Howard Dean, the DNC and A Disturbing Party

by Cliopatria

So, on a scale of one to ten, with one being a kid’s birthday party with little furry bunnies and puppies running around and ten being a company picnic with Dr. Phil running around naked and dispensing lifestyle advice, how horrified should the Democrats feel about the news that Howard Dean is likely to be the next chair of the DNC?

Well, how’s this for an answer?: It depends. But like most answers of “it depends,” which seem hopelessly gutless and a bit Mugwumpish, it is also probably the right response. It does depend. And it depends on what one sees as the role of the chair of the DNC.

If you think that the key job of a party apparatus in the years leading up to the midterm elections of 2006 and the big show in 2008 is fundraising, then this may not be horrible news. I might not equate it with bunny rabbits or puppies, but maybe it is like a kid’s party with goldfish and birds in cages -- Still fun and cute, but not that much, and you’ll be looking at your watch before the first hour is up. Call that a three or a four on our scale.

If Dean did anything in the last primary season, he helped to revitalize the party base. Just as the Republican Party these days cannot expect to win and raise money without solid support from true-believing conservatives, so too the Democrats can not function, raise money, and energize the masses without mobilizing (and prying open the check books) of left-wing liberals. Neither party is especially comfortable with this state of affairs. But it is nonetheless the condition on the ground as it exists. In this sense, Dean is ok. He proved to be particularly adroit at getting out liberals of a certain stripe (don’t write “dumb ones,” Derek, don’t write “dumb ones”) and his campaign really did change the way that major parties fundraise and use the internet. As a further bonus, he also will not be likely to run for major office if he is offered and takes his position. Soon after the turn of the last century, the Republican Party thought that it had come up with a cunning strategy for neutralizing Theodore Roosevelt – they gave him the Vice Presidency. Maybe the Democrats, in finding a position that is not in the line of succession, drew the lessons of Marcus Alonzo Hanna and fixed them up for this new century.

But what if the DNC is like the party whip writ large? What if the DNC will be determining the course of the party for the next two, four, eight years? Well, I do not want to be alarming, but Dr. Phil just called, and he said he’s bringing along Barbara Streisand to sing.

How do I put this? Howard Dean pulled off the most amazing act of legerdemain in American politics in recent American history in the last election. Most people forget a rather simple fact: As Governor of Vermont, Dean was no true-believing liberal. He was more Democratic Leadership Council material than liberal firebrand, more Zell Miller than Ted Kennedy (ok, that goes too far, but you get the syllogism). And that is fine. It won Bill Clinton two elections and while those domestic policies are too conservative for me, I am ok with that as long as there is room for a more expansive view. But couple DLC policies with a blindly dovish and hopelessly ill-informed foreign policy and what do you have? A hopelessly incoherent muddle. This is especially the case if you keep in mind that Dean only tacked somewhat leftward on domestic issues during the primaries because he felt he had to. Who is happy with this mix? What is the Democratic foreign policy bueprint for the next four years? Hell, what is the Democratic domestic policy agenda for the next four years? If Howard Dean will be central to defining the party ideology for the next few years, then what the Democrats will become is a party of opposition with no identity of their own. This is to a degree what Tom was talking about the other day in his post Whose Parties? If Dean is responsible for defining the party’s policy and ideological course for the next four years, it will seem less and less like mine. It will be more conservative on domestic issues, more squishy on foreign policy, and its main purpose will be simply to obstruct and not to renew. Beating the Republicans is part of the game, but you do so with a coherent sense of what the big tent of the Democratic Party is, and not by an obstructionist litany of what it is not.

So which will be the case? It depends. Probably somewhere between bunnies and Dr. Phil, but naked Dr. Phil holds little appeal from even what might be a safe distance. I think my party is playing with fire.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Derek Charles Catsam - 2/3/2005

Great analogy, Oscar.

Oscar Chamberlain - 2/3/2005

Derek your response to Brian and Rebecca made me think that in some ways Dean's popularity echoes Eugene McCarthy.

