It's been mentioned earlier about TNR's specifically anti-Dean blog, headed by Johnathan Chait:
http://www.tnr.com/deanophobe.mhtml
Similar diary entries have been made about the anti-Dean blog, and I'm a little behind the curve, but I just had to mention this.
In it, Johnathan Chait makes a few points, most glaring of which are two assumptions he makes:
- There is only one way to win elections, and
- He knows what that is.
The trick is to get elected on an aggressive policy platform that comes across as centrist. That's what Bush did, smuggling a far-right agenda into the White House under the guise of a "compassionate conservative." Is Dean's strategy is to run as a standard-bearer of the left wing of the Democratic Party while actually planning to govern as a moderate? If so, this transcends "risky" and borders on the criminally insane.
Now, Johnathan uses what I'm going to call the "Bush model" as his be-all and end-all strategy for Presidential elections (if not all elections in general). The idea of running as anything other than a Clinton-style (not necessarily substance, mind you) centrist is political suicide in Mr. Chait's view.
Unfortunately, Chait conviniently forgets a few interesting tidbits. For example, a big factor in the depression of voter turnout in 2000 was the Gush/Bore argument: the two candidates were too alike that voting for the 'lesser of two evils' wasn't even worthwhile.
Another thing Chait forgets to mention is that the Bush model is hardly a recipe for success: even with Karl Rove, the holier-than-thou moral ground, an enormous tax-cut plan (one of the most popular ideas at the time), a rather incompetent campaigner for an opponent, a very pro-corporate political climate (everyone remember "I'll run the government like a CEO"?), Texan 'charm', excruciatingly low expectations, and a relatively smooth primary (let's face it, John McCain lost handily after Super Tuesday, and he supported Bush after that pretty quickly), Bush still lost by half a million votes.
I don't know about Chait, but I don't consider that as a very smart formula for political victory.
Furthermore, Chait's supposed holy grail for campaigns promotes candidates lying to get elected. If candidates truly believe this is how campaigns are won, then they'll say whatever they can to appear centrist while masking their true motives. Is this what we really want in public servants?
Dean has done nothing but turn conventional wisdom on it's head. "If so, this transcends "risky" and borders on the criminally insane", eh? Well, with the greatest risk may come the greatest rewards, Mr. Chait. As for criminally insane...how about we let the presidential historians decide that, hmm?