In most right-wing forums, DNC chairman Howard Dean is rarely, if ever taken seriously. This isn’t something for Democrats to worry about; when tapping into a major political movement, it is sometimes better to start off as a bit of a joke. Reagan and Clinton certainly did, to name just two.
Still, the flippant dismissal of the strength of Dean’s message rather annoys. The people who are so casual to label Dean a ‘nut’ haven’t spent days, weeks, and months talking to members of the Democratic Party in an effort to determine where they stand. I have, and I can tell you that the core of the party feels furious and betrayed over the endless efforts to compromise towards a ‘center’ that seems much further toward the right than should be possible for anyone calling him or herself a Democrat. This ‘core is bigger than you’d think; I’ve met plenty of people who described themselves as ‘not interested in politics’ who began fuming when asked if the Dems were moving to far to the right. For ten years, we tried to fight the GOP slime machine by seeking solutions to make everyone happy. We should’ve known that the more we offered, they greater the demands.
Now and then, Dean says a number of things that are impolitic, in that they are true, but it would be embarrassing for people to admit it. Take his statement about the GOP being a ‘white, Christian party’. Well, is he wrong? The most stunning development in non-white voting in 2004 – much touted in conservative circles – was that Bush managed to gain a majority of the Hispanic vote in one state, while still losing the Latino vote by 9 points nationally. By ‘Christian’, it can be assumed that dean is referring to hard-line evangelicals, who have more or less total control of the GOP at all levels.
Following his ‘gaffes’, some foolish Democrats (say, Lieberman and Biden) will try and earn points among their Republican buddies by condemning Dean. Silly rabbit, Republicans aren’t going to vote for you. Attacking your own party just makes it weaker.
Of course, Dean isn’t perfect; he recently announced that we ought to ‘stay into Iraq until the job is done’, whenever that is. I wish he hadn’t embraced the spectacularly unpopular and defeatist attitude shared by the White House. But that’s a different story…
16 comments:
Dean certainly knows how to energize his base. His irrational comments appeal to those who are content with the current political dynamic - that of extremism (on both sides), a lack of understanding of the other party, and a refusal to compromise under any circumstances.
But the national election results will not be determined by the "core" of the Democratic party. Dean is only alienating those whose votes could make a difference in 2008 - those apolitical "swing" types who are tired of the negativity and partisan hackery, moderate Dems who do want a more centrist approach, and moderate Republicans (some of whom are not white or Christian) tired of extremism within their own ranks. Well done, Howard Dean - you're on your way of assuring more and more Republican victories.
Did extremeism hurt the Republicans? Not that I can tell; what people who urge a bid for the 'center' often forget is that, while it is possible to win elections without the swing voters, it is utterly impossible to do so without your base. Right now, the Dem core is alienated and fed up. They need to be won back before attention can be paid to those slippery moderates.
'much further toward the right than should be possible for anyone calling him or herself a Democrat'
This shows the dems main problem. I don't mean to make a judgement here, but reading this makes me think you must have been born in the 70s or later, and don't remember the Democratic Party that held on to Congress for 50 years. There used to be conservative elements in it, at least enough to push them over the top. Those elements are gone now, either becoming Republicans, or just dying off. As long as Dean believes he can win an election by catering only to libs in the Northeast, while insulting the rest of the country, Dems will continue to lose.
You may call that fighting or standing up to Republicans, but in reality its just bad politics.
Why would people vote for the Democrats if they’re trying to become more like Republicans? Why vote for a pale imitation when you can have the real thing?
Besides, there are plenty of conservative voices in the Democratic Party. Harry Reid is a pro-life Mormon, for one. And there are plenty of religious, pro-life, tax-cutting, pro-business Democrats running around. Clinton, I should say, was the best friend Wall Street ever had.
The Democratic majority from the 1930’s on was comprised of a coalition of New Deal progressives and southern segregationists. Clearly, such an alliance couldn’t hold forever. The party had to choose between Adlai Stevenson and Strom Thurmond; between George Wallace and Martin Luther King Jr. They chose Stevenson and King, and I’m proud of them for it, but it put the south in the GOP camp for generations to come.
The question is whether the Dems would gain or lose more people by becoming endlessly compromised, hollow shells of politicians. I’m inclined to believe they’d lose.
But it doesn’t really matter. In 10-20 years, the political landscape will have changed so drastically that this little debate will seem quaint.
"Attacking your own party just makes it weaker."
What if, hypothetically, one's party is wrong? If Dean suddenly came out in favor of decriminalizing murder, would you resist criticizing him because "it just makes my party weaker"? Perhaps Leiberman and Biden distanced themselves from Dean because he's said some whacked out stuff. I also noticed you only addressed one comment--the white Christian party.
Just a thought: if Dean thinks the Republican party is mostly white Christians, and he "hates Republicans and everything they stand for," does Dean hate most white Christians? Is that rhetoric consistent with his woo-the-Jesusland-folks platform he ran on for DNC chairman?
Why would people vote for the Democrats if they’re trying to become more like Republicans? Why vote for a pale imitation when you can have the real thing?
Because the Republican Party is not a monolithic entity. Many Republicans are uncomfortable with the extremist factions within the Republican Party whose values go against its stated goals of individual liberty. The Democratic Party could well be reaching out to these people by moderating their policies instead of moving further to the left.
