The position of DNC Chair is an important position but not a glamorous one. At the end of the day, the Chair is accountable to everyone else, not the other way around. He isn't going to get that much credit, but he will get blame. And if the President is a Democrat, the DNC chair's influence is reduced significantly; the President is THE leader of the party.
With the emergence of Howard Dean this year as the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, a position that has previously been considered a thankless and obscure task suddenly has notoriety. It is difficult to imagine higher profile candidate for the DNC Chair position than Dean, who is the 1st former presidential candidate to subsequently become the chair. With this in mind, it is instructive to look back at recent DNC chairs and how it relates to today's DNC.
1989-1993 - Ron Brown
In 1989, fresh off a 3rd consecutive presidential defeat (and 5th in 6 elections), the Democratic Party moved to elect a new chair, as is the typical protocol every 4 years. With no incumbent or outgoing Democratic president, there was an actual race for the position. The upstart Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), which was only 4 years old at the time, was looking to provide the impetus that would lead to its emergence as a prominent player in the Democratic Party. To this end, the DLC fielded a candidate for the DNC Chair position.
Four years later, the party celebrated as Bill Clinton won the presidency and took his oath of office. Since Clinton was a co-founder of the DLC, it could be assumed that the DLC was now the dominant player in the Democratic Party. And it all started with the election of the DLC candidate for DNC Chair in 1989.
Except that it didn't.
The DLC candidate for DNC Chair in 1989 was Bruce Babbitt. He would end up dropping out of the race. In the end, Ron Brown, a former top aide to Senator Ted Kennedy and the convention campaign manager for Jesse Jackson in his 1988 presidential bid, became the new DNC Chair. Brown provided the 4-year organization that helped Bill Clinton become President. One of the keys for Brown was his ability to bring the liberal and moderate wings together in the party. This was not an easy task, for there were definite tensions. Jackson and Mario Cuomo, for example, weren't exactly DLC fans. At the end of the day, the success of Ron Brown came about because he was able to transcend the factions of the party and develop a good organization that supports campaigns, traits that are invaluable for a good DNC chair. This allowed the Clinton campaign to run an effective campaign, present its vision, and emerge triumphant.
1993-2001 - The Clinton Era
With the election of President Clinton, the role of the DNC chair inevitably changed. Clinton was the unquestioned leader of the party, and its main spokesman. With this, he also gained effective control of the DNC. In fact, Clinton selected David Wilhelm as Brown's successor. The DNC was now in the position of following President Clinton.
During the Clinton era, from 1995-2001, the DNC actually had co-chairs. One co-chair was for day-to-day operations. The other chair served as spokesman. The spokesmen were elected Democratic officials, with Chris Dodd, Roy Romer, and Ed Rendell serving in this position.
Here is the summary of DNC chairs from the Clinton era
David Wilhelm (1993-1994)
Debra DeLee (1994-1995)
Donald Fowler and Christopher Dodd (1995-1997) - Co-Chairs
Steven Grossman and Roy Romer (1997-1999) - Co-Chairs
Joe Andrew and Roy Romer (1997-1999) - Co-Chairs
Joe Andrew and Ed Rendell (1999-2001) - Co-Chairs
As seen in the above list, there was a large turnover in the DNC leadership; there were 6 different leadership teams in 8 years, Of the 6 teams, there were 4 sets of co-chairs, a negative in my view because it fosters a lack of continuity and a lack of a true DNC leader. As they say in the NFL, when you have two quarterbacks, you really have no quarterback. This wasn't a recipe for continuity or growth in the organization. In my view, this helped contribute to the problems that the Democratic Party faced since the beginning of the new century. Our organization fell further behind that of the Republicans.
2001-2005 - Terry McAuliffe
One of the last acts of Bill Clinton's presidency was his recommendation of Terry McAuliffe as the new DNC Chair. In essence, McAuliffe was Clinton's last appointment. Terry was known as a prolific fund-raiser during the Clinton years, particularly with regards to soft money. He improved the fund-raising of the DNC during his tenure. The soft money limits implemented in 2002 limited McAuliffe's greatest strength. Still, he improved the fund-raising of the DNC during his tenure, and brought the DNC out of debt. Most importantly, McAuliffe increased the small donor base from 400,000 to 2.7 million.
