Karl Rove is a strategist in the Republican Bill Clements’ 1986 campaign to be governor of Texas. Up to the final days before the election, Clements clearly trails the incumbent Democrat Governor Mark White in the election. On the morning of the final gubernatorial debate, a bugging device is discovered in Rove’s office. There is strong evidence that (A) news of this bug turns the election in favor of Clements, and (B) Rove himself is responsible for the bug. In this piece, I consider what the truth of claims A and B would tell us about Rove’s understanding of the voting public. I will let someone else prove that the evidence supporting the self-bugging is definitive.

While Karl Rove’s move to plant a bug in his own office ultimately wins an office for the candidate he supports, the benefits to his personal career are manifold: (1) his participation in a winning campaign elevates his status as a valuable strategist, (2) in the eyes of a political public who believes that the White campaign planted the bug, Rove must be an important figure if his office is worth bugging, and (3) for those convinced that Rove bugged his own office, Rove’s willingness to unscrupulously damage Democrat White’s image intimidates future office seekers who will compete against a Rove led campaign.

After considering the manifold benefits of such a simple maneuver, one must admire the elegance of Rove’s move to plant a bug in his own office. Of course, Rove’s decision to execute the strategy was a huge gamble. The failure of the move, if the majority of voters believe the bug was self inflicted, not only devastates the Clements campaign, but likely ruins Rove’s career. Rove must have been supremely confident that his strategy would not backfire. Let us examine how Rove can safely predict that news of a bug in his office will not destroy his candidate’s chances for election.

Question 1: In the mind of a voter, why would someone plant a bug in Rove’s office?

Motivation A: To gather inside information that will be used against Clements’ campaign.

Motivation B: To create a political weapon to use against the candidate that the voters believe planted the bug.

Question 2: In the mind of a voter, who is likely responsible for the bug in Rove’s office?

Culprit A: The White campaign. This notion follows immediately from the consideration of motivation a. Democrat White is the only person competing directly with Republican Bill Clements. The voter understands that inside information about Clements’ campaign strategy gives White an edge.

Culprit B: The Clements campaign. This notion follows when a voter is sufficiently compelled by motivation B. The voter sees the discovery of the bug in Rove’s office as an attempt by the Clements campaign to drop a political disaster in the lap of the White Campaign.

Question 3: In the case that the discovery of the bug changes an individual’s vote, which candidate wins that vote?

Winner A: Republican Clements. The voter believes that the White campaign planted the bug in Rove’s office to gain inside information. Hence, the moral character of Democrat White is severely diminished in the eyes of the voter.

Winner B. Democrat White. The Clements campaign itself planted the bug in Rove’s office predicting that the public would blame the White campaign. The voter sees through this strategic maneuver. Hence, the moral character of Republican Clements is severely diminished in the eyes of the voter.

While we can imagine scenarios that benefit neither candidate, the above outlines two trains of thought that might plausibly impact an individual’s vote:

Train of thought A: a voter believes in motivation A, which suggests culprit A, leading to winner A (a Clements vote).

Train of thought B: a voter believes in motivation B, which suggests culprit B, leading to winner B (a White vote).

By planting the bug in his office, Rove clearly hopes that train of thought A is the most prevalent—it equates a huge victory for his candidate and his personal career. Yet, even if train of thought A does not unfold as Rove desired, the prevalence of train of thought B equates disaster for Rove. So the important question is, how did Rove feel confident in the scarcity of train of thought B?

Train of thought B starts when a voter is strongly compelled by motivation B. But motivation A must be considered before motivation B. A voter surely contemplates a bug’s primary purpose before he/she considers the more abstract purpose of creating a political weapon. And the primary purpose of a bug is to steal information, which implicates Democrat White immediately. If a voter’s thoughts are on this level (culprit A) at the time of the election, his/her vote is influenced in the direction of Republican Clements (winner A).

So how does a voter become compelled by motivation B? The voter must first follow train of thought A, and then grasp that it is an obvious train of thought that the Clements campaign can predict would be prevalent among voters. Only when the voter is on this level of thinking about how the Clements campaign thinks that voters think, then motivation B becomes a possibility. However, even when a voter reaches this level of cleverness, he may reject the possibility of motivation B due to shortcomings in the quality of evidence. But, if a voter is sufficiently compelled by motivation B before the election, he/she will either follow train of thought B to its conclusion, that is, voting for Democrat White (winner B).

The success of Rove’s move to plant a bug in his own office demonstrates an ability to predict a voter’s level of thought at the time of the election. Rove’s decision to execute his strategy demonstrates a confidence that a voter’s thought processes would not advance past the point of motivation B. Some voters, Rove imagines, will not make it past the level of culprit A by the time of the election. Either they are simply satisfied that Democrat White is responsible, or the election comes too quickly for their thought processes to advance further. While some voters may have the time and cleverness to consider motivation B, only a trivial number will ultimately believe that the Clements campaign is responsible for the bug.

With strong evidence supporting Rove’s self-bugging, an astute onlooker’s image of the Clements campaign is severely diminished by the incident. Rove can happily accept the fact that his unscrupulous political maneuvers are transparent to a critical eye. Furthermore, Rove does not care that the most knowledgeable members of society see him and his campaigns in the worst moral light. He only cares how the mass of voters are thinking at the time of the election. By bugging his own office, Rove demonstrates a masterful understanding of how the mass of voters’ thought processes evolve over set periods of time.