To clarify: I didn’t say I’d support Dean over Bush or that I agreed with everything Dean has said. Far from it. I just think it’s healthy for the Dems and the country to have a real debate, especially about how to deal with terrorism. Bush thinks it’s a war; Dean doesn’t. Therein lies a very important discussion, one that’s been bedeviled by the far left’s loopiness and the need to rally around the president during a national security crisis. I’m glad that Dean won’t wilt under pressure. Even if democracy flourishes in Iraq, he will stick to regretting that we ever deposed Saddam by force of arms. I want to see that argument aired and resolved.
IS HE ON THE LEFT? Some of you have argued that one of my premises is wrong, and that Dean is not a lefty. His record in hyper-liberal Vermont – expanding healthcare benefits incrementally, opposing gay marriage, balancing budgets – is indeed realtively moderate. But his mojo in this campaign has been clearly leftward. The way in which he demonizes corporations, wants to raise taxes on everyone who got relief under Bush, viscerally opposed the Iraq war, and taunts the DLC makes him a candidate that Naderites could easily support. Sure, he’s going to tilt rightward if he wins the nomination – and maybe beforehand. But a politician’s base matters – look at Bush’s. More important, the key message of Dean is not really about policy. It’s about liberating the Democratic Party’s id – an impulse repressed by the moderate Clintonian ego for a very long time. Dean realizes – because it’s obvious – that this is why he is the front-runner. The current New Yorker has a very useful profile and it contains the following Dean quote:
“I think the problem with the Democratic Party in general is that they’ve been so afraid to lose they’re willing to say whatever it takes it to win. And once you’re willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose – because the American people are much smarter than folks in Washington think they are. Do I still believe it? I think you have to be ready to move forward and not just try to hold on to what you’ve got. I truly believe that if you’re not moving forward you’re moving backwards in life. There’s no such thing as neutral.”
This is a brilliant analysis of what ails the Democrats. If he’s a doctor, he’s got the diagnosis dead right. I say: unleash the id. Risk losing. It’s what Thatcher did in the 1970s (her previous record was decidedly statist) and what Goldwater did before her. It will do the Democrats good – even if they lose badly.
The Dish 