Nietzsche on Morality from Beyond Good and Evil:

It sometimes happens in the realm of the stars that two suns determine the orbit of a planet, and in some cases suns of different colours cast their lights around a single planet, sometimes red light, sometimes green light, and then again lighting it both at once, flooding it with colours. In the same way we modern men, thanks to the complicated mechanics of our "starry heaven," are determined by different moralities-our actions change their lights into different colours. They are rarely unambiguous. And there are enough cases where our actions have many colours.

A man with genius is unendurable if he does not also possess at least two things: gratitude and cleanliness.

And this isn't altogether that original or inspiring. But think for a moment; the reason why Rove is such a myth is because of nonsense like this.

There should never be a time where the words "Rove" and "Good and Evil" should be used together in the same sentence. Trying to extrapolate metaphysical truths from political organizers is a bit much for my tastes.

And may I just say, the continuing habit of reducing All Things Bush into half-words (such as "wid us er again us") and the vastly excessive use of the word/phrase "heckuva" proves nothing but the immaturity of the author and the lack of depth of understanding of the subject matter.

I must be doing my job.

You underestimate the svengali nature of Karl Rove, or the metaphisical damage his politics of hatred have caused the fabric of our nation.

Nietzche said "Madness in individuals is rare, but in groups, parties, nations it is the rule." and nobody abused that fact more than Karl Rove in his  mad drive for power.

In the end, he tried to light a fire in the American spirit, but he had nothing but moist embers to offer, nothing that could endure...  He was a nightengale singing, hoping to hear others return the song, but none came.  Another quote from Beyond Good and Evil:

The disappointed man:  I listened for an echo, but heard only praise.

Rove's song never reached the soul of America.  Nothing in Bush Republicanism will endure.  The sweep of his 50%+1 governance will vanish from the earth, and will remain a greater failure than the triumph of the Taliban in Afghanistan or our Billion dollar investment in Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

You've only made me mildly annoyed at how obtuse you are.

I happen to believe that the country is much more resilient than you do. I also happen to believe that Karl Rove worked out of a normal office with a normal desk and a normal staff, not in a secret lair stroking a white cat, twirling his moustache mischievously, cackling throughout the night as lightening plagued the darkness outside.

Yet another ad hominem attack.  So, when somebody disagrees with you - which almost everybody on this site does - your only recourse is to insult them, not to confront their argument?  Given that you've been warned previously, is there any good reason why you shouldn't be banned from this site?

This is the only ad hominem attack I've ever made. I challenge you to find another. As you say, almost everyone on the site disagrees with me, and yet I've responded to all of them until now respectfully.

And I disagree that I did not confront his argument. He claims that the country is in tatters and "will take a generation to recover" from the "proto-facism" of this "un-American" President. Heavy-handed language aside, I think the country is a lot more resilient than he does, and I stated so. That is my primary counter-point. The rest of my post used hyperbole to match the OP's hyperbole with which he judges the soon-to-be-former Deputy WH Chief of Staff.

most strongly.  That's not the problem, but when you attack a good friend of mine it really makes me mad.  If you want to keep commenting here, despite the fact that almost everyone disagrees with you on just about everything, go right ahead.  But if you start attacking people, that's a different story.

It was not a good idea, and I won't again. I still disagree, however, that I "resorted" to personal attack because I had nothing else to offer. If you'll notice how many threads on this site that I *don't* post in, if I don't have anything to offer, I don't offer it.

Thank you.

It was said that Rove could not look at a sunset without thinking of its political significance. I think that's the next best thing to scheming in a dark lair; scheming morning, noon, evening, and night, on weekends, and no doubt in his sleep. Certainly when one is obsessed to this degree it is beyond human, it is madness, perhaps demonic.

Especially in the blogosphere, who consider the political implications of everything. I wouldn't consider that a demonic trait. And if the Democratic version of Rove acted in the same way, looking to turn everything into a political advantage for the Democrats, he would be lauded at every turn on sites such as this.

I have no problem with a political operative trying to "turn everything into a political advantage" for his or her side.  That's the job of a political operative, after all.  The problem with Rove is that he has no soul, no conscience, no moral core.  And he's willing to do anything, without any scruples (and against Republicans or Democrats) to get his guy elected.  Hence, the adjective "Rovian," usually modifying "scare tactics."

