Election 2004 Coverage

Monday, December 8, 2003

Is Dean Bound To Win,
Only To Lose?

The New York Times op-ed columnist Nicholas Kristof argues in his Saturday column, "There They Go Again," that, despite Howard Dean's appeal to many of the party faithful, he would get trounced in the general election aginst President Bush.

Kristof revives the George McGovern comparison. Richard Nixon crushed McGovern, the Democratic anti-war nominee, in 1972. The conservative Democratic Leadership Council compared Dean to McGovern several months ago, but various pundits soon dismissed the comparison as inappropriate, and the media instead chose to focus on Dean's fundraising prowess. Let's look again: is Dean another McGovern? Would he lose to Bush in a landslide?

In fact, Dean's opposition to the war in Iraq and his swell of largely young, grassroots supporters are about all his campaign has in common with McGovern's run in '71. Whereas McGovern wanted America out of Vietnam, Dean argues that we need to "win the peace," in Iraq. McGovern, too, was a liberal's liberal, while Dean has promoted himself a fiscal conservative, bashing Bush's policy of large deficits. Temperamentally, Dean is more like Harry Truman than McGovern. By the time McGovern went head-to-head against Nixon, he and his campaign had lost steam. Dean is young and spry enough that we can expect that he'll go down swinging, or at least shouting.

Kristof also uses some questionable information to support his argument: he cites a recent Pew poll where Dean lost to Bush 52 to 41 percent. But Dean isn't running against Bush yet - he's running against his fellow Democrats. Nor has Bush had to answer a single tough question from Dean, where he might stumble or look stupid, or even worse, accidentally appear arrogant. Hence, such polls are profoundly meaningless.

Kristof then criticizes Dean's style, temperament, and, in a repeat of the media's treatment of Al Gore in 2000, for wearing his education on his sleeve.

A couple months ago Dean said he was going to court the pick-up truck and confederate-flag vote, causing much consternation amongst other Democrats, especially Al Sharpton. Dean referred to the ensuing debacle with the media and others as a "huge contretemps." Writes Kristof, "I seriously doubt that anybody who publicly uses the word "contretemps" can ever be elected president."

Kristof then goes on to cite Dean's real problems: He lacks southern support, he's not religious, and the economy is picking up.

Kristof's argument is seductive, but this election is a far cry from the 2000 contest. While those voting in the Democratic primary may be rabid Bush haters, there are many non-democrats who are definitely Bush-doubters: they doubt his ability to be an effective Commander in Chief. Whatever Dean's faults, at the end of the day, this election will be a referendum on the Bush administration.

President Bush has it easy now, with no challenger in his own party to disrupt his exercise regimen. But he will have to answer a lot of hard questions about his policies and his war, about the weapons of mass destruction that have yet to be found, the peace in Iraq that's not looking very peaceful, and his tax cuts for the rich that will create huge deficits. There will be tough questions the likes of which Bush never dreamt in 2000. If he looks like he doesn't know what he's talking about this time around, or stumbles, his quaint and folksy veneer will slough off.

* * * * *

Despite his misgivings, Kristof did not suggest an alternative to Dean. He must believe only Dean has sufficient momentum to win, though the polls themselves do not bear this out. It's true that the other candidates have not demonstrated that je ne sais quoi that makes one qualify as "Presidential," though that's not to say Dean has either.

After much anticipation, I find myself disappointed by all of the front-running Democrat candidates. I liked John Kerry from the start - he has a bullet-proof resume, foreign policy bona fides, and the experience of four terms in the Senate. Though he is from liberal Massachusetts, his military background could override any objections, and he once appeared presidential. But Kerry has looked tired throughout the campaign, exhibiting none of the spunk that he had when he ran against Bill Weld to retain his Senate seat several years ago. Since he recently had surgery, one has to wonder if his health is a concern.

While Richard Gephardt has a good strong liberal pitch, landing himself just to the right of Dennis Kucinich, he evinces less the aura of a leader and more that of the quintessential compromise-broker. Still, I like Gephardt's proposal for an international minimum wage and he aims to expand health coverage, though his methods rely largely on tax breaks for businesses which may or may not achieve the desired result.

But it was only General Wesley Clark's late entry into the race that momentarily stole the media's attention away from Dean. In this post-9/11 era of war, a military man was nearly a shoo-in, the conventional wisdom held. Early polls confirmed these prejudices, showing Clark beating Bush by a narrow margin, even though no one had a clue what Clark stood for. As soon as Clark opened his mouth, he waffled on the issue of Iraq, had few other defined views (other than wanting to be President), and research quickly revealed his penchant for voting Republican. The media and conservative democrats' hope for an "electable" candidate to shove Dean out of center stage faded quickly. Now Clark is polling for the most part behind Dean, and has decided not to run in the Iowa Caucuses.

Now the New York Times reports that all the other candidates are banking on the February 3rd primaries to determine who will be Dean's viable challenger for the top slot. South Carolina, Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Delaware, North Dakota and Missouri hold primary elections and caucuses that day. Then it will be an all-out fight raging up until March 2nd, when the biggies California, New York, Ohio, and Massachusetts weigh in. After March 2nd, a winner should be apparent. If it's still close, the Texas and Florida primaries quickly follow on March 9th.

Perhaps what would throw a wrench into Karl Rove's fantasies, and Mr. Kristof's pessimism, of a Bush-Dean race, would be the addition of General Clark to a Dean ticket. Dean-Clark would have the southern-connection and much-needed national security credentials that Dean alone lacks. Would Bush have won in 2000 without the well-known former-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney by his side? Clark's presence might comfort those wavering voters such that, if they're unhappy enough with Bush, they might just say, what the hell.

Due to the running-mate factor, Bush's critical vulnerability on a host of issues, and other reasons mentioned earlier, I believe Dean could prevail against Bush. However, I hold no delusions about the reality of a Dean Presidency.

When I attended a local Dean meet-up, they played a video where Dean said his top priority would be balancing the budget, accomplished in part by rolling back the Bush tax cut.

In what will likely remain a Republican Congress, Dean will find many eager conscripts to the former goal, but the tax-cut rollback would surely be stymied. Faced with a choice of breaking a campaign pledge and alienating Congress or cutting into Democratic entitlements, one might suspect that Dean would consent to the latter move. Dean has stated recently that he wouldn't touch Medicare, but in the past has suggested raising Social Security's retirement age.

While Dean's calls for fiscal discipline differentiate him from Bush and balance out his anti-war stance on Iraq, we must hope that Dean would be wise enough to not get caught in the trap Republicans are setting for him. If Dean wins in November 2004, I hope he is strong enough to break his promise to make balancing the budget his top priority. There are Republican, and there are Democrat ways of balancing a budget, and neither two share much in common. And a balanced budget may well be less important, than, say, providing health insurance for America's 40 million uninsured.

With the media still brooding over Dean's electability, few have thought much about what kind of President he would be. I think the answer is, certainly not the kind most of his supporters envision. Kristof warns Dean supporters to prepare to have their hearts broken when Dean loses to Bush; I say, prepare to have your heart broken if he wins.