McCarthy was not all that liberal, more than a bit reserved (which Dean in many ways is, despite the scream moment), and from a cool climate. There was a contrarian element to him that captured the imagination of a lot of students but did not translate that well when reaching out to a possible majority.

I vaguely remember that his remaining time in the Senate had quixotic elements to it, which I hope are not echoed by Dean.

Derek Charles Catsam - 2/3/2005

I just do not see how "more progressives" got behind a guy who supports the death penalty and who despite the press was pretty lukewarm toward gay marriage when it fiorst came about. the legerdemain came in his handling of presenting himself to the lefty anti-war types. I think they got behind a candidate thinking he was a lot more progressive than he was.
I appreciate Dean's honesty with the press. Good for him. But I am not certain how that will help him as DNC chair. I do see how it might hurt the party.
I think I ought to reiterate what I said in my post -- I am not certain how to feel about dean. Anyone who absolutely knows what is going to happen is weldcome to write in with certitude. i am not comfortable with the man who ran for president in 2003-2004. My guess is that most people should care more about that campaign than about governing Vermont, but if they do not, they opught to realize that dean is not all that progressive. And if it is that sort of centrism that the DNC wants, great, but I just do not see who finds domestic centrism and dovish foreign policy to be a rousing combination.

dc

Bridget Edwards - 2/3/2005

I would hardly use the word "legerdemain" to describe Dean's presidential campaign. He did not don a liberal mantle to hide his conservative interior. He only seemed like an extreme liberal when compared to the centrist contenders such as Liberman, Gephart, Kerry and Edwards. His blunt manner with the press certainly did not endear him to the media, who were then only too happy to paint him with the "hothead extremist" brush. Dean as a presidential candidate was the same guy he was as governor of Vermont: fiscal conservative, social moderate, blunt and opinionated. Perhaps Democrats have forgotten that politicians can (and should) hold strong opinions rather than cravenly pander to the center.

For reasons of full disclosure, let me say that I am a citizen of Vermont, and have voted both for and against Dean in different gubernatorial races. But I have always respected him because he doesn't need to check with the polls or his advisors to tell you what he thinks. You may say that he should, but I find him, and his idea of what the Democratic Party could be, refreshing. Dean's candidacy made me think for the first time in 20 years that I, a die-hard Independant, might actually be able to support the Democrats without "holding my nose", as so many Kerry voters described it to me. I'd like to back the winning party for a change and Dean as head of the DNC might be able to guide the Party in a direction more progressive could actually get behind.

Derek Charles Catsam - 2/3/2005

I wonder if this is not a situation where folks "in the running" have decided not to allow their names to be put forward to avoid the appearance of losing out to Dean. Wow. I guess I took my cynical pills this morning.
dc

Derek Charles Catsam - 2/3/2005

Brian & rebecca --
New England in the house! If you've been reading for a while, you know I am a New Hampshire native (and as a consequence a sick Boston sports fan, but that is not the point. Or is it always the point?) I think that dean was good at drawing in those independents, for exactly the reasons i have stated -- because in vermont he did not need to have much of a foertign policy vision, except for state ties with Canada, and so his natuiral centrism could kick in. The problem is that he has made his fame nationally for the international stuff for which he is least qualified and i am afraid he will bury the centrist instincts that make him so appealing in Northern New England. he is the quintessential vermont poltiician. It makes him a great voice for vermonbters. I'm not sure that makes him a great voice for the party as a whole.
I do not know who else to pick because it seems that they zeroed in on dean quickly and no one else was seriously considered. And of course many of the names we all know are ones who still have their eyes on national or statewide offices. I wonder if Clinton was approached and denied it. I wonder about someone like Bill Richardson, who has other ambitions, but who also apparently has some inherent limitations of a Clntonesque nature, if you get what I mean.
it just seems that the party's main operative is best off being a competent and passionate but not necessarily hugely well known commodity. I will be rooting for dean assuming he finalizes the deal, but i am skeptical. I would love for my skepticism to prove to be infounded. I just think that the best case scenario with Dean is still not puppies and bunnies for the Dems. I hope I am wrong.