That Karl Rove has "no soul, no conscience, and no moral core"?

...that why I wrote that.  Do you honestly believe he DOES?!?

have a soul, but that it's evil.  Also, he might have a seriously warped morality, just like his boss.

According to most religious and other teachings it is immoral to "bear false witness", i.e. to lie. Of course Democrats have done the same. That doesn't mean its ok or that Karl doesn't lie. The type of lies in which Karl specializes are hurtful to the personal reputation of others, not just about policy. If they were about policy or a voting record the lies could easily be disproven, but because they are about personal history, they are harder to refute, and they are more destructive.

In short, Karl's focus on destroying people instead of fighting on grounds of issues is what makes him evil. If you believe in most world wide standards for morality Karl certainly has proven himself to be immoral, not once, not twice, but as a matter of course, over and over again. In other words he does not err by accident, as many of us do, but deliberately, and apparently joyfully.

which you deride here are very much the same half words that were intentionally crafted by Bush, Rove, and others in order to create a simple guy-next-door image for Bush.  They were used in order to speak (actually, speak down) directly to a segment of the population who would help "Dubya" get elected and reelected. 

Words like "heckuva" were callously used by Bush in a transparent attempt to make the population believe Mike Brown (and as an extension the Bush administration) was doing good work in New Orleans - while anyone with a television could see the desperate situation in the Superdome and convention center right behind Dubya and Brownie.

How about declaring "mission accomplished" two months into a war that has lasted more than four years?  Arrogance?  Yes.  Lack of understanding the true situation and culture?  Certainly.  Political manipulation and grandstanding?  Absolutely.

If you have a problem with these words your anger should be directed at those who introduced them with the sole purpose of political manipulation regardless of cost or truth - which is I believe is the main point of this post.

We won the war.  But everything that could be accomplished by military means in Iraq ended with major combat operations.

Everything since then has been this failed president's failed corporatist occupation of incompatible factions within a civil war. 

I love giving Zell Miller ulcers.

or of other Republican doughboys such as Alberto Gonzales, J. Scott Jennings, or D. Kyle Sampson, I am reminded of one of Orwell's passages:

It was curious how that beetle-like type proliferated in the Ministries: little dumpy men, growing stout very early in life, with short legs, swift scuttling movements, and fat inscrutable faces with very small eyes. It was the type that seemed to flourish best under the dominion of the Party.

--George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

How apropos!  I, too, have noticed this anomaly.  Please add Bradley Schlozman to the list. 

Bradley Schlozman is hereby added to the Rovian Doughboy Dishonor Roll.

and the uses of power. Therefore, every human relationship has an element of power in it, regardless of whether it is a public institution or a marriage, a business or two acquaintances, because one party always has more power than the other. That is to say, the existence of power is inevitable in any human relationship.

It is Mr. Rove's genius to understand this and to seek always to be the party with the superior power position, and then exploit it to gain more power and impose his will, his view of the world. I find it interesting that his reach for power is condemned when in fact every single one of us engages in some sense in power struggles, whether love or war. He deservedly has an unsavory reputation, and he did not always achieve total success but, let's be honest here, he is modern times' Niccolo Machiavelli... in my opinion, he achieved his wonders using a much blunter instrument than Ceasar Borgia, who was Machiavelli's preferred instrument, so perhaps Rove could therefore be called even more expert than Mac.

And his Machiavellian achievements were driven by undermining the constitution in myriad ways.  The politicization of the Justice Department is likely the true reason for his resignation.  Most likely he'll get put away for what he did in Alabama, but that's the least of his crimes.

It'll take a generation to resurrect the goodness and decency of America after this Bush/Rove disaster.

The moment George Washington declined titles like "king" and "dictator", was the moment that defined Bush Republicanism as un-American.

I decry unbridled executive power for the same reason that all true patriots do, because Aristocracy (conservatism) is the antithesis of Democracy.

I have nothing nice to say about this cabal, but these are not "Evil" men. Each in their own way are seriously flawed and corrupted leaders enamored by their own power to "Decide". Power corrupts and these guys have never been held directly accountable.

Americans put them into these positions of "special trust and confidence" with the election of Dubya.

Let's hope we "Don't get Fooled Again" ...

