Karl Rove has an op-ed in today’s WSJ entitled, “The GOP Must Stand for Something.”
I followed the link to it from memeorandum mostly so as to make a “now he wants to stand for something” comment. After reading the piece, though, the thing that stands out is that it doesn’t tell us what the GOP should stand for. Or, indeed, talk about public policy in anything but the most tangential way, such as, “John McCain and Republicans will prevail only if they convince voters that there are profound consequences at stake in Iraq, and that more and better jobs will follow from the GOP’s approach of lowering taxes, opening trade, and ending earmarks and other pro-growth policies.” So, what’s important isn’t actually standing for something but, rather, drawing vague contrasts.
The string of defeats [in recent congressional elections] should cure Republicans of the habit of simply shouting “liberal! liberal! liberal!” in hopes of winning an election. They need to press a reform agenda full of sharp contrasts with the Democrats.
But, of course, Rove’s legacy is precisely the opposite of that. Indeed, the editorial advises a continuation of Rovism while denouncing it.
