The Cult of Dean

The only reason I looked at Howard Dean twice during the presidential primary season is that I thought he was electable. When he became highly unelectable a minute later, I moved on.

Now, let's pretend for a moment that the particular person who chairs the DNC has any relevance whatsoever. What the hell is so appealing about Dean? Yes, he supports Choice. Hooray! Does the DNC Chair have a vote in Congress that I'm not aware of? Does she get to sit on the Supreme Court?

Deaniacs: Please explain.

Comments

[Dylan]

While I could hardly be called a Deaniac, I think the DNC chair is a bit more important than your post is suggesting.

Terry McAullife's biggest positive was his ability to raise money. Over the life of his term, however, his leadership had a spotty, inconsistent manner. He was not a good strategy person, choosing largely to concentrate on the national message completely while allowing the district to district message to be dominated by the Republicans. He was traditional and establishment and refused to get dirty when he should have.

Which is pretty much a description of the Democratic Party the past 4 or 5 years. And that is the point, the Party will be directly influenced by who is at it's head. Simon Rosenberg may be a safer choice, because he is more plugged into the framework, but I doubt he'll do much to change strategy. Dean's biggest positive, to me, is his penchant to be unguarded and shake things up. (By the way, this is probably his biggest negative also). To the segment of the party who believes that the Party needs to undergo a rather significant shift (of which I am a member), Dean represents the best chance for that.

[Pseudo-Adrienne]

I like Dean because he's our answer to Dick Cheney. Dean is firm and doesn't cave into pressure. But he does have a sense of humore because he did make fun of himself after that screaming incident. Dean isn't running scared like so many Dems are after this election. He's pro-choice and isn't having second thoughts about his pro-choice views from what I've heard. So many Dems are abadoning their views in order to please the GOP and I'm glad that Dean is one of the few who aren't abadoning the voters in order to woo the Republicans.

Republicans want the Dems to back down so they can do as they please in Congress. But I think Democrats like Dean, Rodham-Clinton, Boxer, Kerry, Pelosi, Obama, and Leiberman (I know I didn't spell his correctly) wouldn't let them get away with it. I hope the DNC chooses Dean. Because that would mean that the Dems aren't running scared and caving into the pundits and the GOP. The Dems need to stand strong these next four years. There was NO mandate back in November. Fifty-one percent is NOT a mandate.

[Daniel K]

I voted for Dean in the Washington State caucus. I think he'd be a good DNC Chairman. Your point that he wasn't electable (vs. Bush) really is besides the point. As DNC Chair he won't be running for office, he'd be helping energize the Democratic base. Nobody looks at Terry McAullife and see's an electable candidate for a future Presidential race. That's not his role. His role is to work around the country to get the message out about what the Democratic party stands for. I think Dean, with his Democracy For America grassroots organizational background, has the means to do that very effectively.

[NTodd]

When even Wampum's MB endorses Dean, you know he's the right choice for a stagnant party. This independent Deaniac thinks the Dems need to have somebody kick them hard in the ass. Anything less and this pathetic party will continue to fight for the status quo and be objectively the worst opposition party in the history of the universe.

[NTodd]

Oh, and electability was the dumbest freaking meme ever invented (well, second to "Saddam's the most dangerous man in the most dangerous part of the world"). Apparently Kerry wasn't, either.

[Carla]

I am a Deaniac. Color me "Deaned" if you like.

The DNC Chair needs to understand how to raise money, how to debate and give interviews and how to strategize. Dean is excellent at all three.

His poor showing in the primaries (IMO) is more about the primary system set up than Dean (yes, he made some mistakes. But he's apparently learned from them too). The idiots in Iowa (sorry Attumwah but you piss me off) essentially chose our candidate. That irks the hell out of me.

[eRobin]

I'm Deaniac too. He's got a labor strategy - exporting unions, which is the only answer to our domestic labor disasters - is part of it. He had and will have the support of the only union that's showing any drive and imagination, the SEIU. He's the only person I have heard dare to discuss race in a meaningful (unavoidably painful) way. It was the shame of the Democratic campaign last year (and the event most revealing of the cracks in the Dem party) that every candidate backed off him the way they did when he made that comment about the guys with the ConFlag on their pickup trucks. Even Sharpton and Mosley-Braun let him twist instead of stepping up to agree with him. He inspired millions of people across the country to enter politics and then to stay involved even after the DLC/DNC tried to crush him. His organization, DFA, has gotten candidate elected. He knows that the Dem Party must reach down and out to rebuild its base. He's the only choice for DNC chair. And if the corporatist DLC power bloc in the Party ends up opposing him and wasting another four years, then it will reveal the true soul of this party and the progressives who are clinging to it hoping for real change will finally wake up and get the hell out, where we probably belong anyway.

[Roxanne]

The fact that Iowa and New Hampshire choose our candidate pisses me off, too.

On the chair of the DNC, doesn't anyone know off the top of their heads (without looking it up on the internet) who the DNC Chair was when Clinton won? How about Carter? What about Kennedy?

