The Dueling Nightmares
Nominating Howard Dean, a fire-breathing New England liberal, might be dangerous for Democrats but less so than not nominating him
George Will - NEWSWEEK
Nov. 24 issue — Everyone who embarks on the pursuit of a party’s presidential nomination must, as in John Milton’s gloomy words, “scorn delights, and live laborious days.” By last week, all the Democratic candidates except Howard Dean must have wondered why they were doing this.
WELL, PERHAPS not the three antic candidates. Dennis Kucinich, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton are having the kind of fun that comes to those who, never having expected to win, have nothing to lose and perhaps lecture fees to gain.
And perhaps Wesley Clark, the incredibly shrinking candidate, is happy, even though in just seven weeks he has gone from being on the cover of NEWSWEEK to dropping out of Iowa and perhaps New Hampshire as well, where he has fallen to 4 percent. Still, he seems happy there in the durable bubble that seems to insulate him from reality. Having taken a crash course in the Democratic catechism, he has been denouncing what he says is the Bush administration’s attempt to suppress dissent. (“No administration should ever say that if you disagree with it that you’re not being patriotic.”) But last week he proposed, in effect, amending the First Amendment to prohibit dissent expressed by desecrating the flag. Perhaps the general, who has a habit of making lurid charges based on what he admits are rumors, has heard a rumor that there is a nation-threatening epidemic of flag burning.
Joseph Lieberman is reduced to bragging that some Democratic audiences boo him—these include labor audiences opposed to his free-trade views and other gatherings offended by his support for the war and, even more wicked, his support for school choice for poor children.
John Edwards says he is cheerful and optimistic and that Democrats will come to see that those qualities are needed to win a general election. But you can’t steal first base, so how does Edwards seduce a nominating electorate that is happiest being cranky? And as for John Kerry ... gracious.
Before the competition actually began, he was perhaps the most imposing Democratic front runner since another craggy New Englander, Maine’s Edmund Muskie. By last week, answering questions—actually, not answering them—about his firing of his campaign manager, he repeated 10 times his mantra that he did it to “change the dynamics.” It may have been the most comically robotic performance by a politician since Vice President Al Gore’s chant of “no controlling legal authority” in defense of his questionable fund-raising. During a conference call in which he informed his campaign staff that he had fired their manager, Kerry reportedly mispronounced an aide’s name and was heard eating dinner. Such minor atmospheric matters can become major elements in a ruinous perception of a 10-thumbed candidate.
Which leaves Dick Gephardt, the most formidable—probably the only formidable—obstacle to Dean’s nomination. If, but only if, Gephardt wins in Iowa, Dean can be denied the nomination.
Many Democrats, who believe that running against an abrasive tax-raising, antiwar New England liberal is George W. Bush’s dream, consider Dean’s nomination their worst nightmare. They have no knack for nightmares. It is possible that the worst Democratic disaster would result from not nominating Dean.
Democrats know that if Ralph Nader had not siphoned votes away from Gore—in Florida, especially, but in some other states, too—they would hold the White House today. They are heartened by the fact that there is as yet no sign of a significant independent candidacy that would splinter liberal voting. That could change if Dean does not win the nomination.
The arc of his candidacy, which already was impressive, has been up sharply in recent days. Because of his success in raising record amounts of money—largely thanks to his prescient use of the Internet—he opted out of public funding of his campaign, and has suffered no noticeable political cost. Two large, politically active unions have endorsed him. He has a large lead in money raised and in the demonstrated ability to keep raising it. He and his supporters will be bitter if he is beaten.
His true believers, with the steadfastness that comes from monomania, are energized by anger about the war. Gephardt, the likely nominee if Dean isn’t, voted for the war. If Gephardt wins, will disappointed Deanites bravely smile and sweetly say, “Jolly good. Beaten fair and square. Let’s all rally ‘round Dick. Never mind that he is one of the Washingtonians that our hero calls ‘cockroaches’ “?
Not likely. Many will go looking for an alternative candidate. Someone as much fun as the feisty Dean. Someone fueled by contempt for Democrats he considers morally squishy. Someone with national name recognition, a seasoned campaign staff, well-honed campaigning skills, a large cadre of true believers and an up-and-running money machine.
So, who might be the formidable independent candidate to win the votes of liberals disaffected from a Democratic Party that does not nominate Dean? Dean.
msnbc.com |