In 2004, McAuliffe implemented a "front-loaded" primary schedule that was designed to select a nominee quickly. It had the desired effect with the nomination of John Kerry. However, it could be argued that the downside was a lack of dialogue within the primary season and lack of involvement in the primary process for many states.
One of the failings during the McAuliffe era was the lack of unification between the various factions of the party. This seemed evident during the 2004 presidential campaign when tension between McAuliffe and Howard Dean came to the surface. This signified a division in the party between the Washington establishment and the grassroots of the party. And it was the biggest weakness of the McAuliffe era. Here, McAuliffe had failed where Brown had succeeded. The party did "unify" for the general election, but it was more about being anti-Bush.
The 2002 election was, needless to say, a disaster. The Democratic Party lost both houses of Congress and were already out of the presidency. One of the criticisms of the party in 2002 was a lack of a coherent message, and McAuliffe was one of those held responsible.
The final act of the McAuliffe era was the 2004 election. And as with the 2002 election, we lost further ground in Congress. We also lost the presidency.
In the end, from the results standpoint, the Democratic Party lost ground under Terry McAuliffe. And this is how he will be judged. But is this completely fair? Many others had a role in the downfall of the party during this era as well. The DNC that McAuliffe took over was not a well-oiled machine by any stretch. Yet Terry brought organization to the DNC, which had been plagued by turnover and a lack of long-term vision during the 1990's. McAuliffe started the development of a long-term plan. But after four years, the work had just begun. And nobody should have expected more. Certainly, the McAuliffe era was not perfect by any means. But neither was it a complete disaster. It gave us some building blocks for the future.
So on to the present...
2005-Present - Howard Dean
The crushing defeats of 2004 led to one of the most contested DNC chair races ever. In the end, Howard Dean was elected DNC chair and become the most well-known figure to hold this position. For the 1st time, a former presidential candidate was now DNC Chair.
It is too early to evaluate Dean's effectiveness, of course. He has only been there 5 months. The early results have been encouraging. Dean has pursued a 50-state strategy and has organizers on the ground in many states, with more to come. Coordination between the three levels of the party (national, state, county) is improving, though there is still a ways to go. And donations are significantly higher now than at this same point in 2001.
That said, there are issues that need to be addressed. The RNC had over 68,000 new donors this year, compared to 20,000 new donors for the DNC. Clearly, this is a gap that needs to be narrowed. In addition, the RNC has greatly increased its receipt of donations, out raising the DNC by a margin of 2 to 1. With regards to larger donors, there has been a perceived lag in this area. Dean has said that he is just getting to know these donors, and will be working with them in the future. With regards to money, however, it should be noted that it isn't necessarily about raising the most money. It is about raising enough money, and spending it wisely.
Another key for Howard will be unifying the factions of the party. And I think that he will be able do it. His grassroots credentials are impeccable. At the same time, he governed as a moderate, so he has the ability to speak to a wide range of Democrats. If he can repeat the efforts of Ron Brown, then we are in good shape.
Finally, with regards to Dean's comments this year, well, they're not an issue. He made these comments to Democratic groups with the intent of firing them up. At the same time, I don't have an issue with the critiques that some Democrats provided. They are entitled to their opinion. And they have a different job to fulfill than Dean does. Also, in the case of Edwards, he wasn't even aware of the quote when asked about it by a reporter who mischaracterized what Dean had actually said. I expect Democrats to work towards building the party and winning, not to keep tabs on each others quotes.
In closing, I think that Howard Dean is off to a good start, and that we are on the right track. However, as with McAuliffe, the work does not begin and end with Howard. The DNC has to be continually moving forward and improving. This will be a must for all DNC chairs after Howard Dean.
I close with the following quote from Terry McAuliffe
"I gave one piece of advice [to Dean]. I said 'Howard, you are about to become a human fire hydrant,'" McAuliffe said, referring to a conversation he had with Dean before he became DNC chairman.
That says a lot about the position of DNC Chair.