Defining Dean
By Fred Hiatt
Monday, August 25, 2003; Page A17
washingtonpost.com
Howard Dean seemed to be having a grand time, and who could blame him? As he jogged to the podium Saturday evening, a roar rose out of the large (the campaign claimed 4,000) and spirited crowd. Music thumped, navy-blue Dean placards pumped skyward, partisan spirits and late-summer sunshine suffused the Falls Church park. As the former Vermont governor brought his presidential campaign to the Washington suburbs, any rivals for the Democratic nomination hoping that he would soon implode -- through inexperience, or overconfidence or the weight of his supposed liberalism -- wouldn't have found much encouragement.
That last charge -- that he can't win because he's too liberal or dovish -- is obviously one he's giving thought to. "I don't even consider myself a dove," he told me and my colleague Ruth Marcus during a conversation before the rally. It's "not possible" to fix him on the liberal-conservative scale, he said. "Where I am on the political spectrum is a convenient way to avoid talking about issues."
It's true that he opposed the war in Iraq, he says, but he supported the 1991 Gulf War and the Bush campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan. More interesting, at a time when many politicians are shuddering at President Bush's ambitions to remake the Middle East -- conservatives, because they are skeptical of such grand reshaping ambitions; liberals, because they see resources being diverted from social causes at home -- Dean sounds if anything more committed than Condoleezza Rice to bringing democracy to Iraq.
"Now that we're there, we're stuck," he said. Bush took an "enormous risk" that through war the United States could replace Saddam Hussein and the "small danger" he presented to the United States with something better and safer. The gamble was "foolish" and "wrong." But whoever will be elected in 2004 has to live with it. "We have no choice. It's a matter of national security. If we leave and we don't get a democracy in Iraq, the result is very significant danger to the United States."
And "bringing democracy to Iraq is not a two-year proposition. Having elections alone doesn't guarantee democracy. You've got to have institutions and the rule of law, and in a country that hasn't had that in 3,000 years, it's unlikely to suddenly develop by having elections and getting the heck out." Dean would impose a "hybrid" constitution, "American with Iraqi, Arab characteristics. Iraqis have to play a major role in drafting this, but the Americans have to have the final say." Women's rights must be guaranteed at all levels.
Dean is almost as sweeping about Afghanistan, where "losing the peace is not an option" and "pulling out early would be a disaster." Five times the current level of troops are needed, he said. "Imagine making deals with warlords to promote democracy. What are these people thinking?"
If all this sounds like a recipe for a larger, even more imperial military, Dean says no; it's a recipe for better involving NATO and the United Nations. He would rebuild American diplomacy and recommit to multilateralism; in a nice bit of jujitsu on a Bush campaign 2000 theme, Dean says he would "restore honor and dignity to the United States' reputation around the world."
One multilateral institution that might not fare so well in a Dean administration, though, is the World Trade Organization. In what would be a radical departure, China and other countries could get trade deals with the United States only if they adopted "the same labor laws and labor standards and environmental standards" as the United States. Whether or not that demand was consistent with WTO rules? "That's right." With no concession to their relative level of development? "Why should there be? They have the right to have a middle class same as everyone else."
Dean says, "We've tried it" -- NAFTA, WTO -- "for 10 years, and has it succeeded? No. . . . What's the purpose of trade? If it's to create jobs, we haven't done that in America."
He speaks rapidly, as advertised, sometimes answering before a question is complete, seeming not to weigh his words with overly political caution -- his trademark distinction from the programmed Washington politicians running against him. Yet at times he speaks openly of the political calculations. Some positions seem aimed at the partisan primary audience, others to shore up his general-election credentials. Unlike Bush, he says, he would "stand up to the Saudis." But also unlike Bush, he would have talked long ago with Kim Jong Il. Whether there is a coherent worldview or a work in progress will be interesting to watch.
He allows that former treasury secretary Robert Rubin told him: "I can't sell you on Wall Street if this is your position" on trade. But the former governor apparently can live with that. "I said, 'Bob, tell me what your solution is.' He said, 'I'll have to get back to you.' I haven't heard from him."
With that, he adjusts his tie and heads out to his rally, the largest thus far of his campaign. |
