In Robert Charles Wilson, The Chronoliths (2001), gigantic monuments, each of which  glorifies a series of military victories of Kuin begin appearing around the world. But each victory will not take place for another 20 years and 3 months. The technology that creates the Chronoliths, let alone permitting them to be erected in the past, is a mystery. Many appear in large cities, killing inhabitants and destroying the infrastructure with the cold and shock waves they send out.

    As each Chronolith is planted city by city, terror gives way to factions that decide the only solution is to side with Kuin. Kuin obviously is / will be invincible. People of the past begin inventing tales of Kuin, mythologies about his policies. Kuinists plot to overthrow governments.

    One theory, the most plausible in the book, is that the whole point of the Chronoliths is the change reality. Their purpose is to make Kuin every more invincible in his present, by making him appear invincible in the past. If follows, then, that finding a way to destroy the Chronoliths will destroy the myth of the invincible Kuin and lead to the defeat of Kuin.

    Well, we live in a quasi-Kuinist time. We on the Left pretty much buy into the Rove-o-lithic myth of political genius. The myth says he (and his lackey running lapdogs of fascism) is a genius at picking and "framing" issues. But, as with Kuin, destroying the Rove-o-liths destroys the myth and destroys the reality they are intended to create - actually to terrify us into creating.

    And the truth is that Rove (used here as a collective noun) are not always successful. We can learn a lot by paying most of our attention to the reasons for those failures. We can be successful in bringing down the Rove-o-liths by shining the spotlight on those failures.

    We have witnessed two major Rove-collective failures. One is the astounding unraveling of the campaign for Social Security deform. This, despite a huge personal and financial campaign. The second is the Schiavo talking points memo. It is critical to focus on - and trumpet - these failures. It is also essential to come up with explanations.

    Neither was successful with those whose minds were already made up. This group includes people on the Left. Why was Rove-collective unsuccessful here? This may seem obvious, but it is worth examining. These are people with a developed ideology. When people have an ideology and a worldview it is more difficult to colonize their minds with another, alien worldview.

    But these failures to convince, to plant a Rove-o-lith, went far beyond the Left. What is most interesting is that they failed with regular folks. And by large numbers.

    What is common to both these failures - Social Security and Schiavo - is that, in both these cases, these were not issues that the average person does not understand or has not personally experienced. In other words, these are both issues that the average person knows a lot about and has well formed opinions. This makes their minds less open to colonization.

    Take Terri Schiavo, for example. Just hours after she died, my partner's father died, after refusing to eat and drink for days. The hospice in which she died was filled with people who were dying and whose loved ones went in and out through threatening crowds. Crowds that never seemed to consider that Terri Schiavo was not the only person in there facing end of life issues. Just two years ago I spent days with my mother as she died a horrible painful death. Multiply this by the thousands of people whose loved ones were dying at the same moment as Terri Schiavo - or had recently died. Huge numbers of us know first hand how hard these decisions are, and we do not want the government butting in.

    The Rove-collective not only did not convince these people, the only ones who heard them already had a strong ideology, so they gained no ground.

    Social security is very much like this. Some people oppose plans to change it because of their political ideology. Others oppose plans to change it because they know first hand that it has given their family members retirement income. Or provided widow's or orphans' benefits. Or disability benefits.

    These results are consistent with a study I did of a campaign to change labor laws. In addition to looking at the methods used, I examined who was or was not convinced. What I found was that the campaign failed with those who had a strong ideology and those with personal experience.

    If this is correct, and I think it is, it has lessons for political campaigns that try to reach beyond the Liberal faithful. Try to present issues as ones that connect with the experiences that people are likely to have and ones that matter to them.

    Right now an issue that seems most amenable to this approach is health care. With the bankruptcy bill looming, there is every reason to push for single payer. Health care costs are increasingly pushing people into bankruptcy. It is hard not to sympathize with someone being hounded for payments to save their own or their children's lives.

Employers' finances are being threatened by health care costs and the administrative costs of searching for affordable plans. So employers' experiences may be bringing them to the point where they see the benefits of not being burdened with providing health care and would support single payer.

Tom DeLay and the House Majority's cover-up and tolerance for wrongdoing are issues that will resonate among moralists but also among those who do not like the idea that those who have the gold make the rules.

    Another issue may be reinstating usery laws. Many are being driven into debt by unconscionable interest rates. If the bankruptcy bill passes, this will be an even more salient issue and one people can understand.

    Issues of war and peace are, unfortunately, more complicated, and unlikely to be ones that are easy to win on. This is because, although we all have some experiences now with war, our experiences vary. It is also an issue on which most of us have an ideology. So while some may change their positions, most will not.

    There are certainly other issues that should be considered in light of what we can learn from these failed Rove-o-liths. It is possible - and it is time - to take on the Rove-o-liths and bring them and the Rove-ists down.