Burnt Orange Report

A Page from the DLC Playbook

By Byron LaMasters

Well, it looks as if the Dallas Morning News has taken from the DLC Playbook with their editorial on Howard Dean today. The take the DLC line that Dean is "far left" and unelectable:

The centrist Democratic Leadership Council is worried that a Dean general election candidacy could erase the gains the party made among moderate independent voters during the Clinton years. Council leaders recently alleged that he represents the "far left" of the party and that those who back him are indulging their anti-Bush rage at the expense of a realistic strategy to defeat Mr. Bush at the polls. Said frustrated Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, "Do we want to vent, or do we want to govern?"

The council is right. Dr. Dean is an exciting candidate, but his party faces an uphill battle against a popular wartime president. At this early stage, it isn't at all clear that the doctor has what it takes to lead a successful charge. Recent polling shows that only one in five white male voters identifies with the Democratic Party, a troubling number (from a purely strategic point of view) that won't redound to the Democrats' favor if they offer a candidate seen as a socially liberal peacenik beholden to special-interest groups. Dr. Dean is understandably the Democratic flavor of the week, but unless he can figure out how to appeal to the center, where the 2004 election will be decided, the party is likely to end up with a bad, and all too familiar, taste in its mouth.

Look at Dean's record in Vermont, guys. Dean has a McGovern problem, just like Reagan had a Goldwater problem. Reagan wasn't supposed to win. He was too conservative, and too out of touch. Republicans in 1980 wanted someone who stood up for their values and took the fight to Democrats. Democrats in 2004 want a Democrat who is unafraid to stand up for Democratic values and take the fight to Republicans.

Dean isn't McGovern, and despite what the DLC tries to tell us, we shouldn't buy it. The DLC liked Dean as a governor, and they ought to restrain themselves from the urge to make flawed comparisons. Need help debunking the Dean - McGovern comparisons? Take a look at Ekim's comment on kos today:

When most people make the very tired McGovern argument, they forget or omit several factors (or they are simply repeating the tripe that is spewed out of CW commentators):

1. the Eagleton affair. McGovern picks Eagleton as VP. Eagleton is revealed to have received shock therapy several times. The McGovern campaign flips and dumps him. As a result, McGovern looks indecisive, ineffective, and like just another calculating politician. This happened right after the convention and he never recovered as a result. This single event alone essentially destroyed his candicacy.

2. the U.S. was a very different place culturally at the time. You had massive demonstrations, cities burning, Weatherman bombing buildings, street protests, Chicago '68, acid, hippies, etc etc etc. The American public wanted order and Nixon was their guy. McGovern was incorrectly branded as the candidate of "acid, amnesty, and abortion" - Dean shall have no such cultural issues surrounded his candicacy. He is not the candidate of the freaks, druggies, sex fiends, and malcontents. In fact, the relative stability of internal domestic politics means that a challenger like Dean is in quite a strong position. He in no way represents a threat to the "established order" like McGovern and more importantly his supporters were portrayed too.

3. McGovern actually polled much stronger when he was perceived as the anti-politician. When he moved back to cuddling up with the Democratic machine (i.e. Daley), his numbers dropped tremendously. People wanted a person who was to challenge the typical candidates (Humphrey, Muskie, Nixon, etc) and who would bring at the least some courage to Washington. That's why, racist as he was, George Wallace did quite well in the Dem primaries. Most Wallace voters had McGovern as their second choice. While McGovern and Wallace were far apart politically, during the primaries they had a similar style.

4. the Democratic centrists and power-brokers (Humphrey, Daley, etc) actually refused to enthusiastically support McGovern. They didn't deliver their voters to him and as a result, McGovern lost a huge chunk of Democrats merely because the likes of Daley and the rest were more concerned with a McGovern win than a Nixon win. The former reprented a threat to their control of their party; the latter did not. Had Humphrey and the others helped deliver their supporters to McGovern, he would have stood a much better chance. Would Lieberman do the same to a Dean candicacy?

[...]

Ekim | 08.05.03 - 2:01 pm | #

I don't think that Lieberman would do the same to Dean, although I do worry that things could get very bloody in a struggle for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party if the primary comes down to Lieberman and Dean. I still think that Lieberman will drop out before Iowa, though. I must say, however, that his speech yesterday was impressive. I think that a Dean / Gephardt race down the stretch is most likely, but Lieberman is angling to unite the conservative / DLC / centrist wings of the party. The problem is that they don't vote that heavily in Democratic primaries, and much of that vote will go towards Edwards and Graham if they stay in the race. With that share of the vote divided three ways, one or two of them will probably drop out before Iowa. If not, I think that those three split the moderate / DLC vote, and the primaries quickly become a Dean / Gephardt fight. Just my thoughts. I'll elaborate more on it later.

I think that what will make or break Dean is his ability over the next year or so to tone down the anger just enough, and articulate a vision for America can unite Democrats and appeal to moderates and independents. As a Dean supporter, I think that he's well on his way, but definitely has some work to do.

Posted by Byron LaMasters at August 5, 2003 04:30 PM | TrackBack