The Dean Dilemma
There has been a lot of argument over the issue of Democratic Frontrunner Howard Dean's electability over the last few months. Many folks, on both the Right and Left, have compared Dean's campaign to McGovern's from 1972, predicting serious electability problems. The main reasons cited tend to be:
1. Dean staked out an initial position to the left of the "mainstream" candidates on a few key issues to gain a base, including the Iraq War and Gay Rights.
2. The "establishment" candidates are struggling to keep up in the polls and are mostly floundering, having trouble dealing with the insurgent candidate in the primaries.
3. The Dean campaign is driven largely by strong management, and has effectively garnered large amounts of grassroots support, but it's coming from a fairly narrow demographic group.
4. Dean is willing to open his mouth before he's really thought through what he's saying, or at least occasionally articulate something both forcefully and clumsily at the same time, which can be a dangerous combination.
While these are, at least superficially, legitimate concerns, I think in this election year he's nowhere near as weak a candidate in the general election as some are writing him off to be.
The two easiest to dismiss are the 2nd and 3rd issues listed above. The problems of the other presidential campaigns in dealing with Dean's unexpected rise is due to a variety of factors, but I think trying to insinuate that the collection of candidates faced by McGovern & Dean was a direct factor of the electability (past or theoretical) of each candidate is misguided. Dean's insurgency seems based mostly on the fact that his campaign was able to capitalize on his direct opposition to the experiment that Dubya and crew pulled in Iraq. Most of the mainstream candidates couldn't or wouldn't stand up the adminstration on the issue, and it's cost them as the situation has deteriorated.
That alone wouldn't have been enough to put the Dean campaign where they are.
They've generally been quick enough and clever enough to adapt the campaign, slowly but surely, into a more expansive one where Dean can stake out territory in the immediately surrounding the same places the other candidates are issue-wise, but make a claim that his stance is unique or stronger. At times that's something of an illusion, as Dean's stances on most issues are fairly mainstream, and even more centrist than most of the other candidates, but it does have a practical political impact that's crucial.
The issue of Dean being "too liberal" could've been a problem, except he's really not. Basically, his leftist street cred only comes from having opposed the Iraq War from the start and supported Civil Unions in Vermont. Health Insurance reform could go towards that as well, but that's a fairly centrist goal at this point. Dean's stances on most other issues, as mentioned before, are probably slightly to the right of the Democratic mainstream, since he's a pretty staunch fiscal conservative, and even has an unusually tolerant attitude towards guns ("state's rights.") I just doesn't seem like it would be fairly easy for Bush to paint Dean into the "commie liberal" corner when his record isn't anything like that. I may be giving the press too much credit, but we'll see...
Finally, I think the Fourth and final issue mentioned above is potentially the only one that really will be a problem for a Dean run against Bush. His fairly impulsive sounding "straight talk" approach is likely to occasionally backfire when he speaks before he thinks. Over the course of a campaign even the most carefully controlled candidate usually says something kind of off, and typically has to play defense occasionally, but if Dean makes a substantial slip late in the campaign he'll face a nastier storm of media than anything he's seen. Just ask Al Gore, who tended to get roasted even for things he didn't really say.
We'll see how things play out over the next few months, but if Dean gets the nomination, I think his effective campaign organization and grass roots support, as well as his fundraising prowess, will be pluses that outweigh the possible problems of the occasional hasty remark.
There has been a lot of argument over the issue of Democratic Frontrunner Howard Dean's electability over the last few months. Many folks, on both the Right and Left, have compared Dean's campaign to McGovern's from 1972, predicting serious electability problems. The main reasons cited tend to be:
1. Dean staked out an initial position to the left of the "mainstream" candidates on a few key issues to gain a base, including the Iraq War and Gay Rights.
2. The "establishment" candidates are struggling to keep up in the polls and are mostly floundering, having trouble dealing with the insurgent candidate in the primaries.
3. The Dean campaign is driven largely by strong management, and has effectively garnered large amounts of grassroots support, but it's coming from a fairly narrow demographic group.
4. Dean is willing to open his mouth before he's really thought through what he's saying, or at least occasionally articulate something both forcefully and clumsily at the same time, which can be a dangerous combination.
While these are, at least superficially, legitimate concerns, I think in this election year he's nowhere near as weak a candidate in the general election as some are writing him off to be.
The two easiest to dismiss are the 2nd and 3rd issues listed above. The problems of the other presidential campaigns in dealing with Dean's unexpected rise is due to a variety of factors, but I think trying to insinuate that the collection of candidates faced by McGovern & Dean was a direct factor of the electability (past or theoretical) of each candidate is misguided. Dean's insurgency seems based mostly on the fact that his campaign was able to capitalize on his direct opposition to the experiment that Dubya and crew pulled in Iraq. Most of the mainstream candidates couldn't or wouldn't stand up the adminstration on the issue, and it's cost them as the situation has deteriorated.
That alone wouldn't have been enough to put the Dean campaign where they are.
They've generally been quick enough and clever enough to adapt the campaign, slowly but surely, into a more expansive one where Dean can stake out territory in the immediately surrounding the same places the other candidates are issue-wise, but make a claim that his stance is unique or stronger. At times that's something of an illusion, as Dean's stances on most issues are fairly mainstream, and even more centrist than most of the other candidates, but it does have a practical political impact that's crucial.
The issue of Dean being "too liberal" could've been a problem, except he's really not. Basically, his leftist street cred only comes from having opposed the Iraq War from the start and supported Civil Unions in Vermont. Health Insurance reform could go towards that as well, but that's a fairly centrist goal at this point. Dean's stances on most other issues, as mentioned before, are probably slightly to the right of the Democratic mainstream, since he's a pretty staunch fiscal conservative, and even has an unusually tolerant attitude towards guns ("state's rights.") I just doesn't seem like it would be fairly easy for Bush to paint Dean into the "commie liberal" corner when his record isn't anything like that. I may be giving the press too much credit, but we'll see...
Finally, I think the Fourth and final issue mentioned above is potentially the only one that really will be a problem for a Dean run against Bush. His fairly impulsive sounding "straight talk" approach is likely to occasionally backfire when he speaks before he thinks. Over the course of a campaign even the most carefully controlled candidate usually says something kind of off, and typically has to play defense occasionally, but if Dean makes a substantial slip late in the campaign he'll face a nastier storm of media than anything he's seen. Just ask Al Gore, who tended to get roasted even for things he didn't really say.
We'll see how things play out over the next few months, but if Dean gets the nomination, I think his effective campaign organization and grass roots support, as well as his fundraising prowess, will be pluses that outweigh the possible problems of the occasional hasty remark.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home