First I told someone that I was sick of talking and blogging about politics, then this evening I got into a long discussion about whether the Democrats lost in November because they didn't move to the left or because they didn't move to the middle, and now I feel like writing about politics again. My side of the argument, which I can't remember whether I've articulated here, is that the Dems lost by failing to energize the left, which Dean (oft maligned here during the campaign) would have done admirably. Bush of course won with this strategy -- it was turnout among the religious right that really won the election for him, with special thanks to the Massachusetts supremes.
If your view is the opposite -- that the Dems lost by failing to move to the middle (which is a position a lot of people seem to have, despite the fact that the middle was so small in the election -- although I do think there are more complicated ways to game this than just thinking about a continuum and a middle to contest) -- wouldn't Hillary Clinton be your dream candidate? Oddly enough, that wasn't the case for the person I was talking to tonight.
The context, by the way, that led to this whole discussion was Dean's rabid remarks, which have been criticized by many. My thinking on Dean is that the whole point of that job is to serve as the attack dog/cheerleader for the Dems, and to say the big things that others can't say because they might run. This kind of warmongering role seems even more important right now, when the Dems are looking like a minority party, and need to get their attitude straight before the next big fight. Of course, it only makes sense if Dean is not running in 2008, and I know there have been some rumors to the contrary.
I agree with you, they won by not moving to the left and also by painting themselves in a contrast to the republicans, rather than standing for something. I also agree with you the Dean can take this role, BUT there have been plenty of opportunities for him to slam GW but he doesn't seem to sieze on them. His outlier statements are good, but carefully aimed attacks would be more effective.
I meant to say they lost by not moving to the left. . . . Also, as far as examples go, judicial nominations, Bolton, the memo from the UK, all presented excellent opportunities, but Dean hasn't been terribly vocal about these issues.
I wonder why this is, because he's obviously not shy. Maybe he's trying to leave space for other leadership to develop? We certainly have seen some other leadership materialize over the past few months -- in articular I'd say Reid is doing to great job, much better than I expected. Dean blasting away on the judicial nominations might've taken the spotlight away from him. Just a thought...
Paul,
What are these remarks by Dean? Are you talking about something recent, or during the primaries?
I think the theory that Dems lost because Kerry failed to energize the left has one major flaw: Bush energized the left better than any Democrat could. So I don't think that lack of energizement from the left was the problem... I'd be curious to know what you think.
This article talks a little about Dean's remarks. All of them are recent, made from his position as head of the DNC.
I think most of the Democrats were energized by Bush, but there were plenty of people who weren't that excited about Kerry, and it made a difference. For example, I went out and voted for Kerry, but I didn't give any money or go door to door in neighboring states, even though I probably have the right profile to be doing that sort of thing, and I probably would have done it for some of the other candidates.
Also, it seems to me there were turnout problems on election day among young voters, who tend to vote Democratic. I don't know if Dean could have gotten them out in the general, given that he couldn't win Iowa (where his organization was strongest), but surely he would have been more attractive to young voters than John Kerry.
Post a comment