Waiting for un-Dean to emerge
Estrich is professor of law and political science at the University of Southern California. Contact her at sestrich@law.usc.edu .
indystar.com
December 26, 2003
I've taken to stuffing myself with meatballs at holiday parties, which beats trying to reassure nervous Democrats about Howard Dean.
Are we committing suicide, they keep asking me. Is this what it was like to be a grown-up during George McGovern's run? Most Democrats I meet these days, especially those over 35, are worried about the prospects of the presumptive nominee. With reason. In shoe departments, shopping malls and parties across America, a backlash of sorts is brewing.
Dean is in no danger of losing Iowa and New Hampshire. His base is solid, and if anything, the very steps that unnerve some Democrats only serve to solidify that base.
Saddam Hussein's capture has obviously generated one round of concerns, both because it has strengthened President Bush's hand (and polls), and because it underscores Dean's lack of foreign policy experience. Dean's insistence that Hussein's seizure made us no safer was greeted by many of the Democrats' critics as proof of that inexperience, even if this week's heightened terror alerts and the continued violence in Iraq suggest that he might be right.
More important, editorials in The Washington Post notwithstanding, Americans have repeatedly shown themselves willing to hand the reins of power over to governors with absolutely no foreign policy experience, including peanut farmers, actors, playboys and cowboys. In fact, the foreign policy team Dean announced this week was chock full of moderates and Clinton administration veterans, including leading members of the bipartisan national security establishment that should reassure anyone that Dean's middle name is not, in fact, McGovern, at least in terms of foreign policy positions, although that is surely how the Republicans will try to portray it.
Dean turned his attention to domestic policy last week, and in doing so, generated even more controversy and more serious doubts. In outlining his plans for universal access to health insurance, child care and secure pensions, he took what can only be described as a swipe at Bill Clinton's famous declaration that the era of Big Government is over. Now there are plenty of people inside the Democratic Party who never liked the fact that Clinton succeeded by governing from the middle instead of the left. But even those people would have to admit that Clinton, running in the middle, is the only Democrat who has won in nearly 30 years.
If Dean were running third or fourth right now in the Democratic primaries, I could see him taking a swipe at Clinton's compromises in the hopes of reaching out to a hard-core left base, and figuring that if lightening should strike, he could move to the middle later.
But lightning has already struck Dean. Everybody is already watching his every move. He has the left. He needs the middle.
The other candidates seized on the line to denounce Dean. The Dean speechwriter explained that no swipe at Clinton was intended. The speechwriter explained that they meant to attack Washington Democrats.
Why is Dean promising to raise taxes and return big government? It's December. Better government is what Democrats should promise, not big government. Attack Clinton, if you want, for not fulfilling the promise of his second term, but not for cutting government.
Dean is in no danger in Iowa and New Hampshire, but no one's going to give him the nomination quite as quickly as they might have. Second matters. Third will count. Look for the process to run a little longer. It's still his to lose. Someone will emerge as the un-Dean. My guess is Wesley Clark. |
