Why Kucinich bothers

I don’t doubt that Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) is a nice guy. By all indications, he has a specific worldview that shapes his beliefs, he’s earnest and sincere, and he’s clearly passionate about liberal causes.

But the notion that he’s going to be elected president is terribly far-fetched. It’s almost ceratinly not going to happen. Kucinich will no doubt say all the right things about being “optimistic” about his chances, but I suspect even he realizes that, come January 2009, he won’t be taking the oath of office.

So, why bother? The WaPo explored this in an interesting piece today by Zachary Goldfarb, who seemed hesitant to come right out and say it, but suggested that Kucinich and other long-shot candidates are kind of delusional.

Fred I. Greenstein, a professor emeritus of politics at Princeton University and one of the major scholars of political psychology, says politicians — including some accomplished ones — have trouble knowing their limitations. He said candidates exhibit a tendency “where faith triumphs over reason and empirical reality-testing falls by the wayside, and a lot of what drives people is some combination of vanity and lack of self-perspective.”

David G. Winter, a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan who has devised ways to classify the motivations of presidential candidates, says the long shots might well be subject to what he calls the affiliation motive: They surround themselves with people who exhort their campaigns and praise their ideas.

“It puts them in a bubble such that they aren’t able to look honestly at the whole picture,” he said.

The argument is not without merit, but I have a hard time applying the “affiliation motive” to Kucinich specifically. He just doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy who’d surround himself with a bunch of sycophants, all of whom believe (and keep telling their candidate) that Kucinich really will be the next president of the United States.

Instead, I think this is about making a kind of point.

Kucinich, I imagine, believes that the top-tier candidates aren’t nearly liberal enough, so by running, he can help shape the debate. By articulating a very progressive worldview, Kucinich thinks he can drag other candidates, who stand a better chance of success, closer to him and his agenda. I suspect Kucinich genuinely believes in the power of his ideas, and by running for president, he gives those ideas a platform. It’s not about ego or delusion; it’s about the cause.

Except — and here’s the bad news for Kucinich fans — he’s mistaken. This approach doesn’t seem to work at all.

In 2004, during a radio debate in Iowa, Kucinich held up a chart about the budget. The moderator explained that this wasn’t being televised — and charts don’t work well on radio where listeners can’t see them. Kucinich said, “Gov. Dean can see it.” It was kind of sweet, in a way. In most of these debates, candidates are trying to score points and impress voters; in this debate, Kucinich really just wanted to explain a policy point to Howard Dean, in the hopes that he’d end up agreeing with him.

But he didn’t, and therein lies the point. Kucinich thought he could drag the field to the left in 2004, but he couldn’t. Not at all. “Pressure” from the Kucinich campaign was non-existent. In order to get rival candidates to shift ideological gears, a “make-a-point” candidate has to actually garner some fairly significant support. Kucinich didn’t seriously compete in any primary or caucus anywhere. At no point did it occur to a rival candidate, “Well, I guess I better move to the left to pick up some of these Kucinich supporters.”

In all likelihood, 2008 will be very similar. Kucinich will very earnestly make his case, he’ll get a podium in the debates, the other candidates will campaign without him in mind, and he likely will finish no better than sixth in any state.

I suppose my point is that the WaPo article pointed to the wrong delusion. Kucinich isn’t in some kind of bubble that prevents him from understanding he won’t win the presidency; but rather, that he’s in some kind of bubble that prevents him from understanding that he won’t have the impact he wants on the presidential race.

Last time I checked, John Kerry was no more the president than Dennis Kucinich. Bernie Sanders ran for the Senate 30 years ago too, and attracted a whopping 1% of the vote in Vermont. Why’d he bother?

This may be a popular blog, but what proof is there that is has shaped the national debate more than Dennis Kucinich has with his participation in the Democratic primaries?

Why does the “carpetbagger” bother?

  • Wonder if CB wrote a similar thing in his coloring book re: a little known southern governor that ascended to the Presidency in the early 90’s?

