Howard Dean and his supporters argue that the corporate media and the Democratic Party establishment created his downfall. But as an early, strong supporter of Dean who became disenchanted even before the Scream, I disagree. Dean himself was Dean's main problem.
Certain weaknesses were given. His physical appearance is not imposing. In particular, he is shorter than most Presidents have been. He has a weird grin. His wife was absent. He is only a mediocre orator. He often has the air of a paternalistic doctor prescribing bad medicine. He went skiing after getting out of the draft with a bad back.
For many months, it seemed that his message would overcome these deficiencies. He spoke out forcefully against the invasion of Iraq. He railed against the leadership of the Democratic Party, which rang a bell with large numbers of Democrats who were furious about how Bill Clinton and his cohorts almost decimated the Party. And he called for "taking back" the Democratic Party.
But Dean kept making off-the-cuff statements that were so embarrassing that he had to quickly retract them. He said that his brother had been a member of the Armed Services. He said that Job was his favorite book in the New Testament. He said that Osama bin Laden should not be presumed guilty until so proven in court.
His tendency to put his foot in the mouth became so serious that his campaign persuaded him to stop talking freely with the press. So he proceeded to tell the press, "They won't let me talk with you," which was another self-inflicted wound that compounded the trouble.
On the day of the Iowa caucuses, Dean went to a King Day event but had to leave because there wasn't enough room for him and his press entourage. The sponsors of the event may not have known that Dean was coming. Regardless, it seems that his staff had not done proper advance work for the visit. So Dean said he would leave, which elicited applause. Then, on his way out, Dean barked at the press, "Go get a life." Hardly a very wise response.
For me, that outburst was the final straw. I concluded that Dean simply does not have the self-discipline or the judgment to go up against the Bush machine.
To argue that the Democratic voters of Iowa and New Hampshire were duped is an elitist insult to their intelligence. Unfortunately, however, highly educated white folks of the sort who flocked to Dean's "movement" often fall victim to condescending elitism.
Democratic voters are determined to unseat George W. Bush. They want to nominate the candidate who has the best chance to win in November. The voters of Iowa and New Hampshire got to know the candidates rather well, and they gave John Kerry and John Edwards an enormous boost.
The corporate media did give Dean a hard time. Their reports were somewhat biased against Dean. But the enormous, sudden surge for Kerry and Edwards in Iowa cannot be attributed to media manipulation. Nor can the results be considered a victory for the Democratic Leadership Council, whose candidates have fared poorly.
This shift was largely spontaneous and contagious, fed by personal appearances and word of mouth. At the last minute, as the time for decision neared, the Democrats of Iowa had second thoughts and decided that Kerry and Edwards would be the strongest candidates against Bush.
They were right. Even if Dean were committed to a genuine transformation of the Democratic Party, now would not be the time for Dean to lead any such revolution. It would be too risky, because Dean has too many weaknesses as a candidate, including the fact that he has demonstrated little ability to appeal beyond his college-educated niche.
But Dean has failed to demonstrate any real commitment to transforming the Party in any substantial way. He has not talked about structural reforms in the Party to make it more democratic. He has not encouraged his supporters to get involved with the Party on the grassroots level. He has not dealt with how the Party could make its platform be meaningful. And he has not addressed how the Party can impose discipline so that its elected officials help implement its platform.
Then, in a revealing contradiction, Dean hires Roy Neel, an ultimate Washington insider, to be his "CEO," thereby apparently signaling that he was turning his back on the relatively decentralized, participatory approach established by Joe Trippi that had provided prospects for building an ongoing movement.
Dean recently said that he was going back to being himself. But he never explained when or how the phoniness had begun. One can only wonder.
The dream of a Dean movement that would remake the Democratic Party and win the White House at the same time has evaporated, as did the Internet bubble. But Dean and his campaign opened the door and showed the Democrats that they can stand up to the Commander-in-Chief and fight for populist values.
Dean and his Deaniacs should declare victory and move on to the task at hand, defeating George Bush. At the same time, we can work to recreate the Democratic Party, under other leadership. After all, as Dean has said, the point is not Dean. The point is establishing real democracy and social justice in America.