[tag]Matthew Dowd[/tag] has traveled a strange and circuitous political journey. A top strategist for Texas Democrats in the 1990s, Dowd left the party in 1999 to join [tag]George W. Bush[/tag]’s campaign team. He bought into the “uniter-not-divider” rhetoric and became a key [tag]Bush[/tag] insider, eventually becoming the president’s chief campaign strategist for the 2004 campaign.
And now, [tag]Dowd[/tag] believes he made a mistake. He’s the first member of Bush’s inner circle to break publicly with the president.
Looking back, Mr. Dowd now says his faith in Mr. Bush was misplaced.
In a wide-ranging interview here, Mr. Dowd called for a withdrawal from Iraq and expressed his disappointment in Mr. Bush’s leadership.
He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Mr. Bush still approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides.
“I’m a big believer that in part what we’re called to do — to me, by God; other people call it karma — is to restore balance when things didn’t turn out the way they should have,” Dowd said. “Just being quiet is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election.”
Dowd has even seen the light when it comes to Bush’s politics of polarization. “I think we should design campaigns that appeal not to 51 percent of the people,” he said, “but bring the country together as a whole.” Dowd added that he wants to “do my part in fixing fissures that I may have been part of.”
First, “may” is an odd choice of words. Bush’s divide-and-conquer approach to governing was, of course, Dowd’s idea. In late 2000, Dowd, then Bush’s chief pollster, scrutinized polling data and determined that the center was quickly disappearing. The key to political success, he said, was to govern via polarization. Dowd insisted that Bush and Rove give up on striving for consensus, and instead tear the country in half. We’ve been dealing with the consequences ever since.
Second, and more to the point as far as the Discussion Group is concerned, how should Dems respond to Dowd and his epiphany?
There are, as far as I can tell, two broad schools of thought here.
1. “Welcome to the reality-based community, Mr. Dowd.” This approach calls for graciousness. A key Bush insider has come to his senses and his denouncing the president publicly. Dowd looks back with regret, realizes that John Kerry was right in 2004, and wants to help make amends. It’s a startling confirmation of everything Bush critics have been saying for years. Dowd is to be congratulated and praised for having the courage and wisdom to announce his concerns publicly.
2. “Piss off, Matt.” This approach, articulated forcefully by my friend Cliff Schecter, isn’t ready to forgive and forget. Dowd fell for an insincere pitch about bringing Americans together, and then played a key role in foisting a reckless and irresponsible incompetent on the world, the consequences of which have been disastrous. Dowd may be coming around, but just two years ago, he was largely responsible for smearing a war hero and crafting the strategy for a breathtakingly dishonest national campaign. Dowd had doubts while he was making these tragic mistakes, but he suppressed his conscience and did it anyway. Now he’s sorry. Tough — some mistakes are too big to forgive.
It reminds me a bit of the questions about how the left should react to David Brock’s transition from the right to the left, with plenty of lingering resentment about the mistakes he had made in the past. The difference is that Brock joined the progressive cause enthusiastically and continues to work hard for the left. Dowd isn’t there yet — he’s just disgusted with Bush.
So, what’s it going to be? Is Dowd a hero or a chump? For that matter, when the right decides to tear Dowd apart and smear his name, does the left defend him or not?