Those of us who lived through this age of proto-fascism under the Bush Republicans are responsible for it.  No matter how hard we fought against this corrupt age, we let it happen.  We must never let this happen again.

yes, never again! Democracy is perhaps the one system of governance that requires both an educated populace and an adult electorate, adult in the sense of mature responsibility, not so much calendar age. In other words, demoracy is not a spectator sport, it demands active participation from a lot of people, many of whom are, well, lazy (at least about "the public thing").

One of Rove's achievements was encouraging this laziness, the feeling of "why bother" to vote since nothing I do can make a difference, it's all just politics. While at the same time he suppressed minority voting he sedulously encouraged voting from his developing base in the evangelical community, which gladly followed their pastors' orders on how to vote. This voter manipulation has been combined with the distractions (modern bread and circuses) offered by conservative-dominated mass media's tabloid approach in programming, and the hugely promoted sports extravaganzas, so that voters increasingly opted out of political participation--- oh, and, of course, there is the wildly encouraged consumption binge economy ("go shopping so the terrorists don't win"). Who has time to vote, much less prticipate in the process?  Especially when you increasingly have to work two or three jobs just to keep your head above water? 

None of this is going to change just because Rove departed. Conservative owners of media, the consumption economy, the bread and circuses, even the pervasive disgust with politics and mistrust of government--- all are still in place. Some part of this fabric has got to change, and change fast, or democracy and the American experiment will, like past republics and past democracies, end.

Do we live in the same country? Do you *honestly* believe that this country will end because of Karl Rove?

and George W. Bush have not done tremendous damage to our country in their 6 1/2 years in office?

But even that's besides the point. Don't get me wrong, I don't like a lot of what Bush has done, but even if I did disagree with him to the extent that you do, or to the extent that "Grey Heavens" does, I don't think its so great that we have to look around at ourselves and say "Can we even move forward?" Of course we can, and of course we will, even if a Republican is elected in 2008.

The matter here that I personally believe is the issue, and its something that I've noticed during the last year as I've become active on liberal blogs (DKos, MyDD, etc.) is that liberal activists think the country is on the brink of total destruction. Everybody else, like my friends, even my liberal friends, think Bush is an idiot, but their life hasn't changed one iota from before Bush's presidency, and it won't change one iota with who the next President is. You read things on Daily Kos like a mother (allegedly) openly weeping and saying she hugged her daughter "extra tightly" because of the recent Supreme Court ruling on abortion. You read posts who, either for literary purposes or out of their own paranoia, believe that the Secret Service will be knocking on their door for posting a diary. You have people who believe that Bush won't leave office on January 20th, 2009. You read posts like this, and wonder if we're living in the United States or a bad 1930s horror movie. I think that Rove's influence on this country is massively overblown. I think the Bush Administration's quote "crimes" against this country are largely imagined, and I think that the only link between Democratic activists who only want to get thier guys elected and new-age philosophers who warn in dark omens and Nostradomus-esque poems about the (G)reat (W)andering (B)east is a common enemy.

I'm sorry I missed that poem. Does kinda fit our boy Dubya.

Yes, life will go on regardless. And I agree, Mr. Rove worked at a desk in an office, and, I expect Mr. Bush even with the noblest of intentions is convinced he has the best interests of Western civilization at heart. But, as you well know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the worst of results may simply be unintended consequences--- but it is still bad, and it has been bad over and over.

I agree with General Patton: I am unable to distinguish between bad luck and incompetence. That also goes for evil intentions and repeated, if accidental, malfeasance. Shredding the Constitution, cronyism, secrecy, lies, torture as national policy all have established a new kind of America, and there is no way we will ever be able to return to status quo B.B.(before Bush)--- not that we have not indulged in torture or ignored habeas corpus before in our brief history, but this time represents a far deeper disconnect with what can be called the American promise, the American story. That disconnect results from a combination of Rove, Bush, and Cheney, a dark triumvirate if ever there was one.

It will take concerted effort over an extended period of time to re-establish the basic American system of checks and balance, restrained executive, and Bill of Rights enforcement, not to mention re-establishing public trust in government and public participation in the process.  I include in that effort not just progressives but moderates and old-fashioned conservatives (like, I would say, you).  Pretending it is a small matter is disrespectful of the situation.  Perhaps the progressives may be overstating the case, but it is simply in order to get your attention.  Too bad it has to be that way.

