On the issues – going soft on terror, raising taxes, neo-protectionism, paleo-liberalism on race – I have a hard time even considering Howard Dean as a potential president. On character, I think it’s pretty clear he’s an unpleasant person – prickly, angry, self-important, know-it-all. So why do I find myself rooting for Dean to win the nomination? In part, of course, it’s the lack of a credible alternative. I like Lieberman on substance but he’s unelectable and his religious grandstanding gives me the heeby-jeebies; Edwards has run the classiest campaign, but these are not the ’90s; Gephardt is too left on economics and healthcare; Kerry is about the worst candidate I’ve observed since Al Gore. Clark – well, I have a visceral aversion to his megalomania and to the cynicism with which the Clintonites have rallied around him. A campaign based entirely on regaining power, by using a candidate as a cipher, is a dangerous thing. Besides, I think Clark is a crackpot. My hankering for Dean is therefore a little like Bill Kristol’s. I think it would be refreshing for this country to have a real choice and debate this year, not an echo or yet another focus group.
A FIGHTER: I don’t think Dean will go all fuzzy on us this summer, if he’s the candidate. I think his hatred of Bush will shine through, and give a voice to millions of people who feel the same way. I think his belief in the supreme importance of government in people’s lives deserves debate, and represents what the Democratic party is ultimately about. Why not have a candidate who expresses that without any more goddamn Clintonian equivocation? The Dems haven’t given themselves an opportunity to vent about the way they really feel – about those benighted rednecks, dumb-ass preppies, preposterous puritans and economic snake oil-salesmen they believe are now running the country. It would be really unhealthy for America and the Democrats to repress that any longer. They’ll give themselves a collective hernia. Dean represents an opportunity for honesty, for relief, for a true cultural clash. At this point, in this divided nation, I think it’s riskier to avoid that clash than to give it an opportunity to be explored and democratically decided. That’s especially the case after the Dems’ excruciating loss last time around. Do I think Dean would be buried in November? Maybe. But maybe not. Bush is vulnerable in many ways; and Dean is a conviction politician. We haven’t seen someone with his ideological ferocity since the 1980s. He may command the respect even of those who disagree with him, which is why I think he’s smart not to go all apologetic under the friendly fire of the primaries. Nasty will serve him well. Either the Dems nose-dive under his leadership and then reinvent themselves under Hillary; or they revive themselves as a party of the uncompromising left under his leadership. And why the hell not? It’s what a lot of people believe in – all across blue America. If John Ashcroft can be attorney-general, representing the extreme fringe of evangelical fervor, why the hell shouldn’t a Northeastern, secular, big-government liberal be given a shot at the presidency? If I were a Dem, I’d support him. And feel a lot better for it.
WAIT TILL THEY DIE: When you read a piece like this one by Arthur Miller, you realize that for a certain generation, there’s no chance that they will ever get their heads around the horrors of communism. Here’s Miller, dining with a murderer, thug and dictator, and finding some elegant way to remain committed to liberal principles. He can relay Castro’s obvious megalomania; he can see his monstrous narcissism; but he still hangs in there, blaming the embargo for almost everything, mainly concerned that he’s being kept up past his bedtime. He still longs for a world in which Castro might have succeeded, a world which cannot exist, and which never existed – except in the minds of aging Nation-readers. There is, I think, no chance of persuading this generation. They are lost. But eventually they will die off, and a new realism can take hold. Tick-tock.
NO ACCOUNTABILITY AT THE BEEB: Whatever the forthcoming report from Lord Hutton says, the BBC won’t fire or hold anyone accountable for their inaccurate reporting last year. That’s the word from Greg Dyke, fierce critic of the U.S. press and head honcho at the BBC. It would be hard to get a better insight into big media arrogance. Can you imagine if a government official anywhere said in advance of an independent inquiry that there would be no internal consequences for whatever faults were found? Wouldn’t the BBC be the first to cry foul? Just as the New York Times refuses to hold its individual reporters responsible for their mistakes, so the BBC tells its own that they will be defended regardless of their actions. They’ve learned nothing.
STUPID IS: Yep, this is what a lot of people believe. I give this guy credit for coming out and saying it.
The Dish 