I think Howard Dean can win in 2004. The reason a lot of people believe he can't win is because they frame him in the context of other Democrats. After some great posts about the DLC and Dean and all sorts of things, I've been thinking. Dean, to the best of my knowledge, is not really like other Democrats, and I think that's exactly why he can win. I'm to the left of the Democratic Party if I'm a Democrat at all, but I would describe myself as a Dean Democrat.
I believe that where many Democrats would fail, a Dean Democrat (ie Howard Dean) can succeed. There are key differences that make Dean a contender where I think other potential nominees are not, and because the whole show can be pitched as not-quite-the-Democratic-Party it has the potential to draw in voters who would dismiss standard Democrats.
If you love paragraphs posing as bullet points as much as I do, then read on!
-Fiscal Conservatism
The cornerstone of the Dean Democrat is the idea of a social progressive/fiscal conservative. I believe Dr. Dean when he says we cannot achieve social justice without fiscal responsibility. The fact that the GOP is trying to use fiscal irresponsibility to toss out the social program baby with the bathwater only proves this point.
The funny thing here is that for the last 20+ years the Democratic Party has actually been one of fiscal responsibility. Somewhere down the line they were tagged as "tax and spend" and no matter how often Democrats balance a budget and Republicans run up deficits, the label sticks. Because Dean has made this a cornerstone of his campaign, and has a record of fiscal responsibility in Vermont, he can change this impression. It is time to start talking about "Borrow and Spend Repblicans" or "Deficit Republicans."
Dean seems to combine the best of both parties as a social progressive and fiscal conservative. Not only that, he believes in something I hadn't even realized I believed in...
-State's Rights
What's that thing? That thing that isn't racism that everyone keeps saying the Confederate Flag represents to all those Southerners? Oh yeah, State's Rights. Hey, Dean's for those too!
I had never really thought about it before it became a cornerstone of a lot of Dean's policies (most notably guns) but I am a very big supporter of State's rights. Certainly in some instances the Federal Government must intervene. Slavery springs to mind. By and large, though, the Federeal Government has been infringing on State's rights quite consistently: National drinking age, speed limits and so on. This is unnecessary and unfair. Scrap it. I trust the State's to do what is best for themselves and if I didn't, why would I want to be United with them?
This is another issue which can easily be stolen from Republicans, who more and more seem to represent no one while garnering more votes. People's perceptions of the GOP do not match reality. It's time to start talking about "Big Government Republicans" who infringe on State's Rights and Civil Liberties. To me nothing can symbolize the terror of Big Government more than the PATRIOT Act. The reduction of our civil liberties, both in terms of legal actions and simple free speech (dissent is patriotic?) can be a big issue if we remove the fellonious cover of the ostensibly small government GOP. We just need one good sob story that the people and, more mportantly the press can rally around.
It is worth noting that this has only come up in the primaries as an efficient dodge for isues like gun control. That's fine. It takes gun control off the table and I'm a realist, I know my candidate needs efficient dodges and a good degree of teflon. I think, however, that this could be made into a much bigger issue in the general and could greatly influence some states which have been adversely affected by an intrusive Federal Government (Louisiana springs to mind). Whether an actual lessening of Federal involvement is politically feasible is a different issue I'm not qualified to speak to, although my guess is that it is not. The point remains that Dean's stance on the issue could be a popular one. Are there any voters out there who are just desperate to keep a national speed limit?
-An End To "Special Interests"
Say what you will about the vote to turn down public financing, it was just good politics. The message is loud and clear and should appeal to anyone that isn't a CEO: "Howard Dean has only one special interest and that is the American People. He will put the people before big companies and before all other things." That is a powerful message and an incredibly good feeling. A significant number of people got that feeling from Dean even before the vote and it is why, I believe, he has inspired such rabid followers.
Beyond just the campaign advantages, can you imagine if he managed to make it through the general election without taking any soft money donations from special interests? Would any of us even know what to think about a President who wasn't beholden to everyone except the American People? We would be beside ourselves. He might then be in a position to institute real (and mandatory) campaign finance reform.
and most importantly...
-Taking The Message To The People
There is far too much emphasis on finding a centrist candidate in order to appeal to the majority of presumably centrist swing voters. This speaks of an incredibly disheartening lack of faith in our ideals. It says "We might very well be wrong. Let's saddle up to what people already think." Every other contender for the Democratic Nomination seems to be playing this way. Howard Dean is instead trying to convince people that he is right. He has the courage of his convictions enough to say that he will not move to the center or the left or anywhere else for voters. He believes in his policies enough to attempt to convince other people of them. This is a fundamental difference between a candidate who tries to be all things to all people, or at least 51% of people, and a candidate who tells 100% of people that they should sit up and take notice because there are some good ideas on the table.
We will never win back the South, now win over many swing voters, by shifting to the middle, particularly when Bush has perfected the art of pretending to be a centrist while governing from the far, far right. We will win them by going to the South and going to the swing voters and saying "Here are our policies and here is why they are right for you. Here is why you should change your mind about your current politics." This is especially true if the economy continues to "improve."
What we need in 2004 is a whole lot of converts, including the Greens and Progressives that the DLC so desperately wants swept under the rug. To get New Democrats you need a new kind of Democrat. Like it or not you may just need Dean Democrats.