There is a lot that can be said about Lee Atwater and his impact on the political landscape during his career in politics. He certainly changed the game and the way that people approached politics. His mentality was to win at all costs which was revolutionary. In politics now it is easy to see this and come to the conclusion that politicians do anything to get there way no matter the moral or ethical consequences. Before Atwater most people, at least somewhat, played by the rules but Atwater used this to his advantage and made his opponents vulnerabilities their fatal weakness. A lot of people look his actions and think of him as a terrible human being but I think they are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Yes, he made some ethically questionable decisions to achieve his goals but he was also a genius for doing so. He gave politics an extra dimension and made everyone work harder to stand above the rest. This has lead to problems in the past but it has also given people the power to question the men and women we give power to which I find very important in a democracy.
In a way, Lee Atwater reminds me of my favorite figure to ever be involved in politics, Hunter S. Thompson. Thompson was a radical journalist in the 1970’s who had no moral compass when it came to what he wrote about politicians, especially those that he did not like. In one instance, Thompson reported about a rumor he heard about a republican candidate who was allegedly addicted to an illegal hallucinogenic drug called ibogaine. The story gained enough traction to make the candidate break-down during a speech and in-turn dropped out of the election. When asked about the rumor Thompson responded with: “I said there was a rumor in Milwaukee that he was [taking ibogaine], which was true when I started the rumor in Milwaukee.”. The point is this, Thompson used his power to affect an election but he also exploited a weakness in that same candidate which in the long run was more beneficial than detrimental. The same can be said about Atwater (depending on who’s side you are on), he may not have been the most fair politician but the argument can be made that he changed politics for the better in his career.
