticians and campaign managers. Atwater and Rove were simply more skilled than their Democrat opposite numbers, such as the lamentable Bob Schrum.”
You are absolutely right. My party benefited from Atwater and Rove. But America did not.
Obama is challenging Democrats and Republicans alike. Whether Republican or Democrat, his effort in this regard should be encouraged. He is asking all of us to rethink what we want America to become. This could lead to better leadership for both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Who could be against such a proposition?
Donald, go ahead and vote against Obama. I would encourage you to do so if that were your inclination. But support the end of a politics of fear and cynicism.
Lee Atwater repented of what his conscience determined were serious errors. Being clever and skilled at evil and sin doesn’t quite qualify as virtue, even if one’s political favorites are advanced. And employing someone for this task speaks of the employer as well.
A pertinent comment from RR Reno:
“Barack Obama is an interesting political phenomenon. His inter-racial identity makes him a symbolic blank screen onto which Americans can project their perennial post-cultural fantasies. The early Republic was filled with claims that America transcended Old World divisions and conflicts. Obama helps us continue in our national love of “beyondism,” as in beyond partisanship, beyond racisim, beyond division, and etc. That’s what his campaign means when it trumpets him as offering “hope.” He also represents a vote to move beyond the Baby Boomers and the Sixties. Of all his beyonds, it’s the one I find most hopeful.”
What do you all think of this idea of “beyondism”?
For those who don’t live in Illinois, the name of Obama’s Rove is David Axlerod. Neither he nor Obama are strangers to the smash mouth politics that characterize the land of Lincoln. Case in point, Obama’s demolition of his chief primary opponent in 2004:
“Axelrod is known for operating in this gray area, part idealist, part hired muscle. It is difficult to discuss Axelrod in certain circles in Chicago without the matter of the Blair Hull divorce papers coming up. As the 2004 Senate primary neared, it was clear that it was a contest between two people: the millionaire liberal, Hull, who was leading in the polls, and Obama, who had built an impressive grass-roots campaign. About a month before the vote, The Chicago Tribune revealed, near the bottom of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull’s second wife filed for an order of protection. In the following few days, the matter erupted into a full-fledged scandal that ended up destroying the Hull campaign and handing Obama an easy primary victory. The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had “worked aggressively behind the scenes” to push the story. But there are those in Chicago who believe that Axelrod had an even more significant role — that he leaked the initial story. They note that before signing on with Obama, Axelrod interviewed with Hull. They also point out that Obama’s TV ad campaign started at almost the same time. Axelrod swears up and down that “we had nothing to do with it” and that the campaign’s television ad schedule was long planned. “An aura grows up around you, and people assume everything emanates from you,” he told me.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01axelrod.t.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&ref=magazine&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Politics Illinois style tends to get very rough. Maybe Axelrod and Obama have gone through a spiritual epiphany since 2004. Sure.
I would agree that surviving Illinois/Chicago politics suggests that Obama knows dirty politics.
For Obama, advancing this far in a career this early on suggests some infrastructure to “market” himself akin to Bush (who really lacked any successes at the time of his presidential campaign and an in depth look at his resume at the time would suggest he ruined every group he was in charge of). And Bush employed “kingmaker” and dirty politics experts to forward his career.
Zach,
I would express things a little differently than the quote you provide.
I see it this way. America, unlike any other country in human history, was founded on an idea — the idea of freedom. For this reason, America is a dynamic nation. It is not static. It aspires to make concrete the unrealized dimensions of personal freedom locked within the confines of the human imagination. For this reason, Americans are always looking beyond themselves, beyond where they exist today.
I tried to capture this dynamism in a letter I wrote recently to Senator Barack Obama. It was written within the context of US public diplomacy. The following paragraphs are from that 4,000 word letter:
“… but there is more. Effective public diplomacy requires a process of renewal at home. For “telling America’s story to the world” — a phrase which denotes public diplomacy — is powerful only because it is true. But it can only remain true and powerful if America never stops rewriting the story it has to tell.
“The story of America is no simple narrative. Every period of its history is dynamic and dramatic. Whether it be the Revolutionary period, the Westward movement, the Civil War, the tides of immigration, the women’s suffrage movement, the labor movement, the civil rights movement, the women’s liberation movement, the gay rights movement, or the environmental movement – all phases of American history represent heroic struggles to give shape and substance to the universal notions of personal dignity, individual freedom, and human solidarity.
“Thus the struggle for the future of freedom never ends. It requires that everyday, someone, somewhere applies their creative energies to challenge the old order and replace it with the new. It requires this to happen in business and science, politics and law, cinema and television, music and sports, education and news, and on and on. America’s story, like its promise, is that of a nation on the march holding high the banner of dignity, freedom, and solidarity. It is a dynamic and living spectacle giving inspiration and hope to all mankind. To remain vital in the world, America must struggle to remain vital here at home, particularly in this Information Age where news in the City of New Orleans, or about a high school known as Columbine, is instantly news everywhere around the globe.
“Truth demands the story of America to be told, “warts and all.” But the story of America is also a story of what we permit and what we do not; it is a matter of the spirit and its intrinsic yearnings. From that vantage point, the world is constantly watching. It sets standards for America that are always high. The question now being asked by individuals and populations the world over is this: “Will America be a self-obsessed nation, pre-occupied with its hedonistic and utilitarian concerns? Or, will America be a hope and inspiration for the rest of mankind?”