dc

Derek Charles Catsam - 2/3/2005

Oscar --
Yeah, that's the $64,000 question, right? Does Dean see this as a chance to impose a vision or simply to get the party going through fundraising, visibility efforts, reach-out, and all that stuff. dean needs to be inclusive and savvy if he is going to take this post, not exclusive and ideological.

dc

Rebecca Padula - 2/3/2005

As a Vermonter, I have to pipe up here in defense of Dean. It's easy to be cynical in times like these, but let's try to get past it. (breathe) It's OK to believe. I really like the guy and those of you who see him as a political opportunist are missing the ferry.
I have been, until Dean's presidential campaign, an independent voter. Neither major party was attractive to me and voting had become a matter of either chosing the least bad of the choices, and/or voting Green or Independent when there was a candidate.
To me the Democratic Party has been dying a slow painful death and Kerry and others like Joe Liberman put the nail in the coffin. Dean offers a chance to interest liberal independents in the party system again and he energizes new and young voters as well. Is that so wrong?
I'm sick of Dems who run to the center for votes that are already gone to Repubs. What happened to sticking to liberal values and appealing to the liberal wing of the party? I want to hear some real arguments on issues and we don't get them when both parties pander to the center and end up distoring their true agendas.
To me Dean represents a much needed breath of fresh air.

Stephen Tootle - 2/3/2005

Yesterday's Denver Post reported that Webb was not in the running anymore.

Brian Flynn - 2/3/2005

Derek,

You may well be right that this could be a disaster, but out of curiousity who do you think is a good choice? I don't see Dean as being an opportunist and that is partly what I like about him, but that is completely impressionistic and I could be wrong. I am quite pessimistic about the Democrats overall but unlike some friends and colleagues I see no hope in any 3rd party. Although stated rather badly Dean's remark about getting votes from "men who have confederate flags on their cars" does make an important point. The republicans have managed to a remarkable degree to get support from large groups of people while proposing economic and social policies that are not in the interest of many of their supporters. The reasons for this are complicated and has much to do with the complex politics of race in the U.S. and the desire to hold on to some stability that explains some of the hostility to feminist and gay politics. Dan does seem to have some ability to articulate economic populist themes without engaging is the sometimes socially conservative part that accompanies this. (I am from Boston where Ray Flynn--no relation--is the classic example of the negative side of economic populism.)

Anyhow, I may be deluding myself.

Oscar Chamberlain - 2/3/2005

Derek,

You make good points. It's entirely possible that many other people would be better. In point of fact, I was surprised when I heard Dean wanted it and had become a front-runner.

I suppose the question hinges on whether he will use his position to move the party toward his positions as articulated in 2004. I think (or is it hope) he knows enough to realize that Iraq in isolation is a difficult long-term issue, precisely because it is so unpredictable. It has to be part of a larger vision of foreign policy and of what we call the "War on Terror."

If he doesn't, than I may be joining you in the ranks of the disaffected.

Derek Charles Catsam - 2/3/2005

Brian --
Good points all. I hate official party responses to the State of the Union. I hate the Democratic responses to a Republican president. I hate the Republican responses to a Democratic president. I hate the responses to the responses. I hate the spin on the responses to the responses. It is all so tedious and almost impossible to listen to for more than a few minutes.
But this is why it might be best for the leader of the party not to be drawn from active politicians in any case. I just think the DNC chair ought to be more than a golden parachute. Dean is not my kind of democrat, though he obviosuly is a democrat in good standing for whom many have an affinity. But a party chair should have a broader vission. When I see Dean I see an opportunist and not someone who will lead the party anywhere I'd like to see it go. He's not a bad man, he is not a bad politician, he was not a bad governor, he is not even a bad Democrat. I just think he would quite possibly be a bad party chairman.
dc

Tom Bruscino - 2/3/2005

I think--although I'm a bit dazed by images of Dr. Phil playing with naked bunny rabbits singing Barbara Streisand songs. Anyway, my focus--as it came out much better in the comments--really was on foreign policy, where Dean really has problems appealing to the broader country. For the reasons DC laid out, he really is a nightmare for hawkish liberals.