You know where I'm going with this ...

[eRobin]

For Clinton II I think it was Fowler's father. I'm not sure. But that's not the point anyway. We're saying that the party needs fundamental reform. You get fundamental reform by electing a chair who wants it and has plans for it as well. Because of Dean, more of us care who that person is.

[Roxanne]

Last time I looked Bill Clinton won. Twice. And he was the only Dem to do that in the last 40 years. Don't get me wrong. I don't belong to the Cult of Clinton, either.

[newswriter]

The Democratic Party needs a huge shake up to stop its slow slide to the Right ... which Clinton had a big role in. Clinton won because he was more real that George I, and the Dems thought that maybe someone who was a little more moderate would be a good candidate. Unfortunately, the Dems in charge went from there to "if a little more moderate is good, then a little more conservative is even better." Clinton was more personable. People liked him, the way they like George II now (different group of people, though).

I disagree that Dean was unelectable -- I think he would have given George W a real run for his money by presenting voters with a true choice, something Kerry didn't do (but, oddly enough, is beginning to sound like).

The Democrats must become true progressives and operate as an opposition party, presenting alternatives rather than being constantly on the defensive against whatever George W and the Republicans toss out. Since Nov. 2, too many Democrats have been like an abused dog, cowering in the corner. I can't believe how many voted to let Condoleezza Rice out of committee, how many will give Alberto Gonzales a pass. They're going to be confirmed, no doubt about it. But why are the Democrats making it so easy?

The party needs a leader who won't cave to that, who'll pick up and move. Will any of the other candidates for DNC chair do that? I doubt it. Howard Dean will. He's a maverick for a party that needs one to keep it from becoming a useless party. As Ted Kennedy said, "We don't need two Republican Parties."

Choice isn't the issue. Environmentalism isn't the issue. Gay rights isn't the issue. It's ALL the issue. Democrats need to stand up for freedom and liberty for ALL, not just those who agree with them. I don't believe any of the other candidates get that. Howard Dean does.

[NTodd]

Last time I looked Bill Clinton won. Twice.

Past results do not guarantee future returns.

It's a different political climate now, and Clinton clearly benefitted from Perot's runs as much as anything else. The Democratic Party has lost complete control of the Federal government because it sought the maintain the status quo and refused to stand up loudly for its principles. It ain't GOP Lite, but it's damn close, and the Clintonian strategy of triangulation is wholly inappropriate for a time of great division.

[Roxanne]

This is a good discussion. I've heard more about Dean's actual ideas in this thread than I've heard in the last twelve months.

Does anyone know if the DNC Chair gets to tell elected officials to the US Senate which cabinet appointees to approve? I have my doubts that the Chair wields that kind of power. If I were 3-6 term Senator, I think I'd be telling the Chair to fuck off. But maybe that's not the way it works.

I deeply wish this country was ready to go further to the Left to match what I think should be our agenda. But, I don't see it. I don't think we have the numbers. And, on a practical level, I'd rather have GOP Lite than Neo-con rule. Hell, the 90s were by far the best decade ever in my not-so-short life. And, compared to what we've got now, give me more Clinton.

Of course, it's hard to predict what will happen in the next in the next four years and maybe people will be ready for real change.

In any case, I think change needs to be about ideas and not about personalities. Jesse Jackson led a small movement with the Rainbow Coalition. But it was all about the man and not really about ideas. Nader, same thing. Jerry Brown, to a lesser extent but the same thing. Ross Perot, same thing.

Know, too, that the Republicans are going to be having lots of disagreements within the party during the next four years. The traditional conservatives (the majority) aren't too keen about the Neo-con agenda, either. And without an incumbent running, they'll be having their own fights.

[newswriter]

DNC chair has some say in direction ... but no, a senator is free to back whomever.

I think we do have the numbers to move left, although it's likely to take more than four years to make it work. I hope not, for all our sakes, but it could be longer. It will definitely be longer if the guy in charge of the National Committee is inclined to try to fake out moderate Republicans by trying to pretend to be just like them. They're not, and they never will be. Yes, the Reps will be having their own fights ... and that'll be real interesting, I think. But the real bottom line is that Karl Rove is likely to put up another candidate who will appear to be the heir to Dubya's throne, and campaigning on "hey, we're just like you" is going to get the same response it did this time from the moderates -- "if you're just like us, then why would we want to change? You keep changing."

Dean opposed the Iraq war. He and Dennis Kucinich were the only Democratic candidates who did. And they were right. Democrats need to take the stand strongly, the way Kerry is beginning to do (finally -- if only he'd done it during the campaign).

But even more importantly, to me, is that Dean understands the idea of local politics rather than national. The DNC has got to get more progressive candidates to challenge the regressive candidates the right wing puts up, whether it be neo-cons, Religious Right, or econo-cons. Dean IS a progressive. And that's what'll shake loose the hold with which the right wing has gripped the country. In my opinion.

This is a great thread. Thanks!