  • Let’s all remember the 2nd post from Mr CB today.
    If my memory serves me, Mr. Kucinich received very little press in his last campaign, while the MSM were talking about polls & wardrobe.
    Maybe I’m wrong, but perhaps it’s about the message. And I’m sure that Don Quijote had a better chance with his mission, but SOMEONE has to fight for the workers in our country.
    If ideas were the true currency of elections, Dennis would fare a bit better, but since the MSM won’t do their job properly (in my opinion) he looks ridiculous.

  • I don’t think he’s any more delusional than any other underdog politician. I think he realizes he’s got no shot in hell, and would like to pull the debate in another direction. Does he believe he can? I’m not convinced. I’m sure he hopes he can. The thing is, there’s no predicting the ‘lightning in a bottle’ he’s hoping to catch.
    He should recognize that his treatment from the ‘serious pundits’ in ’04 is likely to be repeated. Maybe he’s looking at a guy like Howard Dean, who was equally marginalized and overcame it. If that’s what he’s hoping for, he’s got to stop marginalizing himself with stupid stunts like bringing visual aids to radio broadcasts.

  • Agreed that Dennis doesn’t surround himself with sycophants who are telling him he can win. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that Dennis does not even think he can win. However, Dennis’ ego has always been a bit inflated. Tie that to what is probably a very genuine belief that he needs to (continue to) speak out about the Iraq War and the circumstances which got us where we are today, and that is probably what is driving Dennis at this point. Let’s face it, where else can Dennis get the platform to present himself and his thoughts? He knows tht if he can hang on the same stage as Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Gore that he will get heard by a wider audience than normal. And his ego drives that. He is a good man, but just can’t realize that he is a born representative and not an executive.

    And I wouldn’t mind his running (as well as other candidates who have no shot) if they at least would spend some of the premium time they are given using the platform to attack the other party’s candidates and ideas in order to help the Dem party and eventual candidate out. I would prefer having a group of 4-6 candidates or less to focus on when primary season rolls around (the 11 or 12 last time did not seem to work well–I found it to be too distracting and cost the viable candidates significant air time). However, if the less-viable candidates actually used their position to serve as useful attack dogs, forcing the GOP candidates to spend/waste time answering their attacks, pointing out the negative positions/backgrounds/decisions of the GOP candidates, and allowing the most viable Dem candidates to take a higher road during the primaries, I would welcome them in.

  • I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say he’s just in it for the chicks. Chicks dig presidential candidates big time!

    More seriously, he may be more interested in a cabinet position in a Democratic administration. We’ll know soon enough if that’s any less delusional for him than actually aspiring to the presidency.

    Or maybe it’s as simple as “If I don’t get out there and say what needs to be said, neither will anybody else.”

  • One of the benefits of candidates like Kucinich running, irrespective of why they do, is that they can/do say things about the GOP leadership that more likely nominees can’t/won’t. It’s useful to have a couple of candidates with, realistically, nothing to lose and nothing to gain. I remember several occasions in 2004 when I was grateful to Kucinich and/or Al Sharpton for delivering a very pointedly snarky critique of Bush or one of his policies in a way the other Dem candidates simply wouldn’t do, particularly at the beginning of the campaign. And, quite frankly, I think it’s useful for the other candidates to have someone like that around, whose blunt criticisms in Dem primary debates can serve as trial balloons, measuring which criticisms catch the media’s attention favorably, and which catch the media’s attention unfavorably–and the base’s.

  • Mr. Kucinich gives voice to an ideal that is too-often forgotten—not just by the media, but by the Democratic Party. I agree that he thinks the party has shifted too far to the right; I think the same thing—and Dems risk losing a part of “their” base if they continue the rightward march as the means to placate “soft-core ReThugs.”

    But then again, I think that in an America that ignores the plight of its undernourished citizens—yes, Virginia, Santa Claus says that there are people in America who don’t get enough to eat—“Blue Dogs” could be recategorized as a food group….