Alternatives? My folks live in Colorado and pointed out an old Clinton friend had been in the running for the chair for a while. From what I know of him, I think former Denver mayor Wellington Webb would be a wonderful choice for DNC chair. I don't think it will happen, but there is an alternative.

Stephen Tootle - 2/3/2005

This is also Dean's big chance to prove he can do something besides run a small state. Where else was he going to go? I am more optimistic than DC, I think. The responsibilities of running the party may force him to reexamine where the party is going. He may be smart enough not to try to remake the party in his own image. I am more worried that Dean at the DNC will make the Republicans overconfident, leading to more demands from the social conservatives. Who knows?

Brian Flynn - 2/3/2005

Although not without his problems, I think Dean has strengths that are being overlooked. DC is correct that not many people paid much attention to Dean's relatively conservative record on social issues as Governor of Vermont. But governor's do have fiscal constraints and as a presidential candidate Dean ran a decent campaign and deserves credit for energizing a lot of new voters.

Listening to Bush last evening (actually reading his speech this morning, as I could not listen for long) it is just staggering what a right wing vision he is proposing: end of social security, medicaid, permanent tax cuts for the rich, out right gay baiting and a permanent war against an undefined enemy. This is an adminstration that is hell bent on basically undoing all social legislation of the 20th century and on the international front openly scornful of international law.

The democrats response was even more pathetic than I expected. The new Seante leader Reid (strong opponent of abortion rights) began with "my father worked in the mines and my mom took in washing" and after that cliche offered complete drivel about family values. Pelosi I could not finish reading after the line "Our troops not only defend us, they inspire us". Howard Dean for all his problems can't be worse than this.

Derek Charles Catsam - 2/3/2005

Oscar --
I'm not certain that my piece does not give Dean a chance. Indeed, for about half of it, I surmise that he might actually be ok. But it is not as if this is the first time I have ever considered Howard Dean. When you say "let's give this guy a chance," I'd say that he has had a much better chance than most of his competitors to convey who he is and what he stands for. If, as you say, the party chair should be invisible, why choose someone so darned visible? And if you want someone visible, why not go with someone with more of a record of success? Why not pursue Clinton? I think our criteria ought to be a little more than "awww, shucks, just give the guy a chance." This is why we screen job applicants before giving tham the job, rather than after. My conservative friends are salivating over Dean as party chair. That cannot be a good thing.
dc

Oscar Chamberlain - 2/3/2005

While there may be some logic in lowering expectations for Dean as the new party leader, all this seems a bit extreme.

For one thing, no one here is assuming that Dean is capable of learning. He's not dumb. Second, he has a foot in both the moderate and the liberal wings (which is the main reason he is ahead, I suspect). That's important. Third, I don't know if he thinks outside the box well, but he strikes me as someone who will try to do so. Fourth, he's not running for office, and once he is in, his image with Americans will have ziltch importance, largely because they will have forgotten him.

And that's fine. Party leaders should be invisible to the public.

Rich Holmes - 2/3/2005

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make my first prediction here at Rebunk: If Dean is the next DNC chair, the Democratic Party will dissolve within the next 10 years. How a political party dissolves, I honestly have no idea. Really this is nothing more than a silly pipe dream of mine, but Dean as the next DNC chair certainly isn't going to do anything to help the Dems. (For the record, I'd love to see the demise of the Republican Party, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.) Think about it: the little white angry anti-war guy heading up the party. To steal a line from the Guiness beer commercials, "Brilliant!" Suddenly Terry McAuliffe doesn't look so bad.

Billy Madison had some pretty sweet parties.