afish

| Home | Outline | Stylesheet insipired by CSS Colouring Book |

Do I like Dean? Does he at least Stand for SOMETHING?

I've been apathetic about presidential elections, but this time I desparately hope our president will enter an actual contest in 2004. I am hoping without being hopeful if that's possible. A glimmer exists in Howard Dean who I find relatively appealing, though I cannot pinpoint why.

Political blogger Oliver Willis, fast becoming one of my favorite daily reads, captures the problem with the Democratic party in his article The Case For Howard Dean. That the "Dems" of today are a party lacking in leadership is not entirely new. But the party's wimpiness is a concern being voiced more and more. Many don't confess to liking or disliking Bush, but simply believe a strong Democratic contender would be "good for democracy" regardless of who wins. (Apparently people still care about such things as democracy, who knew?)

This is heard from Arianna Huffington (Profiles in Spinelessness) and Joe Klein (How to Build a Better Democrat). In Profiles, Huffington shows that the majority of Americans side with the Democrats on paper, citing a) 1 in 4 Americans believe the latest round of tax cuts will significantly reduce their taxes, and b) just 29 percent think the cuts are the best way to help stimulate the economy. She didn't even bother with stats on healthcare, the environment and social security. Huffington's plea:

"After all, the problem isn't that Democrats are on the wrong side of the issues. It's that they are afraid to make an issue of being on the right side – not to mention smack dab in the middle of the American mainstream."

"DNC's Terry McAuliffe needs to stop worrying about the GOP using footage of Bush's Top Gun landing on the Abraham Lincoln in campaign ads and start worrying about finding a presidential candidate who isn't afraid to take audacious and decisive stands on the party's core issues. If they can't compete on style, they should at least give it a shot on substance."

Time mag's Joe Klein writes a recipe for How to Build a Better Democrat which mandates that the party "will have to change the mingy, defensive" style of recent campaigns. He drives this home here:

"They will need a candidate who is easy in his skin, who sounds different from other politicians-freer, perhaps; funnier, certainly-and who is confident enough to risk broad, bold themes that capture the national imagination rather than parsing the special yearnings of enough demographic slivers to win the election."

= + ?

Those who watched the South Carolina debate know "funnier" is unlikely with Dean. Dean seemed strong, yes, (based on substance alone Leiberman smoked his opponents) but it was hard to tell if his delivery will be a strength or weakness. What could turn people off is his strength, sturdiness can also look stiff: like a cross between Al Gore and Bob Dole. But there was also a vibrancy, a refreshing terseness in his style which I liked. I couldn't articulate this, so I looked on the web and found a 25-year-old who summed it up far better than most could:

"Dean would be able to get progressive ideas on the stage, and his brand of rhetoric so far excels at making these Democratic ideals and not 'reactions to Bush'"...

..."People want their candidates to mean something. His ideas may be foolish, his methods sleazy, but even the most partisan must admit that George Bush stands for something. Especially if you're a wealthy white male, he stands for a lot. It is the duty of the progressive candidate, the Democrat, to counterbalance him. Right now, the one winning the Stand-Up Primary is Dean, and that may end up being the best swift kick in the pants the Democrats need."

I am going to the Meetup because I am hoping that Dean will, in Willis-speak: "For the Love of God, Stand for SOMETHING". Anything that provides an alternative. Partisanship aside, alternatives are good for democracy.

Further Reading:

Comment: