« ITALY'S REFERENDUM A FIASCO | Main | "THE NEW BLACKLIST" CONTINUES TO MAKE WAVES »
June 15, 2005
WHY HOWARD DEAN SAYS THOSE THINGS...
I wrote the following for the issue of the L.A. Weekly that hits the newsstands tomorrow:
Howard Dean did it again: he touched off a firestorm of criticism from within his own Democratic Party with an impolitic, off-the-cuff remark. Last week, talking to a forum of minorities in San Francisco, the Democrats’ national chairman said the Republicans were “pretty much a White Christian party” -- a story the San Francisco Chronicle broke under the headline, “The Mouth That Won’t Stop Roaring.”
As Karl Rove sat back and laughed his ass off in glee, a parade of national Democratic leaders scrambled to distance themselves from 
the darling of the party’s grassroots activists. Joe Biden (left), ranking Dem on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, blasted Dean’s remark as “counterproductive,” and said on ABC’s This Week that “Dean doesn’t speak for me with that kind of rhetoric.” Holy Joe Lieberman rather predictably denounced Dean’s comment as “way over the top.” New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (right) chimed in that “I wouldn’t 
have made the comments” Dean did, adding, “We all say stupid things sometimes.” Clintonista Congressman Rahm Emmanuel, Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (who wants to be the presidential candidate of the Democratic right), and a raft of Democratic pundits and consultants joined the anti-Dean wailing.
John Edwards -- who is still pursuing the fantasy that he can beat Hillary Clinton for the party’s nomination in ‘09 -- tried to have it both ways, with an “I-was-for-Dean-before-I-was-against-him” pirouette worthy of Johnny Ray’s former running mate, which the Washington Post reported, deadpan, this way: “Former vice presidential nominee John Edwards said of Dean at a Nashville fundraiser Saturday night: ‘He's a voice. I don't agree with it.’ But Monday, the DNC Web log featured an entry from Edwards's blog emphasizing their common beliefs. ‘We both agree with this basic truth: This Republican president and this Republican majority are not doing what they should be doing for working people in this country,’ the entry read. ‘Howard and I have been saying the same thing about this for years. Hear that? The same thing. For years.’” That Janus-like opportunism by Edwards said more about him than it did about Dean.
Edwards wasn’t the only one talking out of both sides of his mouth. 
Dean told his home state Vermont’s WCAX-TV that “"I'm getting unsolicited calls from people like… Nancy Pelosi and others saying they're supportive.” But there was Pelosi on CNN, saying, “I don’t think [Dean’s remark] was a helpful statement.”
I’ve frankly never understood the enthusiasm of activist liberal Democrats for Dean: he governed as a business-friendly centrist in Vermont, giving state corporate welfare to his campaign contributors; and insisted last year while he was running for president that he wa a centrist and that, "I really have a healthy mistrust of the left as well as the right." After his defeat in the Democratic primaries last year, he ran away from his opposition to the war in Iraq, telling MSNBC's Chris Matthews, "I never did base my campaign on the war" – an attempt to rewrite history which drew guffaws from people not afflicted with Alzheimer's. And he endorsed Bush’s first-strike doctrine, which said the U.S. had a right to militarily attack anywhere, anytime, and any place it wanted to.
But Dean’s unscripted, incautious style has made Deaniacs out of a lot of despairing rank-and-filers tired of the same-old same-old from 
the cautious bloviating Democratic heads who populate the Sunday chat shows and congregate on CNN‘s Inside Politics. He’s certainly a refreshing contrast to his oleaginous predecessor, gazillionaire bagman Terry MacAuliffe (left), who sweated falseness from every pore. When Dean says that “most Republicans have never made an honest living in their lives,” the activist Dems eat it up -- even though, as Democratic polling expert Roy Teixera pointed out, Bush won white working-class voters (those without college degrees) by 23 points, and a crack like Dean’s seemed (to them at least) calculated to drive them further into the GOP embrace.
I think the problem is that Dean throws out this red-meat rhetoric because he has no substance. He’s not a well-read man, and the insurgent, anti-war, populist persona Joe Trippi grafted on to the centrist Vermont governor last year was a matter of positioning against the field, not of deep conviction on Dean’s part. Dean has no progressive policy depth, so all he has to fall back on as he tries to rev up the Dems’ troops are these one-liners.