  • I agree with CB that if Kucinich really wants to have an impact on his party, he has to garner the kind of electoral support that will make people have to take notice of him.

    If he just continues to pop up every four years and shout, “Hey, look at me!” then no one will take him very seriously even if his ideas are sound. Personally I like the guy and he has some very intriguing points, but you don’t see him doing the hard work that Clinton, Obama, Giuliani and McCain do.

    Traveling the country, pressing the flesh, all that sort of mundane political crabgrass that is the foundation of any serious political campaign……Kucinich just doesn’t get the job done. Sorry, guys, if you don’t hoe the row you don’t get the dough, as the saying goes.

    It’s his decision and he can do with it what he likes. Don’t expect me to pay attention to him, though. There’s a murderous Republican presidency to take down and we just don’t have the time for Dennis Kucinich right now.

  • Seriously, if Boy George II can be president, who can’t?

    “Last time I checked, John Kerry was no more the president than Dennis Kucinich.”

    True, but as I remember it, Kerry won more votes than any other Democrat in history, so it’s not like we weren’t trying as hard as we could.

    I suppose it’s true that Dennis didn’t pull the field to the left, mostly because he was sucking up all the votes from that quarter and Dean and Kerry didn’t have to worry that they went to the other guy (or Edwards or whoever). When there are candidates on the wings the mainstream candidates don’t have to move there to deny their real competition the votes.

  • #1 is spot on. How is Kucinich (or CB or anyone) supposed to have any kind of impact if they don’t even try? The kind of reasoning that says one shouldn’t even attempt a Quixotic venture merely because it is Quixotic is defeatest to the core.

  • In addition, I guess it is one thing to jump in and run, try the Quixotic venture, and a whole ‘nuther thing to remain in the race months after it is clear that one is only pulling less than 5% of the vote. That is pard of the problem with Dennis–he doesn’t necessarily know when to gracefully bow out. Maybe he is a bad example for using regarding underdog ventures.

  • The quixotic governor of Vermont certainly affected the debate and the subsequent two years in a manner that even he had not anticipated, I suspect. However, Kucinich is a gadfly. He makes a few good points but wraps them up in a package that is just too eccentric. Additionally as one of the previous posters noted, he doesn’t do the hard work on the rubber chicken circuit that the good doctor did and does do. I think that DK mostly enjoys the limelight.

    As long as the vanity candidates are running positive campaigns, I have no trouble with them even if they suck up some of the airtime, but if they find themselves compelled to provide ammunition for the Thugs, a curse on them.

    I think that DK was reasonably positive in 2004, but he voted for impeachment, so I can’t forgive him for that failing.

  • Kucinich did have a significant impact in Iowa back in 2004, when he and John Edwards made a deal – that if Kucinich wasn’t a viable candidate in a given precinct (that is, had 15% of the caucus vote), his support would then go to Edwards. That added about 4% to Edwards total, which contributed to a strong second-place showing that did as much to crush Howard Dean’s expectations as Kerry’s victory did in Iowa.

    IMO, if Kucinich wants to run, more power to him. He’s a decent man who adds integrity to the debate and has important things to say about the Iraq war that need to be heard.

  • I’m glad to see Dean getting props for groundwork in this discussion. Too often he is described as “the Internet candidate,” which is really unfair. When he was languishing in single digits, he travelled the country lighting up small audiences with his speeches, and word of mouth made the audience larger the next time. At a time when Kerry and Edwards would only do fundraisers or larger events in Iowa, Dean was literally stopping by law firms, medical offices, accountants offices etec and would meet with anyone curious and willing – literally 4, 5, 6 people at a time and try and win opinion leaders over truly one by one if necessary. He and Kate were physically in Iowa constantly. He worked very hard in a very traditional way for every percentage point of his brief but stunning trip up the polls.

