Rove
If one wishes to assess Karl Rove's legacy, two questions leap to mind: 1) what was his influence on politics; 2) was he successful in the goals he set for himself?
I would like to focus on the second question first, because every time you hear about the "genius" of Karl Rove, keep in mind that that reputation is based on keeping George Bush and Republicans in office. But Rove's ultimate political goal has always been to create a long-term, if not permanent, Republican majority. And that goal fell victim to Rove's political strategy almost from the get-go. Obviously Rove's tactics were designed to divide people as much as possible, which ensured that victories would be razor-thin but sufficient to hold onto power. So how can you say you were successful in building a Republican majority when you only win elections with 51% or in last year's case, don't win them at all? What impresses about Rove is his ability to squeeze out every last vote to just barely win. But that is hardly a strategy for the future, particularly when that tactic no longer works (again, the 2006 election). I have to judge Rove a failure by his own goal of building a Republican majority. He has instead handed the Democrats the keys to the castle, if they can figure out how to use them.
So in the end Rove's influence on politics is really the relevant question, and clearly his influence has been horrible for the country. The ugliness of his political tactics aside, he has contributed to Republican politics the notion that you can win solely by playing to the fears and insecurities of your constituents. Whether its God, guns, gays, the war on terror or good old disenfranchisement, the Rove method is simply to get that 51% no matter the cost. Not only was any sense of unity in the American people shattered to make way for factional politics, the GOP was steamrolled over as well. So not only did he not achieve his goal of a Republican majority, he also crippled their future chances for one by pigeonholing Republican candidates into having to please the 30% club before anyone else.
I might add, speculatively of course, that Rove's victories were also the product of golden opportunities and luck. After all, Al Gore won the 2000 election and Bush was appointed by a Supreme Court vote. Perhaps Rove had some role in the missing Florida voter rolls or the agitprop astroturf campaign designed to disrupt the recount, but those dirty tricks hardly bespeak "genius." Similarly, bush would have been nothing without 9/11. Nothing. What a golden opportunity to build support around Republicans with the country united near-unanimously around the president. But coalition-building wasn't the result. Instead jingoism led to 2002 electoral pickups for the GOP, with winning candidates denouncing their opponents as traitors and wimps every step of the way (i.e. Max Cleland). This same strategy was employed in 2004 and was successful enough to win that 51%, shady dealings in Ohio aside. That year also marked a number of retirements, mostly from southern Dixicrats who were seamlessly replaced by southern Republicans. Picking up seats in the south for the GOP is not a magic trick. The candidates merely need to show up. And by 2006 Rove's brilliant strategy led to a Democratic landslide in Congress.
I'm not impressed by Bush's brain. He seems to have accomplished the exact opposite of his goals. So bear these thoughts in mind when pundits celebrate Rove's supposed genius and enjoy the future subpoenas and indictments, should they come.