Rove: I'm Not That Stupid Defense genre: Polispeak & Six Degrees of Speculation
Ah, yes, when all else fails there is the “that would have been stupid defense". It appears that Karl Rove has chosen this to be a piece of his final efforts to avoid indictment. I’ve always found the very notion of this defense flawed. The premise of the defense is that smart people wouldn’t do stupid things or make decisions that could rationally be expected to lead to negative consequences. In Rove’s case, as I understand the issue, the argument is being used to explain an oversight to reveal all the details of his conversation with Matt Cooper (specifically the part about Valerie Plame)…in essence he simply forgot that portion of the conversation but to lie would have been stupid…and Rove knows people don’t think he is stupid.
The unspoken assertion by those who use this defense (Tom DeLay comes to mind) is that they may use their intelligence to walk right up to the line, but they are also smart enough to never cross that line…basically they know the rules so well they can navigate them like a skilled tightrope walker. On the surface it sounds reasonable and plausible.
Unfortunately, history often seems to contradict this defense and the premise upon which it is founded. That’s not to say these individuals are stupid…they are actually quite bright. However, what people may miss is an understanding that whatever these people possess in terms of smarts sometimes pales in comparison to the zeal with which they seek wealth, prestige, or power. In essence, smart people, not unlike others who lie and manipulate, are not above self-deceit in order to augment lofty goals, obtuse egos, and an unbridled hunger for power.
In the end, it’s a mistake to evaluate these situations on the basis of the individual’s intelligence…and historically juries often don’t. It’s not difficult to understand that a jury also evaluates where arrogance, greed and the desire for power sit in relation to intelligence. One’s desire for the former has a direct impact upon the amount of intelligence that is applied to any particular activity to achieve the latter.
The mathematical genius who abandons math for theater is not necessarily stupid. He is simply motivated by other interests and the application of his intellect may or may not be the dominating part of his life equation. Those who know this individual may know that he is smart but they may also know that a passion for theater, despite its failure to be a reasonable and rational calculation, is able to override the application of intelligence. He may well fail in theater while still being a very smart man.
Why would anyone assume the actions of politicians are any different? A better analysis of how these individuals and their scandals unfold is described by the “choose your poison principle"…what compels; controls. In looking at Karl Rove there is little doubt he is passionate and motivated. His history is littered with demonstrations of aggressively pursuing his objectives. To presume he would never cross the line, given his obvious intensity, would shift the use of the “that would be stupid defense" to Patrick Fitzgerald and a full Grand Jury. That would likely require a lot of smart people to look stupid. Is Karl Rove smart enough to pull that off? Perhaps.
Daniel DiRito | April 27, 2006 | 9:08 AM
Comments
1 On April 27, 2006 at 12:35 PM, Brad Eleven wrote —
Brilliant. It follows that it is possible to believe in something--to the depths of one's sould--and still fail to live up to it.
I've heard the tales of Rove being motivated solely by hatred, after having been beaten up (or at least embarrassingly dominated) by a girl whom he still identifies as a Democrat.
Regardless of the actual source(s) of Karl's hatred, let us consider what life is like for someone motivated by hatred--and for those who are impacted by its manifestation. I'm not blaming Rove for anything, e.g., the abiding climate of partisan hate. If anyone is to blame, it is the people who see the results of Rovian tactics and demand these results without consideration of the consequences.
It would appear that the GOP has a foolproof strategy. For some of its members, this is apparently the only strategy, given the preponderance of fools, incompetents, and people who are really only good at raising money. If this is so--if the GOP has broken the code for staying in power--then what is the remedy? Shall the Democrats (and all other would-be challengers) adopt the same tack?
I don't think so. The GOP (and the Bush administration, by extention) is not engaged in strategic planning. It is churning as fast as it can to crank out short-sighted tactical moves. It looks to me like the chickens are coming home to roost in such high numbers that they can't all be shot before they land.
Karl Rove? I predict a lucrative consulting career, funded by questionable sources. If only Rod Serling was the narrator: Then we'd see some irony.
2 On April 27, 2006 at 1:57 PM, Daniel wrote —
Brad,
You are absolutely right to place some of the blame on those who approve of the extreme partisan hatred.
I don't believe the Democrats should adopt the same strategy. I still believe there is a rational moderate middle in America that is larger than either extreme and that is hungry for some reasonable dialogue. I wish the nominating process wasn't so skewed to the extremes because I believe that the middle ends up disenchanted by the time the candidates are chosen.
Thank you for your comments and I hope to hear more of your thoughts.
Daniel
Trackback Pings
© Copyright 2024
Post a comment