A Case for Howard Dean as DNC Chair

When I had my thirty seconds backstage with John Kerry after a rally in Reno, the small talk was confined to this mindless banter: Aide [to JFK]: "These guys came all the way from Toronto just to work on the campaign." JFK:"Thank you for coming so far to help." TRAC:"We drove 3,000 miles to help you win the state of Nevada. And I also came to play poker on the side." (Seriously, I said that.) JFK: "Poker? You'd better not lose all your money playing poker, otherwise you're not going to be able to get back to Canada." An amusing -- if lame -- exchange. But therein Kerry unintentionally revealed the fundamental long-term weakness of his candidacy and of the Democratic Party. They are unwilling, and even frightened, to gamble. The new conventional wisdom in political circles is that voters concerned with "values" and "morals" won Bush this election. This insight did not convince me until I took another look at the polls on the eve of the election. The consensus among surveys of likely voters was that the United States was headed in the wrong direction and that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea. Most importantly, the President's approval rating was below 50 percent, and the so-called "incumbent rule" dictates that undecided voters who have decided they did not want to vote for the incumbent take a close look at the challenger. These trusty bellwethers should have ensured a Kerry victory on Nov.2. They didn't. Criticize the pre-game polling all you want, but it's pretty evident the electorate was not endorsing the president's results and record when it went to the polls. The difference maker was the president's resolute stances on the issues, right or wrong. "Values" resonating in the heartland meant, to me, a DC outsider willing to do things differently from the typical politician. That's how Bush won in 2000, and I'm convinced that's how he won in 2004. In Kerry, the Democrats had the consummate career politician: a patrician, elite education; a two-decade span in the Senate, the kiss of death for presidential candidates; the unshakeable perception that he would do anything to get elected. Though Bush is now clearly an insider, he doesn't do things like a political hack. Despite unpopular stances on some issues, he pursues what he believes. Even if you can't respect those stances, you can respect the fact that he takes them. Kerry couldn't win the perception campaign: his "voted for...before I voted against" line was a disaster. That perception fed into Bush's 17-point lead among voters concerned primarily with the issue of terrorism. The Republican message: Osama can tangle with Massachusetts, but under no circumstances would he mess with Texas. Cue Kerry's concession speech. Even Kerry's supporters could not deny he flip-flopped on some issues and clearly hedged his bets on the controversial topics, hoping not to offend anybody but the most ardent neo-conservatives. As we have seen, this was not a winning strategy. But as I've written below, it was the only strategy Kerry could have pursued. His career belied his equivocal stances and statements made in the primaries would come back to haunt him. (To this day I am still unclear whether he believes the world is better off with Saddam Hussein out of power.)

Many people, both within the Democratic Party and without, saw these weaknesses. But only one serious candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination was ahead of the curve from the beginning. Consider this quote from June 5, 2003:

"This President's not popular because people like his policies, he's popular because people think he's a strong leader. And you know what, Bill Clinton said that "America will always vote for someone who's strong and wrong before they'll vote for someone who's weak and right". We appear to be weak and right, we appear to be willing to say whatever it takes to get elected. As long as we're willing to say whatever it takes to get elected, we're going to be in the minority party for a long time. You know what, those folks at the Democratic Leadership Council were wrong. The way to get elected in this country is not to be like the Republicans, it's to stand up against them and fight! You have the power to take back this party, you have the power to take back this country, we have the power to take back the White House in 2004 and if you make me the nominee of the Democratic Party I will make you proud to vote Democratic again."

That is the money political quote of the last four years. To the surprise of nobody who followed the Democratic primary process, this quote was delivered by Howard Dean. To many Democrats, a Dean nomination for the presidency represented a major gamble, the sort that they find so reprehensible. Here was a candidate who unequivocally opposed the war in Iraq, who unabashedly supported socially liberal policies, and who supported rolling back Bush's tax cuts. All presumably unacceptable stances for a national political candidate. We know how the nomination process ended up, and we know how the safe nominee worked out. As you've correctly noted, MacDuff, the status quo in the Democratic Party leadership is unacceptable, given the results they have produced. If the Democrats will win the White House in the next 12 years, they'll have to do the following: identify the problem, convince the base of the solution, persuade the electorate that the Democrats are serious and unequivocal about whatever issues they decide they believe in, and bolster an election apparatus capable of delivering money and votes. Each of these steps is huge. But the process begins by identifying the problem. And that problem, as Dean has correctly identified, is that the Democrats don't stand up for what they believe in anymore and everybody knows it. Dean is no longer a viable presidential candidate; his scream speech has all but assured that. But he stands to make the greatest contribution of any Democrat to a party that needs some serious direction. I believe he is in a unique opportunity to define and shape a new party agenda, since he has been right on the mood of the electorate all along. If he can't be a politician in the traditional sense, he should at least get the chance to run the DNC. Not only has he correctly identified the problem and the solution, he has already proven himself as the reform candidate and the most able fund raiser in the history of the Democratic Party. I don't think it's any exaggeration to say that his campaign is the only reason Kerry was able to compete at all against Bush on the issues, on get-out-the-vote, and on money. Not to mention his ability to fire up the Democratic base. The Democratic Party can become viable again. But it must become the party of outside-the-Beltway reform. It must embrace key tenets of libertarianism, limiting the federal government's incursions on civil liberties and devolving rights to the states. It must become the party of fiscal hawkishness, with a pledge to cap the budget and reduce the deficit. It must articulate a viable vision on foreign policy, one that combines Kerry's pledge to build alliances with a hopeful, optimistic and aggressive policy of spreading American values abroad. Dean and others may disagree with that last one, but at least I know where Dean stands. There should be much discussion on this blog in the coming weeks of a new vision for the Democratic party, but for now, it's time for the Democrats to play some poker. It starts by going all-in with Howard Dean. I'll close with a question asked of Dean in a Jan. 22 primary debate -- a question that may well have been asked of the recently re-elected Dubya -- and in light of the election results I have to believe Dean responded with the right answer.

Q: Some say that you lead with your heart, not with your head. DEAN: I offer the American people somebody who believes in social justice tempered by being a fiscal conservative. The greatest injustice you can do is to have an unbalanced budget- which means more cuts in social programs. I say what I believe. It's time that somebody in this party stood up for what we believe in and wasn't so careful about what they were saying.