  • Dennis certainly made an impact here in Oregon. He was the only Dem in 2004 to visit the middle (ie red part) of the state – the others all stuck to Portland. Dennis gathered enough votes and devoted electors that Oregon was one of a few states where he got nominating votes at the Dem Convention. I wonder if he chose just a few states to campaign in?

    Sure, he’s a bit off the wall, but he makes some good points. And if he can go after the R nominees, so much the better.

    I think Dennis is trying his best to change the conversation we are having in this country about economic fairness. And I’m all for that.

  • To follow up on my previous point, the question should not be “why does he bother” but rather “has his campaign improved?”

    But in 2004 he managed several things. He gained some electoral votes, which as (I believe it was) this blog taught me, garners one some influence with the party, as it did for Dean. And, in an election year ripe for it, he motivated the base and many who are left of the base, he brought them into the party, and probably got them to vote for Kerry in the general election. Kucinich is in all things hopeful, but by no means delusional. And, like Hannah points out, he reaches out to groups that you can expect Clinton or Obama to not reach, such as central Oregon. I most certainly could not afford Clinton’s $100/plate fundraiser dinner, but I could afford to listen to Kucinich at his free Lewis & Clark College event (though I had to work at the time and had to miss it anyway.)

  • I thought Kucinich did it so that the GOP & supine media couldn’t tar the frontrunner in the Democratic primary with the “most liberal candidate” label.

  • Dennis Kucinich is one of the few members of the Democratic Party I still respect…
    And more importantly TRUST…

    NOT Kerry, Hillary, Edwards OR ANY OTHER MEMBER OF CONGRESS
    who voted for this God-Awful mess
    Bush and his “REP-PACK” have led this Country into…

    Kucinich had the VISION and COURAGE to stand up and say “NO”
    to Right-Wing 9/11 War Mongering Intimidation…
    Kucinich’s supporters SHARED HIS VISION…
    So much so, his Delegates at the last Democratic Convention refused to cast their votes for Kerry (WHO VOTED FOR THE WAR)!!!
    BARAK OBAMA is currently being “Marketed” like an “Oscar Nominee” before the Golden Globes or Academy Awards…
    (“FOR YOUR VOTER CONSIDERATION”)
    Will the “Oscar” go to Obama????
    I fear he will fall victim to the same lackluster platform which plagued Kerry’s campaign…
    Kucinich, at least, STANDS AND REPRESENTS HIS BELIEFS, offers SOLID IDEAS and ANSWERS
    where OBAMA merely “Discusses Issues”…
    Much like your typical “Centrist”.

    Kucinich votes with Progressive-Values…
    All the other current Democratic Candidates will soon Kow-tow
    to the Lowest Common Denominator…

    Their Platforms Watered-Down like Alcohol in a Two-Bit Dive…

    IS THE D.N.C. LOOKING FOR “CHARISMA” OR REAL SOLUTIONS????

    Whether thru Ego or not… Count on Kucinich to stay in the game…
    And More-Importantly: REMAIN CREDIBLE…

  • I grew up around Cleveland and remember Kucinich the Cleveland City Councilman, Kucinich the mayor and couldn’t believe that after all that he made it Congress. He had a dismal public image in his formative years for being a buffoon, but he has always managed to keep a hardcore group of believers around him with his populist messages.

    I can see CB’s point, but like other posters I think if Dennis (known as “Dennis the Menace” in his Cleveland days) wants to truly make a point, why not? I hope he learns some lessons from his last at bat, though.

    He needs to shape his message if he wants to be a message candidate and not run as an ad hoc leftie. His last campaign was all over the place and didn’t do a good job to publicly shape him as a candidate. He should recognize he will make other candidate look centrist in comparison, which could be a good thing in some jurisdictions. And as Shakespeare’s Sister did a great job of pointing out, he could be the court jester that can say the truth where others dare not. This last point is all the more important because that is classic Rovian politics to keep the favored candidate clean while throwing an attack dog into the mix to stir up some muck. If the Democratic Party takes a team approach to this election, Kucinich could indeed be a very valuable role player.