“Given this, America’s enduring challenge is to judge wisely. Poor judgment is America’s Achilles Heel. To respond authentically, America must be mindful of that silent voice of conscience within its heart. We must ask ourselves continually: “Is the example we radiate to the world today worthy of the inscription Frederic Bartholdi placed on his statue in New York Harbor: Liberty Enlightening the World? Would Lady Liberty be proud?
“Clearly, it is time to revisit the transcendent interrogatories of the American drama: 1) “What kind of people shall we choose to become?” 2) “What kind of America shall we choose to create?” and 3) “What kind of example shall we allow America to project to the world?” These questions denote moral and intellectual challenges. They reveal that America’s security is intrinsically connected to the power of its example. If America’s example falters here at home – if we cease the struggle to make incarnate personal dignity, individual freedom, and human solidarity for all Americans — surely our collective security will be substantially diminished overseas.”
Donald says: “the name of Obama’s Rove is David Axlerod.”
If there were any substance to your allegation of moral equivalence, it would already be manifest in the 2008 presidential campaign. Clearly, it is not to be found. Indeed, the absence of such Machiavellianism has been a subject of ongoing criticism by political experts, pundits, and the MSM.
Others, including Ted Sorenson (jFK’s speechwriter), are not surprised by Obama’s success. To them, the formula “the end justifies the means” has never been a prescription for sound political leadership. And the reason is simple. Such tactics are beneath the dignity and aspirations of this great nation.
It may come as a surprise to you but not everyone in America is motivated by the kind of soul-destroying treachery as has been exhibited by the likes of Dent, Atwater, and Rove.
Daniel says: “I would agree that surviving Illinois/Chicago politics suggests that Obama knows dirty politics.”
He is also aware of the antidote to dirty politics. His success is evidence of that.
Great post, Gerald. I never knew of Atwater’s repentence, which is quite wonderful, and an example of how grace works in the world. And yes… go Obama!
MM,
Plato said the State is Man writ large. With that in mind, it would be tragic if the American people were persuaded they had to conduct their affairs following the advice of men like Dent, Atwater, and Rove. For when History came to the final chapter on America, Truth would require it to write something akin to Atwater’s final confession.
We, as individuals and as a nation, can do better than that. It is within us to do better.
I advise everyone to read Pericles Funeral Oration. It speaks to our current predicament more forcefully than most would imagine.
The Achilles Heel of America lies in its tendency to subscribe to the belief that “the end justifies the means.” This is a logical outcome of the Nominalist/Voluntarist underpinnings that cast its influence on America and the modern mind. While our national conversation too often reflects a quarrel about ends there is little critical analysis of the proper and intrinsic proportionality that needs to exist in the relationship between means and ends.
We tend to act as though means were neutral in regards to the outcomes we seek. But, as I’ve indicated, the ends that ensue are nothing more than a reflection of the means used to obtain those ends. This is why Dent, Atwater, and Rove are so dangerous. In the end, they offer the promise of power and wealth. But they don’t offer dignity, freedom, or solidarity. Thus the outcomes they engineer are self-destructive. Always. Nothing endures.
Thomistic ethics affirms the primacy of the intellect over the will. This is why its center of gravity is called “practical reason.” It involves an analysis of the principles inherent in the means and the ends and analyzes their proportionality. Popular discussion, on the other hand, places emphasis on “choosing the good” as though it existed apart from the means used to obtain it (Voluntarism). This leads to the Achilles Heel I mentioned above. While such form of debate is popular, it has practical validity only in topsy-turvy land.
“It may come as a surprise to you but not everyone in America is motivated by the kind of soul-destroying treachery as has been exhibited by the likes of Dent, Atwater, and Rove.”
Total rubbish. Your post boils down to “The guys on the other side are devils, and the guys I support are angels, notwithstanding any evidence to the contrary”. Gerald if you truly are this terminally naive, rather than merely disingenuous, you are in for a very rude awakening.
Donald says: “Your post boils down to “The guys on the other side are devils, and the guys I support are angels, notwithstanding any evidence to the contrary.”
Judging from what you’ve written thus far, I would have to say your failure to comprehend my argument is undisguised.
All one has to do is look at the campaign between Adams and Jackson to see that dirty politics has a long history in America. Anyone who denies this is deluded. Atwater did nothing to start it nor did Clinton’s pilfering 800+ FBI files.
You know, I just started reading this site again after not reading it for several months, and I have to say, I find it funny. Sam Brownback is regarded as a dangerous hypocrite who should never speak again because he supports John McCain, who wants to limit child murder with an exception for rape.
Barack Obama has consistently voted to make sure as many babies are murdered as possible, voting against every possible limit that came across his desk, and people here can’t wait to anoint him the new Christ.
While I’ve never agreed with the position that says one can only vote for a candidate that is completely against abortion, regardless of the candidate’s stances on any other issue, certainly abortion needs to be high on the list. And when you have a guy who consistently votes for as many abortions as possible, to the point where he’ll against bills that even NARAL doesn’t oppose, you have to say “gee, maybe this isn’t just not in line with Church teaching, he’s actively and vociferously opposed to it.” If there’s any spiritual vacuum, it’s the one that allows some like Obama to become a secular Messiah, and Obama is merely a symptom, not a cure.
I think Donald got it right posting that Obama is a Rorschach test. He’s simply an empty suit with a good speaking voice, but nothing to say, except of course, change! What kind of change, he’s never gotten very specific about, except of course, the need to make sure as many children are murdered as possible.
[...] and this is certainly the best part of his campaign, he is promoting a society which looks beyond politics and the political candidate; he wants exactly what Pope Benedict expressed – a society where [...]