They sound great if you‘re starved for in-their-face anti-Republicanism -- but where’s the beef? To get to be DNC chair, Dean had to promise that he’d leave policy to the Democrats’ Congressional leadership -- make that the timid Democratic Congressional leadership. And he’s kept that promise. Example: just two weeks ago, Marin County Congresswoman Lynne Woolsey forced a vote on her resolution requiring the Bush administration to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. But this common-sense proposal was torpedoed with the help of the House Democratic leadership -- Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the supposed "liberal," and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer both led 79 House Democrats in voting to kill the Woolsey withdrawal resolution--even though the latest Gallup Poll shows 59% of American think all or part of US troops should be brought home from Iraq. But was there a peep out of The Mouth That Roared expressing even mild disagreement with this sellout? Naaaah…
Back in the late ‘50s, DNC chair Paul Butler -- under pressure from the Adlai Stevenson wing of the party -- turned the DNC into a nest for fresh, new policies for the Dems -- like the ones that later were 
adopted (at least in form) by the Kennedy administration as the Peace Corps, the War on Poverty, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
With the Capitol Hill Dems so inert, and so often voting with big business on things like bankruptcy limits (a boon to the credit card industry) and with Bush on the war, why not make the DNC once again a place where new, progressive policies can be articulated to help forge another Democratic victory, the nerve center of the fight against the drift to the center? That’s what the small donors Dean is trying to appeal to really want -- and it wouldn’t alienate swaths of swing voters the way Dean’s zingers often do. Absent the substance, though, it’s hard to see the shallow, pandering cracks that have elected Dems running away from Dean as anything other than a distraction from the uphill task of bringing what is a distinctly minority party these days back into power.
Posted by Doug Ireland at 01:11 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c0c4453ef00d8347eeac869e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference WHY HOWARD DEAN SAYS THOSE THINGS...:
Comments
Howard Dean is one of the extremely few in current American politics that has been bold, sincere, and willing to stand up against those in the Republican Party who claim to have a moral base but have screwed-up values. I am a supporter of Howard Dean, and hearing those of you who criticize him because you think he doesn't do enough annoys me. Unlike almost everybody else in Washington, Howard Dean always stands up for what he believes in. He chooses to not subscribe to a popular majority like everybody else not because it's easy or convenient for him, but because he posesses the strength of character and courage to do so. Maybe you don't agree with everything he does or says, everything he chooses to not do or say. That's normal. But the problem with politics today is that people don't criticize the politicians that have been in Congress for a decade and refuse to stand up for their beliefs or their constituents' beliefs and hold them accountable. Instead, they criticize someone like Dean, because he's outspoken, and he's willing to sacrifice his political stability for his beliefs, which is what every politician should be willing to do.
Posted by: Jen | Jan 22, 2007 12:32:36 PM
As someone who has gone to democracy for america meetups and resigned from it, I'm late to this thread.
BUT Mr. Ireland does have valid points. For me, when Gov. Dean agreed to Bush’s first-strike doctrine, which said the U.S. had a right to militarily attack anywhere, anytime, and any place it wanted to, well, that did it for me regarding Dean.
And his comments are, unfortunately, half-ass when it comes to 'hammering the opposition'. And they present so many opportunities all I can guess is Dean is now really gunshy of the mass media AND not very good at hiring PR people.
And I'll bet dollars to donuts most of those defending Dean aren't old enough to remember Butler and the DNC at the time.
What I have seen at Democracy for America meetups is a bunch of people looking to be led. And they are overwhelmingly white.
And yes, they want a 'tough talker' and were enamored of Obama after his speech at the Convention. BUT, look at his voting record. ANYONE wishing to move up in the 'hierarchy' HAS TO conform to the whores posing as peoples representatives that make up the power structure of the Democratic Party in Washington D.C.. Biden is a perfect example. Look at his voting record,not what he says.
As far as I'm concerned-and after living almost 60 years in this country,I'm very confident I do know the 'score'-there really isn't but one party and that is the 'Corporate Party' with 'blue' and 'red' factions.
Be assured that if Clinton is nominated, I'll be campaigning against her. And the way things are going-see Mr. Ireland's piece on San Bernardino County Congressman Jerry Lewis- it's getting near the time when dead bodies start appearing.
Posted by: ubetchaiam | Jun 29, 2005 10:32:59 PM
All of the above commentators never once mention Dean's lack of spine when it comes to the war. Ireland is right.
Posted by: duranta | Jun 20, 2005 8:37:07 PM
Doug. As someone who worked for Howard Dean, and repeated the phrase "he's not a liberal" about a million times, trust me...we know.
As for your bizarre and uninformed claim that he's done zero to re-empower the grassroots...well, frankly, are you insane, or just really, really hurt that you've been left out? (it's okay, we have a journalist just like you in Seattle, Joel Connelly used to be relevant, but now he's just a bit sad) Dean has been doing nothing BUT coming out to the grassroots. He's been in red states talking about message and policy. He came back to Seattle (finally) and met with supporters who were putting in huge work but couldn't afford to attend the fundraiser. This is a sea-change in relationships with the grassroots. And he's putting field organizers in place where they've never been, to help get the grassroots going again (something we see, again, in Eastern Washington).