[eRobin]

The Chair is the nuts and bolts person who puts together the party machine nationwide to get Dem candidates elected. The Chair puts the fundrasing together, the media effort together, the state party outreach together. OR the chair can ignore the state parties completely and run the joint from a throne in DC - pissing off the roots and fracturing the party. The Chair builds coalitions with groups like unions and minority advocacy organizations. The Chair builds and strengthens the base. The Chair does not set policy. The Chair doesn't tell a Congressperson how to vote. (check out Dean's This Week demurral to the question of whether Gonzales should be confirmed.) The advantage with Dean is that he is proven to be good at everything a Chair does AND he comes with an active base that already has policy ideas of its own. The Meet-ups, which he inspired, are the closest thing we have to what the GOP got when it infiltrated America's churches. Lastly, God knows why, he truly believes in this party. Even after Clinton did his best to destroy it, and even after the party did it's best to destroy Dean. Just by remaining active and holding out hope to his supporters, he's holding it together.

[newswriter]

I'm with ya there eRobin. Personally, I think a Dean-led new party would be a better idea.

[NTodd]

Here's Mark Hertsgaard's take in Salon.

[newswriter]

NTodd, that article really explains it well. Sorry, Rox, but inside-the-beltway politics really is out of touch with the rest of the world. I'm often amazed at what our DC buro folks think the rest of the world is like -- they are pretty much clueless, although sometimes, by accident, it all coincides.

Dean will take the Democrats outside the Beltway.

[Omar K. Ravenhurst]

Frankly, I just want to get rid of the leaders who keep hurting the party. I think Dean lost because people saw him as 'unelectable', and I think Democrats will keep losing as long as we think that way. I think Clinton did long-term damage to the party by encouraging us to look mainly for a great politician -- and giving us "moderate" tactics that require one -- at at time when we need to tell people about liberalism in order to get anywhere. Let's start thinking about changing the mainstream, not winning elections -- then maybe by the time Cheney runs, we'll have some winning arguments. Dean at least seems to know that the people who want us to kill and die have the burden of proof. And he has some connection to local Democrats, so he might conceivably help us change the party if can agree on some goals.

[Daniel K]

The Democratic party would do well to have both Dean's organizational backing, and common sense. There is still a lot of energy out there for it, and it would be a shame for him to become a marginal, outside player, because some consider him threatening? To what? If what he threatens is more of the same then that's the whole point. Don't forget, when the Dems were having their post 9/11 sheepish lovefest with Bush prior to the Iraq War, Dean was the one that gave the Dems the spine to start opposing it.

The more and more I think of it Dean would be a greater energizer for the party. What we'll end up with will be something less than a Dean led administration, but something more than a Dean-less Democratic leadership would be, and in this case that something more will be a significant kick in the ass for the DNC.

[Linnet]

I would hate to have a President Dean. He's a good talker, but I'm disgusted by most of what he's actually done as VT governor. I don't trust him with decision-making power--I think Kerry made a better candidate and would have made a better president.

That said, Dean is a good talker. That's his strength: fiery rhetoric. I don't want him making decisions, because of the way he's used his power throughout his career. I see no evidence that he can walk the walk. But he talks the talk brilliantly. So I kind of like him as DNC Chair--at least part of the job is to be a spokesman (the other part is money-management, and I don't know anything about Dean's abilities in that area). And Dean would be a GREAT spokesman.

Plus, becoming DNC Chair would keep him definitely away from the presidency or a senate seat, so he wouldn't get to make policy decisions. So Dean as DNC Chair would utilize his strengths--his ability to articulate a Democratic viewpoint with feistiness and gusto--while keeping him away from the policy-shaping power that he has handled badly in the past.

In a way, I'm the opposite of the DLC types on this issue. They like Dean's record (center-right) but hate his style of talking. I like his style a lot, but find his record weak.

[David Parsons]

What the Democrats need now is some sort of bully pulpit; there aren't too many people in office who are able to carve out a space for party advocacy (Senator Boxer may, possibly, be able to do so) so the DNC, by virtual of being the seat of the Democratic Party, is what's left.

Howard Dean scares enough voters so that he couldn't survive a primary, but he's populist enough so that you can't ignore him. Sure, the Evil Party can roll out their old HowardDeanIsACommunistGunGrabber advertisements, but they won't be nearly as effective when they can't hit the rest of the Democratic party in a 10 second soundbite. And when they try, it will be publicity for the Democratic Party that can't be knocked out in a primary race.

[media girl]

There's a lot of rationalization that Dean would be a bad choice because the wingnuts hate him. Think of the bad commercials they would make! Think of the awful things Rush would shout!

But compromisers like the Clintons and qualifiers like Kerry managed to get a lot of flack anyway.

The thing about Dean is that they can throw that crap at him, and he won't blink, and won't fall off message. He's been pretty clear and uncompromising about choice. I am not worried about him.

But I AM very much worried that he might not win and the appeaser wing of the party -- the group that does things like vote for Rice's confirmation -- will re-consolidate their old on the party machine. Embrace more of the same, expect more of the same.