Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story

OK – bias declaration time here because this film is, by covering the material really well, a tad critical of the Republican party, so it helps if readers know at least where I approached it from. I am generally liberal but in the case of partisan films I will try and put that to one side, hence I can agree with Michael Moore's points but yet also see the massive flaws in many of his films. I say this because I enjoyed this film a great deal, finding it fascinating and am assuming that anyone who disliked the film will assume that I have simply toed the party line whether it was any good or not. I can assure you I have not!

I came to this film on BBC4 in the UK (where it was called "Dirty Tricks: The Man Who Got the Bushes Elected") because I, like many, have an interest in how American politics operate. Fear seems to play a big part, as does the exaggeration of the importance of patriotism and patriotic symbols and it amazes me how it appears to work to convince people to apparently vote against their own interests because the Republican party is, like the UK conservative party, the party of the wealthy and the party of the rich. OK that is a sweeping generalisation that is not as true as it was (all major parties are the parties of the rich!) but it has some merit. This can be seen in the most recent elections where Obama is attacked as being elitist due to his education, while Bush is painted as a "good ol' boy" despite his massive wealth and Harvard education. Or how such a fuss was made over Obama's flag pin or not having his hand on his heart etc. To be blunt it can be seen how there was a constant suggestion about Obama's religion – which backfired wonderfully as McCain found his voters making racist statements ("he's an Arab") – like a monster that you have raised that suddenly turns on you.

I wasn't initially interested in this as a subject though because I cynically assumed that things were always like this and didn't think that this approach would have had a founding father or a development. However what this film does that is so fascinating is the way it tells the story of the rise of Lee Atwater as an adviser to the Bush campaign and the tactics that brought him and his party success in the elections in such a clear way that you can see where his actions have led us. This allows the film to engage for those of us who have never heard of Atwell, because his relevance is obvious. To me I found the bigger picture to be much more interest than the man himself and as a result the film is less engaging at the start and end when it focuses on him as more of a man. Where it really is at its best is in the middle section where we are shown the approach of putting fear and patriotism onto the agenda and making them weapons to be used against Dukakis and in particular the racial element and the way that a rapist was essentially made his "running mate". It is here where you can see the damage and the sheer cruelty and deception of his game and it helps that Dukakis presents himself well because we feel much more sympathy for his failed campaign.

Although the title suggests that this is about Lee Atwell himself, it is a much more effective look at the birth of a destructive but effective political approach that the Republican party continue to use and indeed the Democrats themselves have picked up, perhaps having learnt that fighting fire with fire is the only way ahead. The film remains focused on its subject and, while I would have liked another thirty minutes that follows the path that Rove and others continued down, it does still work as an effective look at the subject that allows the viewers to follow that path themselves.

This is an investigative documentary about Republican operative Lee Atwater. He's a blues-playing hyper-competitive southerner from South Carolina rising to be GOP Chairman. Supposedly, he picked Republicans because of their inferior state and therefore greater opportunity to advance. He interns for Strom Thurmond. In 1973, he becomes the head of college Republicans with his protégé Karl Rove beating the expected winner by challenging every vote and handed the victory by George H.W. Bush. He is able to tap into southern white resentment using every trick possible as long as he gets the win. He is instrumental in Reagan and becomes the favorite hired hand of the Bushes. However it's George W. Bush that is his true soulmate. Both men have been in the rougher street-level world unlike the high class Bush family. He is unrelenting in his drive and remorseless to his enemies.

This is a damning indictment on politics and a compelling personal study. It's easy to understand the Democrats hating the man and his methods. It is more fascinating to hear it from his former Republican colleagues like Ed Rollins. That's behind the scenes from somebody who was actually behind the scenes. It probably needs to expand on his childhood. Of course, the right has bones to pick about this movie. It has a point of view and it's not a fluff piece of Lee. The funny thing is that Lee would probably be secretly proud of this assessment of his work while railing against it as all lies.

I expected this documentary to lean left. I expected it to show all of Lee Atwater's warts. I expected it to shine a harsh light on the dirty campaign tactics that define modern politics. However, I wasn't prepared for the severe leftward tilt of its content. Goodness, if only we had known how angelic Michael Dukakis was, we wouldn't have elected him president, we would have proclaimed him pope! Viewing this film it becomes obvious that his political views and poor campaign had absolutely nothing to do with his landslide defeat. It was all because of that awful man from South Carolina and the millions of sheep who were tricked into voting for the vice president! It's a shame there couldn't have been more balance instead of a litany of complaints from defeated opponents and a condemnation of many of the same tactics used by Democrats. I would have preferred a more rounded look at the man and of politics in general, where both sides have committed their share of bashing, scheming and pandering.

First off, this wasn't an entirely bad movie. I found it to be an interesting look into Lee Atwater and his life. It also shows his strong impact upon the Republican Party. Additionally, we get to see how Atwater's tactics may have helped play a role in Bush, Sr.'s defeat of Dukakis back in 1988.

However, this movie is yellow journalism at its finest. The director falsely portrays Atwater as a one-dimensional, evil genius (who became evil because of a tragic incident involving the death of his little brother) who was the godfather of dirty mudslinging politics as we know it, and who had nothing redeeming about him. Dirty politics have always been around, and with some comprehensive reading, it becomes obvious that Atwater was not the one who started dirty politics. Also, the film makes it seem like everyone around him was a hapless, stupid puppet who quickly became a servant (or a victim) of the godfather Atwater and his evil empire. Additionally, the only characters who appear human in this video are, of course, Atwater's Democratic and Republican political rivals, while everyone else was just puppeted by Atwater. And surely, Atwater didn't just join the GOP just because he had no competition. He would certainly have to have agreed with at least some of what the GOP was saying, rather than just trying to do nothing except win all the time and be the one who controls the political "horse race".

All in all, while this movie is interesting, it reaches very silly conclusions about Atwater as a person and his role in contemporary politics.

Much of what is worst in American politics is on display in the career of Lee Atwater, a bogeyman for Democrats he put to the sword with underhand tactics both offensive and dishonest. Two interesting things emerge from this documentary: firstly, that far from being an ideologue, Atwater played the game for its own sake, with a ruthless cynicism so naked as to almost be disarming: sometimes it's easy to love an unashamed rogue, even if that rogue does more harm than a conventional hypocrite. Secondly, although Atwater died (of a brain tumour) in the early 1990s, in many ways, George W. Bush is Atwater's legacy; and indeed, Karl Rove was Atwater's protégé. Michael Dukakis, floored by Atwater's dirtiest campaign, is an interesting interviewee here: he comes across as naive in expecting anything better, and maybe that's the saddest aspect of the way that Atwater changed politics. It's probably mistaken to assign too much influence to one man; but it's also possible to fear that the demon of spin will never return to the box.