One of things about Howard Dean’s presidential campaign that’s always bugged me is his tendency to go after Democrats. Despite claims of representing the “Democratic Party wing of the Democratic Party,” Dean has been almost as tough on his party this year as he’s been on the Republicans.
It sometimes seems, in Dean’s eyes, Democrats are the ones to blame for Bush’s mistakes. Despite being in the minority in the House and Senate, Dean argues that the Dems would be winning these legislative battles if we weren’t “weak” and afraid to “stand up” to Bush.
I’m all for Dems getting tough, but it’s frustrating to hear Dean place so much blame, so consistently, on the Democratic Party. We’re not the bad guys, I keep thinking; point the finger at the Republicans if you’re upset about the nation’s direction.
Ev Ehrlich, a Commerce Dept official under Clinton and the author of a very funny political novel, wrote a fascinating essay for the Washington Post last weekend in which he noted that Dean is effectively running an independent campaign within the Democratic Party’s primary structure.
“For all Dean’s talk about wanting to represent the truly ‘Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,’ the paradox is that he is essentially a third-party candidate using modern technology to achieve a takeover of the Democratic Party,” Ehrlich explained. “Other candidates — John Kerry, John Edwards, Wesley Clark — are competing to take control of the party’s fundraising, organizational and media operations. But Dean is not interested in taking control of those depreciating assets. He is creating his own party, his own lists, his own money, his own organization. What he wants are the Democratic brand name and legacy, the party’s last remaining assets of value, as part of his marketing strategy.”
Exactly. All presidential campaigns try to develop a following based on the strength of the candidate, but Dean appears to be taking this approach to a new level. Dean isn’t just running against Bush, he’s running against Democrats, Republicans, DC, the DLC, the media, and the special interests. It’s Dean against the world.
I, of course, disagree with Dean’s analysis. I don’t think Democrats are part of the problem; I think we’re part of the solution — which makes Dean’s triangulation all the more disturbing.
For those who don’t remember triangulation, it was a scheme thought up by Dick Morris in the mid-1990s. Bill Clinton, in the wake of the disastrous 1994 congressional elections, took Morris’ advice and began campaigning against both parties in Congress, holding himself out as a better, more pragmatic, alternative. It gave rise to Clinton’s permanent ownership of “third-way” politics.
Dean appears anxious to take triangulation to the next level. Clinton used it successfully after having been elected President and, necessarily, becoming the leader of the party. Dean, on the other hand, is triangulating in the primaries, running against both parties while trying to become the standard bearer for one of the two. As a student of politics, I see it as a fascinating and unique approach. As a lifelong Democrat who hates to see his party condemned by other Democrats, it’s an approach I find offensive.
It strikes me as a kind of “wedge” strategy, usually utilized by the right. The wedge was probably at its sharpest in October, when Dean was in Iowa and said that once he was elected, lawmakers in Congress were “going to be scurrying for shelter, just like a giant flashlight on a bunch of cockroaches.” As the New York Times reported, the Iowan “mentioned Republicans and Democrats alike, and Dr. Dean made no distinction.”
Naturally, this didn’t go over well with a lot of Democrats who didn’t appreciate the comparison. As Adam Smith, a three-term Democratic congressman from Tacoma, Wash., wrote in Roll Call, Dean’s “attacks have always differed from the normal give and take between candidates vying for their party’s nomination in that he does not merely criticize his specific opponents for the prize. He vilifies any Democrat who supported the Iraq war resolution, any portion of the president’s tax cuts or the No Child Left Behind legislation, claiming these Democrats are worthy of nothing but the utmost contempt. He derides these people as ‘Bush lite,’ being no different from Republicans, having ‘rolled over’ and offered no resistance to the Bush agenda. He calls them cockroaches that will scurry away from the bright light he, our conquering hero, will shine upon them once he ascends to the White House.”
Though Dean later acknowledged that the cockroach reference was a “bad line” that he shouldn’t have used, Dean is still triangulating his way through the nominating process. Yesterday, this strategy reached new heights (or depths, depending on how you look at it).
In New Hampshire, Dean railed against “Washington Democrats.” That’s funny; I thought President Bush was the one who was supposed to rail against “Washington Democrats.”
In fairness, it appears from context that Dean was largely referring to his campaign rivals — Lieberman, Gephardt, and Kerry — all of whom are Democrats serving in DC. However, Dean criticized the party generally as well, saying “the soul of the Democratic Party is at stake” in this election, and adding that “Washington Democrats fell meekly into line” with President Bush and failed to “stand up for what was right” before the war began.
Dean didn’t get around to mentioning that he, too, supported a congressional resolution, along with many other “Washington Democrats,” authorizing Bush to pursue war in Iraq. I guess he forgot about his own “meekness” before the war.
Dean also tried to triangulate yesterday against the original triangulator — Bill Clinton.
“While Bill Clinton said that the era of big government is over, I think we have to enter a new era in [the] Democratic Party, not one where we join the Republicans and aim simply to limit the damage that they inflict on working families,” Dean said.
Now this is a bold step. While most of the candidates, including Dean, have been tripping over themselves for months to see who can praise Clinton the most, Dean appeared to be arguing that his governing philosophy would break with Clinton’s. Risky stuff.
At least that what it sounded like Dean was doing. As Slate’s William Saletan explained, Dean was taking a swipe at Clinton without acknowledging the original context of the “big government” quote.
“Clinton was bashing ‘big government’ so that his audience — congressional Republicans and the moderate voters who had put them in power — wouldn’t think of his programs as big government,” Saletan said. “Dean is doing the same thing. When he claims to stand for a ‘new era’ different from Clinton’s, he isn’t really ditching Clinton’s agenda. He’s just bashing Clinton so that his audience — liberals, angry Democrats, and disgusted nonvoters — won’t think of his agenda as Clintonism. Dean’s speech doesn’t libel Clinton; it plagiarizes him.”
Common sense may tell us that to win a party’s presidential nomination, a candidate should go out of his (or her) way to embrace the party, its members, leaders, icons, and agenda. Dean is doing the opposite, telling the nation that his party is wrong, weak, and directionless — all the while, labeling the other party misguided, immoral, and deceitful.
Right or wrong, there’s no parallel for this model of presidential campaigning. Ross Perot comes close, but he wasn’t running in a party’s primary system. To be sure, it certainly isn’t McGovern or Dukakis, the candidates to whom Dean is most often compared. Maybe the best comparison would be to Barry Goldwater, whose 1964 campaign was determined to win a battle for the GOP’s direction and future.
Remind me, how many states did Goldwater win?