Karl Rove

Karl Rove's comments from the other day are stirring up a lot of controversy. In particular this bit, as reported in the New York Post Online Edition::

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban. In the wake of 9/11, the liberals believed it was time to submit a petition. I'm not joking. Submitting a petition was precisely what Moveon.org, then known as 9/11peace.org did. You may have seen it in The New York Times or The Washington Post, the San Francisco Examiner or the L.A. Times. (Funny, I didn't see it in the Amarillo Globe News.)

Charges of hypocrisy are flying around from both sides, with Conservatives claiming Liberals are hippocrits because they are condemning these remarks but did not condemn Durbin's and Liberals claiming exactly the reverse. Politicians being hippocrits is neither new, nor particularly interesting as far as I am concerned. I take it as a given that that will happen. However, I think it is interesting to examine the two statements for similarities and differences. I will try to do so in a fair manner, and not let my own political preferences show. First off, lets look at how the statements were similar. Both Rove and Durbin made claims of questionable accuracy. Certainly not all liberals believed that 9/11 deserved a petition, not a military response and as most are aware Guantanamo is quite different in conduct, scale and certainly lethality than the brutal regimes Durbin mentioned. I do not think it particularly useful to try and decide which is more untruthful or dishonest. Let us simply leave accept that neither statement is totally honest. There are some signifigant differences between the two statements though. First off is the forum they were speaking at. Dick Durbin made his statements on Senate floor, as part of the public record, while Rove was addressing the New York State Conservative Party dinner. This is, I believe, a signifigant difference. Another difference is in the subject matter of the two speeches. Karl Rove was talking about his political ideology and the opposing ideology, Durbin was talking about U.S. policy and the actions our Armed Forces were taking. We somewhat expect, and frequently encounter, distortions of an opponents political beliefs. This certainly is a bi-partisan practice, and while something we should perhaps condemn, is not something we commonly demand an apology for. Usually the correct response to such distortions is considered to be to refute such charges. We more or less expect politics to be somewhat 'rough and tumble.' However, we also expect our politicians to honor our basic institutions, particularly the men and women who volunteer to serve our country. This may or may not be a fair distinction, but it is one that we more or less commonly accept. The last difference that I see is the reletive importance of the two subjects. I expect that there will always be contention between Liberal and Conservative ideologies. We will forever be debating what the proper solution to various problems is based upon our political predilections. Liberals will assume the worst motives and outcomes of Conservative proposals and Conservative will do the reverse. Simply put, the subject matter of Rove's speech was unimportant. Dealing with 'enemy combatants' on the other hand is an important responsibility of our time. We need to answer the fundamental questions of how to treat these people and maintain our security. Durbin brought up a very important topic, and I think he also brought up some very important information about that topic. He then felt the need to engage in some over the top rhetoric, presumably as an exercise in political theatre. He hampered, rather than fostered a very important debate. Further, his inititial refusal to apologize continued to hamper that debate. Certainly, those who spent their time calling for an apology didn't help matters, and that didn't help the debate either, but the initial opening of this can of worms was Durbin's, and the response to his words was entirely predictable. I was not one of those calling for Durbin's apology. I preferred to ignore his statement, because I felt it was not helpful to an important debate that we needed to have. I did laud him for making the apology when he did so however. Whether Karl Rove apoligizes or does not, it will not substantially change the nature of politics. I won't say whether Rove should apologize or not. As far as I am concerned that is up to him. I certainly will encourage any Liberals who disagree with his remarks to present their case as to why what he said is inaccurate.