I would like to believe that the goal of liberal activists is to try and reach across the aisle. I don't think that's the case, though. In many situations, especially on an all-liberal site such as DKos or Democratic Underground, in order to stand out, or in order to appear "edgy" or above the crowd, you have to go further into the ideology. In the case of those sites, it means go further and further to the left extreme. Its a case of groupthink. When 100,000 people the same thing, it becomes the status quo middle ground, and the people dedicated to being "left of center" go even further.

I don't believe that the Constitution has been shredded. I don't believe that our policy on torture is any different than it has been for the last 30 years; only now it is in the light of day. I don't believe that checks and balances are gone--in inability of this Administration to pass any of its policy priorities is proof of that. I don't believe that the Bill of Rights is not enforced, and I don't believe that the lack of public trust in government should be laid at the feet of George Bush. I pay as close attention as you do. I read the same news. Perhaps its ideology, but I don't think George Bush is an evil man, and I don't think he's done evil things.

and to help advance Progressivism as the dominant American political ideology.  Of course, that means defeating Conservatism, which I believe has a few positive aspects but overall has been subverted by the far right wing, especially the Falwell/Robertson wing. 

As far as Bush being "evil," let's go to the dictionary:

e·vil  (vl)
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

OK, so let's go down the list.

1. I'd say that Bush is definitely "morally bad or wrong."  I wouldn't say he's an "evil tyrant," although based on his public statements he apparently would LIKE to be.

2. No doubt about this one: Bush has caused tremendous injury, pain, harm, and ruin during his 6 1/2 years in office.  Katrina, Iraq, the environment, the constitution, you name it.

3. Definitely ominous...who knows what stupidity we'll see in the remaining 16 months?

4. Definitely blameworthy, unless you believe that Bush simply has no clue what's going on.  I believe "the buck stops here."

5. I don't know about Bush's temper, and I can't read into his heart and soul (as he did with Putin), so I'll pass on this one.

In sum, Bush fits many of the criteria for the dictionary definition of "evil."  The only question in my mind is a matter of degree.

to reasonable Republicans like Russ Potts.  Unfortunately, as Potts himself said back in February, there aren't many of those left anymore:

I was fortunate enough to be a part of the REAL Republican renaissance, of a Republican Party that was a party of ideas, which is not the case today.  The definition of a quote real Republican has been altered so much that we would barely recognize what a Reagan or Eisenhower Republican looks like.  I wear that banner proudly.  And though we are a vanishing breed, there are still a few of us left who believe in governing from the middle.

I'd be happy to work with the latter, but not with right-wing radcials like Bush, or people who believe that Bush has been a  perfectly fine President.  I really have very little to say to those sadly misguided people.

as those who will not see" said my Northern Grandmother.

First to Rove's impact on America... Rove could not have been successful if the rifts he exploited were not present in the populace.  He just took advantage of what was already there.  Those rifts were the same ones that Reagan and his team exploited.  Rove is simply the ultimate realization of Nixon-Reagan politics.  And are they evil because they capitalize on the frustrations of some Americans in order to win elections?  They are just trying to forward their ideas, is that so wrong?  ;)

I also think you may be romanticizing the past.  Americans and American politics were not good and decent pre-Rove.  Rove was only novel in that he refined and implemented previous strategies with great effectiveness.  And American politics will not suddenly become good and decent because of Rove's departure from the Whitehouse, though we may have witnessed the peak of partisanship.

Also, I would stay away from never again.  Rove is not dead nor are the ideas and strategies that he refined.  Temporarily Americans may be fed up with that style, but Americans also have short attention spans and are generally ignorant of American history.  So, I doubt Rove's style will be out of vogue forever. 

Last, evil is such a strong, relative judgment.  Why is it necessary or useful to classify Karl Rove as evil?

Just askin'.

And I was responding to the totality of the post and the subsequent comments to it.

You, The Grey Havens, stated the following: "...the desire for power drove a brilliant mind to divide the greatest nation on earth..."
"Rove's song never reached the soul of America.  Nothing in Bush Republicanism will endure."
"It'll take a generation to resurrect the goodness and decency of America after this Bush/Rove disaster."