  • I don’t think that he was ever optimistic about chances of success. He seems to be a realist.

    I think that he does feel that will get more media exposure by being a candidate so that his opinions will be more widely heard. As to whether his expectations here exceed reality…who knows…maybe he is satisfied if only a few more people get to hear his message.

  • Personally, I’d rather he not crowd the field during debates.

    But I think the reason he may be running could be to represent people further to the left. To let them know that they, too, have a place in the Democratic Party. In his last campaign, his staff seemed to be more interested in capturing the interest of the Greens than the mainstream.

    And if we want the far left to feel that their concerns do sometimes get an airing in serious public forums — well, then, that’s not such a bad thing.

  • I can follow the “Jester” comparison…
    (The only one in the Courtyard that can tell the truth, etc.)
    But ONLY SO FAR…
    DON’T FORGET WHO LOST ALL CREDIBILITY
    by, Say: “Riding A Tank” or
    Say: “Wearing Huntin’ Outfits”.
    For TOO LONG, “The REP-PACK” has lied to The American People.
    We are FAR MORE SENSITIVE to Misrepresentation and Twisted Logic
    RIGHT NOW…(No matter where it comes from)
    More than we’ve been in LONG TIME…
    (Perhaps since the “Vietnam Generation”.)
    I cannot stand by and support ANYONE
    who merely offers a nice “Song and Dance”
    No matter how PRETTY the SONG is…
    PLAIN AND SIMPLE:
    Since Dick Cheney’s return from being summoned to Saudi Arabia last month,
    (Where he was dictated Foreign Policy)
    I’ve come to see that we’re playing:
    “STAY THE COURSE… IN CAMOUFLAGE”
    Bush will Tell Us Anything BUT THAT.
    We are sending More Troops To Iraq… NO DOUBT!!!
    Why???
    To keep King Abdullah and the Saudi’s HAPPY…
    Until the Other Democratic Candidates are willing to FACE THE MUSIC AND DANCE…
    I’ll be WATCHING THE JESTERMAN SING…
    * * *

  • I can follow the “Jester” comparison…
    (The only one in the Courtyard that can tell the truth, etc.)
    But ONLY SO FAR…
    DON’T FORGET WHO LOST ALL CREDIBILITY
    by, Say: “Riding A Tank” or
    Say: “Wearing Huntin’ Outfits”.
    For TOO LONG, “The REP-PACK” has lied to The American People.
    We are FAR MORE SENSITIVE to Misrepresentation and Twisted Logic
    RIGHT NOW…(No matter where it comes from!)
    More than we’ve been in LONG TIME…
    (Perhaps since the “Vietnam Generation”.)
    I cannot stand by and support ANYONE
    who merely offers a nice “Song and Dance”
    No matter how PRETTY the SONG is…
    PLAIN AND SIMPLE:
    Since Dick Cheney’s return from being summoned to Saudi Arabia last month,
    (Where he was sternly dictated Foreign Policy)
    I’ve come to see that we’re playing:
    “STAY THE COURSE… IN CAMOUFLAGE”
    Bush will Tell Us Anything BUT THAT.
    We are sending More Troops To Iraq… NO DOUBT!!!
    Why???
    To keep King Abdullah and the Saudi’s HAPPY…
    Until the Other Democratic Candidates are willing to FACE THE MUSIC AND DANCE…
    I’ll be WATCHING THE JESTERMAN SING…
    * * *

  • If we’re still in Iraq in 2008 and the leading Dems are waffling about bringing the troops home once we have a Democratic president, Kucinich will hammer them.

  • Maybe Kucinich has an effect in that he makes the other liberal candidates (like Edwards last time, and Obama this time) look more “centrist” and thus more electable.

    In any case, if he wants to run, let him.

  • I’d say extremist candidates run because it’s a way of establishing their leadership – of their particular circle of extremists.