And since you're obviously badly informed, yes, he kept some people on, but dumped quite a few hacks and brought in new, fresh people to the DNC.
Really, did you think he was going to cause some sort of political earthquake in four months? It took the Republicans 30 years to get where they are; Dean's doing a pretty damn good job of laying the foundation for the progressive policies to come. Get over yourself and start doing something to solve the problem, instead of griping about the problem.
Posted by: switzerblog | Jun 16, 2005 8:40:39 PM
Like all Dean detractors, Doug takes a few soundbites and writes a whole article about it.
Doug, this has been repeated ad nauseam by the Repubs, press, and the Dems you mention--what are you adding to ths discussion?
Dean inspires thousands at the grassroots level--People like you who cannot acknowledge the fact that Dean has energized so many and focus only on a few statements have no credibility...
Posted by: abby | Jun 16, 2005 8:16:55 PM
... is anybody out there perfect enough for you, Doug?
Question: How many "alienated swing voters" make up "the left," Doug?
Talk about wanting to have it both ways ...
It's paradoxical really: Howard Dean says things that get the little guy all fired up and sending in money, and yet you claim he's doing nothing to bring the party back to "the left" (when all this time I thought the party constituency should be the ones to determine the party agenda -- silly me! it's Doug, who says the Democrats represent "the left"!). People volunteer and even run for office in droves after participating in DfA (and who cares if it's because of Howard Dean or just for some reason in themselves that got unlocked), which would seem to be the point of DEMOCRACY, Doug, and yet the "swing voters" who don't care enough to get involved until election day will be displeased, and oh my we can't have that.
Maybe, like the conservatives who suspect a gay agenda in everything, it's YOU, Doug, who has the problem, and not the average HoHo enthusiast: maybe it's YOU who are too focused on Howard Dean.
Last time I checked, Howard Dean didn't have the reins of my life, so sitting around examining everything he's doing and then bitching about it seemed to me to be a complete wank-off.
Unless, of course, wanking off is your mission in life, Doug.
Posted by: eponymous | Jun 16, 2005 5:14:15 PM
Yo Doug,
Your take on Dean's statement "most Republicans have never made an honest living in their lives" is so very mainstream. Have you been spending a lot of time in Washington or at LA dinner parties with the smart set? When was the last time you actually TALKED (with the intent to listen) with a working class person? As someone with a mixed class background I can tell you that Dean hit the mark with that comment. Why do you feed us this establishmentarian analysis?
Posted by: Ken | Jun 16, 2005 11:19:05 AM
Still carrying on with the ad hominums: the "little man," "shallow, trivial politics." Have you ever been to a Democracy for America meetup? This is an outgrowth of Dean for America and in my state it's a great grassroots efforts on many fronts. Fundraising in the DNC is clearly shifting to small donors. Again, it seems that no real-life efforts live up to your glorious vision of "bringing the party back to the left."
Posted by: renee | Jun 16, 2005 9:01:50 AM
Listen folks, regardless of what you may think of Howard Dean, Doug's description of the leadership of the Democratic Party is clearly on point. They are Howard Dean's real weakness. I don't care if we had Bobby Kennedy or Eugene McCarthy or George McGovern or Paul Wellstone as DNC Chair, it would not matter given the dominance of people like Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Richardson, Mark Warner, Steny Hoyer, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of the weak-kneed, corporatist, bought-and-paid-for so-called Democrats. As a Vermonter who supported Howard Dean for President, I believe he made a huge mistake accepting the position of DNC Chair. Even if he were able to "reform" the Democratic Party and do what Doug suggests, "the real work of bringing the party back to the left", he can't do it from inside a party that is tied into a Gordian knot of special interests and corporate bribe money. All you have to do is look at what these people have been voting for and how they have rolled over in the face of the Bush-Rove juggernaut.
Dean was dead meat as soon as he accepted this position. Had he stayed outside, he might have been able to start something new and fresh.