Those correspond to my first, third and second paragraphs respectively. 

And a recurring theme was evil as a classification.  So, my lasy paragraph was just a rhetorical question.

There's a strong urge to classify Rove as "evil", and my assertion is that this is neither useful, nor informative.

The fact that he is a failure, is much more satisfying and accurate, the fact that his actions continue to endanger the US Constitution much more important to realize, and the fact that he committed treason and should be tried for this and many other crimes points to effective positive action that we as a nation must pursue.

Who cares if he's evil.  What's much more important is that he betrayed his country for a dream that will never be realized, that he is a criminal who must be brought to justice, and that  America must work to put the Conservative/Rove/Bush era behind us in order to rebuild constitutional power.

The pursuit of justice is always more powerful than the pursuit of vengeance or the deluded pursuit of an exorcism.

classifying people as "evil?"  I'm not saying that Rove IS evil, just wondering what your criteria would be to ratchet him up from "bad," let's say, to "really really bad" or even "evil?"  Thanks.

Classifying individual politicians and their operatives as evil is not a successful tactic for bridging the divide.  It does however reinforce polarity, which is the very tactic that Mr. Rove so effectively utilized.  If you encourage people to project what is wrong in the world onto one person or party, then you can motivate them to get to the polls and contribute money to campaigns.  That may indeed still be a successful strategy.  So, they may very well be useful in achieving certain goals.

The consequences of such divisive politics we have born witness to and continue to experience to this day.  I don't think the consequences, ineffective government being one of them, are desirable.  I also don't think that such classifications are necessary in order to forward a particular argument.  And they may in fact isolate individuals who might otherwise be receptive to what you have to say.

Last and most importantly, good and evil are binary classifications.  They neglect that people are more complex than the mear emphemeral observations we have of them.  And ultimately who am I to pass such judgement on someone without the benefit of their entire life's experience? 

And if you meet this particular brand of Republican hate-monger in the middle, you have given up the fight, and all for nothing, because they're not going to compromise no matter what you do.  It's a lesson Nancy Pelosi is learning as we speak.  It's far better to stick to principle and trust that the public will eventually come around, as they are now doing.

From Goebbels, to Lee Atwater, Newt, to Karl Rove, the acceptance of their ideas -- "blame the Jews, the Gypsies, the non Aryans,"  "blame the liberals" -- is the peoples' fault, not the agitator.

In Germany, the people were frustrated because of a rampant monetary crisis (postage stamps costing 5 billion marks, for example), then a depression, and the populace was ready for any scapegoat offered; even then it took time for the ideas to catch on.  And into the land  of philosophers  and composers came the concentration camps.

Here, we are NOT in a depression, and overall the nation staggers forward year to year, president to president, believing, rich and poor alike, that we are the best nation on earth, and we spend to show it.  Yet, we too, nevertheless, accepted the branding of liberals as traitors, until we were afraid (until recently) to admit in public that we are on the left of the right.  We are succeptable to propoganda  because (1) people have base instincts that can be appealed to; (2) people are unread and uneducated, despite degrees, and lack any sense of logical argument; (3) people are selfish and spoiled and coddled from birth to middle age, with only the very poor excluded, and (4) people are unwilling to fight for ideals if we can get others to fight for them.

If this argument is acceptable, why shouldn't Rove, Atwater, Newt, have taken advantage of the opportunities presented them?  Politically, what a gift.  As to the baseness of people, I always ask myself, why should anyone have voted for Bush over Gore, thereby foregoing the growing and continued decrease of crime, the increase in DECENT jobs, the rising employment even in the inner cities (now, again, disaster areas), the great economy, the unbelievable balanced budget, the surplus, and even, maybe, a lock box! I can only conclude that Red states voted for reasons other than the above, voted with their hearts rather than their brain.  And I truly believe that, without getting into religious or racial issues, I know the reasons of those hearts, and I believe they are the manifestation of baseness.

So, I blame neither Rove, nor Atwater (may wherever he rests have fire extinguishers handy) nor Newt.  This is not a matter of Evil; this is the nature of us, a nature we have had for a million years, and one that no superego can surpress indefinitely.

Industrial age aristocracy is always bent towards fascism when there is not a mystical monarchy to drive it towards beneficent dictatorship.