Unfortunately for the Dems, the "core" of the Republican Party is content with its current positions. The moderates who are questioning of party doctrine are not being drawn to the Democratic Party - and the situation will remain so until there is moderation in rhetoric and policy.
'Why vote for a pale imitation when you can have the real thing?'
Because you can't have the real thing. If you consider spewing constant hatred for your opponents as 'the real thing' you are doomed to the minority for a very long time. Unfortunately for dems, hatred for Republicans is their only platform currently.
It seems that you and I are in agreement in hoping that Dems continue down their current path. I find that ironic.
I have no problems with Howard Dean trying to woo his base. He is adamant about his ideals, which is refreshing in a political leader. His rhetoric does need to be toned down, but that's not the biggest problem with Dean.
The biggest problem with Dean, as I see it, is that his party doesn't have any good ideas. Spin it however you want. Carter ran as an outsider and Clinton ran as a tax-cutting moderate.
Remember how McGovern did? The socialism that Dean espouses cannot yet be sold to the American public--thank God.
The reason the right-wing press is all over Dean, is because his efforts have been so pathetically ineffective. The republicans are out financing the democrats almost three to one, and every time Dean shoves his foot up his mouth, "moderate" dems start the spin control.
When it comes down to it, in this political clime, the watered down republican party is the one with power, and the only one that matters. Just like a Kerry vote was a vote against Bush, so is a vote for the democrats against the republicans.
True, a legitimate democrat like Dean would get his bases vote, but that's not enough to get the job. Spineless moderates still call the shots in our great Republic, unfortunately.
I think the basic mistake you're all making is this: you assume that it's the moderates who hold the key to victory. It isn't. Moderate voters are fickle, arbitrary, and unreliable. They rarely vote, and even less do they volunteer their time and money for a candidate.
How did the GOP win? By energizing their base. Most of Bush's positions are very unpopular with the majority of Americans, but he won because he concentrated on issues that his supporters felt passionately about, such as abortion and gay marriage. The 2004 campaign saw Bush running hard right and Kerry reaching for the center. Yes, the Democratic base hated Bush, but you can't tun a campaign against something; Kerry never offered a genuine left-wing platform, only compromise and mild reforms.
And I honestly think that if Bush came out in favor of decriminalizing murder, most Republicans would support him on it. I'm not saying that kind of blind faith is desirable, but it means that there is almost nobody so far to the right that he can't join the GOP, while the huge space to the left of the Democrats is taken up by countless miniscule parties who are actually socialist (in that they know what socialism is, unlike tran sient.)
'in that they know what socialism is, unlike tran sient'
Way to drop this down to a kindergarten level.
howard dean also said that republicans have don't make an honest living. we republicans he didn't say "most" or "some", he made a grossly inaccurate and unfair generalization instead. should it come as any sort of shock then that republicans might be offended by his thoughtless gaffes? and that thing about the gop being a "white, christian party"- i can't argue with you there but i think that more important than bush's latino votes was the surge in support he got from jews- 24 percnt up from 8 percent the first time he ran for president.
"And I honestly think that if Bush came out in favor of decriminalizing murder, most Republicans would support him on it."
This statement reveals to me how distorted your view of Republicans is. What else can I say? Ignorance must be bliss for you.
Seth - Come to think of it, Bush has more or less legalized murder in that he's allowed people whom the government arbitrarily designates as 'enemy combatants' (even if they're not suspected of a crime) to be killed without consequences for those who are responsible, including himself. Not to mention his support for the death penalty.
Tran Sient - Well, you did call Howard Dean a 'socialist', even though he's clearly nothing of the kind, leading me to believe that you think 'socialism' is just another meaningless epithet.
Yiddishe-kop - I never said that everything Howard Dean said was right; what he should have said is that the GOP leadership is comprised of corrupt, dishonest people who indeed cannot make their way without resorting to malicious and destructive falsehoods.
Seth - Come to think of it, Bush has more or less legalized murder in that he's allowed people whom the government arbitrarily designates as 'enemy combatants' (even if they're not suspected of a crime) to be killed without consequences for those who are responsible, including himself. Not to mention his support for the death penalty.
Ah, the wireless connection is back! The government makes the designation of 'enemy combatant' because the war on terror is being fought against (gasp!) terrorists, not a standard military. The pre-9/11 rules simply don't apply, so a Talib in Afghanistan and one of Zarqawi's men in Iraq are not entitled to the same legal benefits as American citizens.
As for the death penalty, I will be the first to say that there needs to be increases in DNA research funding, so that the chances for mistakes are minimized. But in the end, the death penalty is used against convicted murderers. That is justice, not murder.
You must have me confused with someone else. I never called him a socialist. Read up.
Loyal: "I'm not saying that kind of blind faith is desirable, but it means that there is almost nobody so far to the right that he can't join the GOP..."
Speaking as someone who found the Republican party too moderate to vote for, I resent that remark. I voted for the Liberarian candidate because Bush is not a conservative.
Please, name one thing he has done, not said, but actually done that is conservative.
It may be hard for you to realize that there are people who don't like a monolithic government, but we're out here. In fact, if you add the totals of the Constitution Party to the Libertarian Party, splinter conservative votes stood at .44% compared to Nader's .38%. True these may be small numbers, but that just illustrates my point.
A bunch of wimps in the mushy middle get to decide things in this wonderful Republic of ours.
Post a Comment