Posted by: Stephen McArthur | Jun 16, 2005 6:51:34 AM
To all the Deaniacs who didn't like my dissection of Dean's weaknesses:
I find your continued worship of the little man from Vermont depressing, because you are willing to settle for so little. A few verbal grenades are no substitute for the much more difficult and infinitely more important work of extracting the Democratic Party from the grip of the neo-lib power junkies and reversing its opportunistic gallop toward the center-right. You cannot point to any instance in which Dean, as DNC chair, has made even the slightest effort to change the policy orientation of the party because he has utterly failed to do so. His first act was to keep on the collection of hacks that bagman Terry MacAwful had assembled for the DNC's staff. There has been zero organizational effort under Dean to re-empower the grassroots activists in the party, expand participation in that activism, and propel that activism on to a course that would bring the centrist-charging and spineless elected public officials with Ds after their name to account for their abandonment of any systemic challenge to Bush-Rove Republicanism on a policy level. And the reasons that Dean has been completely AWOL from the fight for a consistently progressive Democratic politics is that he is uncomfortable with such a politics, and always has been -- he himself has said so on any number of occasions, but you're so dazzled by the ill-considered fireworks of his occasional attention-grabbing sallys that you're all too blind to see the Emperor has no clothes. Today's Democratic Party doesn't stand for anything tht is all that much different from the media's consensual center-right pablum or the Republicns' right-wing brand of anti-Statist populism. That Dean continues to inspire such fascination and allegiance for so many in the Democratic Party is itself a sign of how trivial and shallow the party's politics have become. And it leaves the real work of bringing the party back to the left untouched.
Posted by: Doug Ireland | Jun 16, 2005 12:25:38 AM
To Doug Ireland: Howard Dean is brilliant, and does not say things off the cuff. He smokes people out, especially Democrats who either have no spine or are in the pocket of insurance companies. Dean is a highly literate man, very well read, and is friends with some very good writers and poets. I should know. He read my book. He resonates with people like me who are not only well-educated, but highly concerned with this country's well-oiled march to Fascism. You, on the other hand, are a shallow, subjective thinker, and cannot understand that the Washington insiders did not elect Dean, but the people did. As for Dean's governorship in Vermont, he balanced budgets and provided health insurance. Vermont today is a state that has no billboards along route 89, and is very progressive. You don't seem to understand that you have to take the Cheney/Rove strategy and put it back in their faces. These are the true propagandists who every day say outrageous lies, and the subservient media who serve them. You can point all you want to what you see as contradictions, but you have made many more than Howard Dean. Still unexplored is the criminal phoniness of the 911 Commission. What happened at the WTC and the Pentagon is well understood by everyone except the American populace. Dean is aware and is not for hire. I will stay with him as long as he is in the fight for democratic justice. The truth will be told no matter how much denial people like you are in.
Posted by: Marc | Jun 15, 2005 9:45:37 PM
Sounds like you're trying to agree with everybody.
Yes to the Demoplican swine in DC and the MSM : Dean is a "loose cannon".
Yes to the furious American people who are presently cheated out of an opposition party by the Demoplican and MSM.
That's a good straddle. With your casual remark that John Edwards "is still pursuing the fantasy that he can beat Hillary Clinton for the party’s nomination in ‘09" you have the third point of your very own triangle.
You seem to be trying to have it all three ways.
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Jun 15, 2005 9:26:53 PM
How do you know that Dean is not well read, with no progressive policy depth? Absent the substance, no deep conviction, etc. etc.
I don't think you know what you're talking about.
People flocked to Dean, no matter whether you think it's to a "persona." He's honest and gutsy and the man for this season.
Posted by: Renee | Jun 15, 2005 7:06:16 PM
Quite frankly, I don't care that Dean either is or was a "centrist" in Vermont. I care that he has the guts to speak out, even if you don't think he has any "beef" to back it up. The national dialogue is currently non-existent, except for Dean. And in fact, a diaglogue does not have to be "backed up" -- a dialogue creates its own beef. Dean may offend people, but he speaks and dares others to speak back. And for my part, liberal that I am, I say it's about time someone had the guts to take on the windbags in the almost without exception white and allegedly Christian men in the Republican party!
Posted by: Camille M. Abate | Jun 15, 2005 3:21:36 PM
This sentence:
"Absent the substance, though, it’s hard to see the shallow, pandering cracks that have elected Dems running away from Dean as anything other than a distraction from the uphill task of bringing what is a distinctly minority party these days back into power."
is very difficult to make any sense out of. The error is compounded by its position in the post: it's the final sentence, and therefore should be clear, succinct, and pithy.
Let me try:
"It's hard to see these shallow, pandering wisecracks, which are driving elected Dems away from Dean, as anything other than a distraction from the most important task: bringing a minority party back into power."
I have left out "Absent the substance," because it is not at all clear what this little clause refers to: substance of what, exactly? "Shallow cracks" have the reader looking for building materials; "wise"cracks is clearer. Setting the subordinate clause aside with commas and introducing it with "which" instead of running on with "that" is also easier to parse.
As a famous journalist who writes what I and many other "laypeople" consider important political commentary, you really ought to be ashamed writing such a bad final sentence.
You're welcome :+}
Posted by: dveej | Jun 15, 2005 2:50:09 PM