    Kucinich isn’t fooling himself about his ability to win the nomination, or even to influence the nomination. But he probably does crave being thought of as “the leading light of the left”, just as Jesse Jackson did twenty years ago and Ralph Nader eight years ago. For the circles these guys move in, that’s more than enough reward. Same with David Duke, Gary Bauer or Pat Buchanan on the right

  • B C

    I still am not comfortable with these LABELS you or ANY OTHER political pundit
    give these candidates…
    EXTREMIST has been given such a NEGATIVE SLANT over the years…
    Was Kucinich an EXTREMIST for Not Supporting Bush’s IRAQI OIL WAR???
    Is he an EXTREMIST for offering up CREDIBLE SOLUTIONS???
    Are you an EXTREMIST for seeing thru all the B.S. and TELLING THE TRUTH???
    ROBERT BYRD refused to support the war…
    Are you calling him and EXTREMIST???

    NEVER In my ENTIRE LIFE
    have I ever heard the TRUTH given such a BAD RAP as it is being given now…
    WHY do we continue to ACCEPT
    whatever tags the Corporate or Right-Wing Media gives the Progressives
    or Just Plain ENLIGHTENED members of the Democratic Party…
    (REMEMBER… LEFT-WING was a term used to describe
    SOCIALISTS / ANARCHISTS / STUDENT MOVEMENTS and even Communists
    SEVERAL DECADES AGO… )
    Now it’s been Mis-Labeled and PASSIVELY accepted by Democrats!!!)
    HOW SOON do you think it will be before YOU start accepting
    John F. Kennedy’s Space Program as EXTREMIST???
    When do you let the STATUS QUO call any of our Basic CIVIL LIBERTIES EXTREMIST???
    Will BASIC HEALTH INSURANCE FOR ALL AMERICANS BE CALLED EXTREMIST???
    Will Kucinich’s call to repeal Tax Breaks for the Wealthy be called EXTREMIST???
    Will calling for the return of HABEAS CORPUS be called EXTREMIST???
    Will all those victims still suffering from the ravages of Hurricane Katrina be called EXTREMISTS???
    (I suppose soon… In your view,
    Little Johnny sitting at the Dinner Table will be called an EXTREMIST for refusing to eat his Broccoli… Or Thomas Edison was a DOMESTIC-LIFE EXTREMIST for inventing products which changed everyone’s lives…)

    WHAT THEN???
    WHERE WILL IT END?????
    Again…
    If Kucinich SPEAKS TRUTH TO POWER… (When everyone else isn’t…)
    WHY OH WHY ARE WE CALLING IT EXTREMIST???
    Shouldn’t he be called a REALIST???
    And since ALL the OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
    DID SUPPORT BUSH’S WAR…
    SHOULDN’T THEY BE CALLED: FLAWED JUDGEMENTISTS???
    EXTREMIST sounds TOO MUCH like “TERRORIST”…
    B C…
    If you want to give Kucinich a NEGATIVE TAG…
    Then at least call him a STUBBORN HARD-CORE REALIST…
    “REALIST”… Yes!!!
    AT LEAST THAT’S A LABEL
    WE MAKE UP FOR OURSELVES…
    AND CAN WEAR PROUDLY!!!

    PLEASE quit falling into the SAME RIGHT WING TRAP as everyone else!!!
    Be CREATIVE (Or “Extremist” yourself, and make up a proper new Label…)

    P.S.: As far as Political Labels, Tags and Slogans are concerned…
    I’m reminding everyone of the slogan used by people
    who voted for the Terribly Flawed Kerry Presidential Campaign:
    “Anything But Bush”
    Look how well THAT LOGIC worked…

  • The more people that support Kucinich, the more his ideas will influence the Democratic Party.

    Also, I think it is way too early to be sure about who can win the Democratic nomination. Iraq will keep getting worse, healthcare will keep getting worse, and the economy will keep getting worse for the middle class and the poor.

    Kucinich has postioned himself as the only candidate if the public really gets fed up with policies as usual in Washington, DC. He will have to get lucky to win, but it is more plausible than many think.

  • Comments are closed.