Ethics Personal assignment 2
“Bush’s Brain; a Documentary about Karl Rove”

1. Background

The film I have chosen, Bush’s Brain, though it doesn’t directly link to corporations deals with morals and ethics in a way that can be very easily and clearly related to corporation Canada and business at large.

The movie itself centers around a man named Karl Rove; he is a Republican campaign manager, known for getting George W. Bush into office and infamous for his determination and utter disregard for ethical standards present in nearly every industry. He is often called a puppet master, and credited with effectively controlling the former U.S. president, however it is not without cunning that he achieved his goals. As a sharp political mind, and dangerously effective manager, Rove as cemented himself as a powerful political figure.

Through the course of the film many accounts of Rove’s political career are heard, and despite the slight bias against his actions the directors; Joseph Mealey and Michael Shoob, manage to retain a mostly objective point of view. They ultimately attempt to condemn Rove by the overall tone of their film, but in a way that lets his actions speak for themselves.

I intend to prove through my analysis that though many may detest Karl Rove for his allegedly immoral actions that he exemplifies Mill’s Utilitarianism.

2. Key Issues

There are numerous issues raised in this film but the all-encompassing question of whether or not there is a way to enforce ethics takes center stage. Rove, based upon his willingness to play dirty, going so far as to orchestrate situations that lead to the imprisonment of his opposition; is what many would call a villain.

It’s evident through the interviews that most everyone who as opposed him considering Rove guilty of acts to which he can only be tangentially linked in any official form. From bugging his own office to alerting press to subpoenas issued to his competition days before they are actually issued, even if it can’t be proven on the record the vast majority of people who are neutral or even opposed to him seem to know beyond a doubt that he has done these things. Yet, for whatever the reason he continues to operate in his sector with virtually no consequence for these actions aside from his reputation.

Morality, and the lasting effects or shockwaves that stem from decisions are also discussed in the film. Rove is painted as having a hand the propagation of the Iraq war, among other things. It is brought to debate whether his strategic skewing of reports about South Africa are to blame for instigating the war, but our focus rests squarely on whether the amoral or even immoral actions of his supposed push for war is something he should be held accountable for, or if he even can be punished within the american political system if we decide he is.

3. Ethical discussion questions

There are certainly many issues to tackle for this one, so buckle in while we try to sort through them. The first is one of morals, and whether or not, from Rove’s point of view, the eschewing of a moral compass in favor of total political power is a trade worth making.

Karl Rove, while some contest that he is a detestable monster, is still a person the same as any of us. He grew up in Denver Colorado, where from a very early age he adopted the “republican mindset” as some would call it. Politics resonated with his competitive nature, spurring him to become more and more aggressive in his field. Much like the rise of a business, Rove came to prominence through a mixture of strategic decisions and a willingness to act immorally when the situation called for it. At one point his actions caused the arrest and imprisonment of democratic opponents Pete McRae and Mike Miller, which effectively ended their careers. Extenuating circumstances caused both of McRae’s parents to die while he was in prison. One can speculate how he feels with this, and if he has any regrets.

On the topic of speculation, it can be questioned whether Rove had felt a sense false consensus, believing himself and his actions to be correct on a level higher than personal gain. Were his actions reinforced either by the Bush family, who he chose to surround himself with, or by the lack of negative feedback towards his actions? It is of note that while many have given Karl flack on a personal basis, no large governing body has ever threatened him, either directly or otherwise.

Rove also serves as to make us question whether powerful people, in political or business sectors alike, align themselves with the law and a semblance of moral righteousness for fear of repercussion rather than actual belief in ethics. Is the law in place because we as a population agree that acting morally is beneficial for everyone or do we only obey the law to avoid punishment?

4. Course Concepts applied to real life

Perhaps the most comprehensive section of this report will be listing all of the parallels that can be drawn between the political and private sector, but as of now the first three points have gone a long way to laying the proper foundation for us to have this discussion.

By this point We know quite a bit about Karl Rove, from his humble beginnings as a member of his high school debate team all the way up to running George W. Bush’s presidential campaign. The important draw here is that his career in politics has shown him use many of the fallacies we have been learning about. The use of these fallacies however, is not rooted in any kind of ignorance. Rove is more than aware of this logical inconsistencies, and they are the tools of his trade.

as a campaign manager, he has used ad-hominem and strawmanning to his advantage time and again, by thoroughly training his candidates to debase their opponents and subvert their arguments. His biggest strength is to manufacture scenarios that overshadow rival campaign arguments, or to create environments in which they destroy themselves.

A weakness Rove shares with many active members of the political field is an overuse of the framing effect. The belief that anything can be spun a certain way, while beneficial during campaign season, is not a sustainable methodology. It may work on a situational basis, but it is ultimately better to be honest with the public, instead of trying to keep them in the dark. Especially with the age of transparency we are in, to try and keep the public uninformed is bound to backfire when they eventually take notice of just what it is that is being done, and they are sure to be upset when it comes to pass.

Amidst all of this information one thing is clear, while we may not be able to objectively label Rove as good or bad, we can at the very least assert that he has acted in his own benefit; Doing whatever it would take to claim his desired outcome. Going so far as to create middle eastern conflict as a way of artificially inflating his candidate’s numbers, despite knowing it would invariably cause many deaths. His place in Teleological ethics only shakily affirmed however, as his ultimate pursuit was not for the well being of a majority, though that is more conjecture than fact in honesty.

Karl Rove’s true motives, intentions, and actions will likely never come to light at this point, as he has long since surpassed any need to keep the public in the loop. However that doesn’t stop us from examining him from our limited vantage point to glean some knowledge of his strategies should we ever really need them.

5. Relevant resources online related to the film

I’ll be totally honest, finding unbiased resources pertaining to politics can be quite difficult. It is however, a detour always worth taking as the amount of biased material out there is staggering. We can examine the film I’ve just watched up and down and find that even it, however unbiased it may claim to be does take a side.

That’s a going theme with politics, as well as business these days; everything has a spin. Ultimately, in order to maintain a well informed and freethinking society as we seemingly strive to, the only appropriate course of action is to be well informed at the individual level. This means for me watching more than just this film before developing an opinion on its’ subject, Karl Rove. It means for you that every article you will read including this report will contain some bias whether subtle or overt and should rightfully be taken with a grain of salt.

The respite from this is when a piece of media is upfront about the biases it may contain. I for instance, made it overtly clear that my analysis of this film would prove that Karl Rove’s actions personified Mill’s Utilitarianism in the modern age and by this point I can say with conviction that I believe that mission statement has been laid out with a convincing and thorough argument on which to stand. Whether or not this document has changed your opinion drastically is another matter, though if it has not I cannot call it a failure. The basis upon which this document is passed or failed even goes beyond whether it receives a passing grade in this class, as bold as that statement may be. I earnestly believe that, if this has sparked an interest either in the film it has dissected or the topic that the film in question covered, then this document has served its’ purpose. That however, along with its’ letter grade; is up to you.

Moore, J., & Slater, W. (2003). Bush's brain: How Karl Rove made George W. Bush presidential. New York: Wiley.

Moore, J., & Slater, W. (2006). Rove exposed: How Bush's brain fooled America. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.