Tomasky: Is It Time to Believe?

[unfrigginreal]

Bill Clinton rebuilt the Democratic Party in crucial ways. But Howard Dean is rebuilding

snip

But there is one way in which Clinton did not rebuild the Democratic Party: from the ground up. Beyond rhetoric, and the occasional action, he didn't really make it a party of the people. He and Al Gore did energize a youth vote in 1992, and he made millions of voters who'd been disaffected feel comfortable voting Democratic again, bringing important states like New Jersey back into the Democratic camp.

But he never situated the party as an entity that represented the aspirations of its people—its most committed members. Back to Newton: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. And the reaction to bringing the party to the center and allying it more closely with corporate donors was that the people at the bottom of the totem pole felt a little detached. (Remember: Fierce loyalty to Clinton within the party's base didn't really kick into fifth gear until the Monica Lewinsky scandal, when many progressives defended Clinton less because of the man himself than because of what they saw as a functional coup d'état.)

This is where Howard Dean comes in. If one thinks of the Democratic Party as rebuilding itself after its disastrous 1980s, then Dean—or more appropriately, "Deanism"—is a new and potentially more powerful stage of the rebuilding process. Clinton rebuilt (forgive the Marxist terminology, but it happens to fit) the superstructure. Dean is rebuilding the base. "If Clinton modernized the message," says Simon Rosenberg, the most prominent centrist Democrat who's enthusiastic about Dean, "then Dean is rebuilding the party. In the '90s party, it was, 'Write us a big check.' Regular people were left out of that equation. Now, through new technology, we're getting them back in."

There's a tricky thing about this rebuilding stage, though: It excludes party insiders. It has nothing to do with Washington. It's no wonder that Democratic insiders, so accustomed to having complete ownership of a process like a party primary campaign, should dislike Dean and even fear him: He has stolen the process right out of their hands. He is not "of" them in any way, shape or form. In fact, his accumulating successes merely serve to emphasize their irrelevance to this rebuilding stage. No wonder they should take a kind of emotional comfort in writing him off as the new George McGovern; it's much easier to dismiss a thorny thing than to come to terms with it.

snip

Insiders need to start thinking about making their peace with Deanism. The party—the (still) post-1988 party—needs a rebuilt base, and Dean is doing that in a way that has no precedent. And instead of fretting about all the ways Dean could lose, the insiders might do better to spend some time thinking about how he might win.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/1/tomasky-m.html

[impeach the gop]

1. I truly think Bill Clinton was best republican President, ever

I only wish he had not gone so far to right, however, being political genius that he is, it may have been the only way to keep the wingnuts from taking us to the hell we live in today. I feel sure now, the party has a strong enough case to stand up and be proud to be lefties, because we've experienced the horror of the far right. We must never allow the grass roots left of left to ever again be demonized by empty rhetoric, spewed out of both sides of the aisle. We are the party. It's time to be who we are. The party for the underdog. No one else gives a shit but us.

[GainesT1958]

2. But first they need to "rebuild the base" AND attract independents...

With a candidate capable of doing those things effectively--like Wes Clark!:D

"Rebuilding the base" is indeed important, but winning--at this stage--is far MORE important to our country's, and indeed the world's, well-being. And a candidate who can do BOTH...well, in Las Vegas that's what they call "hitting the jackpot"!:7

B-)

[mzmolly]

8. Dean is attracting independents...

left, right and center.

[Rose Siding]

9. He's also eyeing the half that don't vote

Too few even realize that change is possible.

[RBHam]

3. The Awful Truth for the DLC

Time to step back from the brink of crony Capitalism and return to the people.

[PATRICK]

4. Yes, the new grass roots power

This is the one overpowering element in the otherwise diffult to escape quality candidate pack. But did Dean intend this, plan for this? Wasn't he first excluded from the party favors of the DLC etc. and assume a mantle and an surprising powerful opportunity from the anti-war movement?

Governors have a good deal of insider advantage with their contacts in other states. Belatedly Dean will cash in on those beneath the fading leadership and guru stars of many losing coaches. The weakened Labor and minority base has to be revitalized. A breakout from the cozy traditional doldrums has to made top to bottom.

Well, it means to me this democratic sea change is a work in progress which usually comes from interregnums of defeat or convention deals, not in the preamble of a primary campaign. It would be clearer if this was all intentional by any of those involved. Maybe it is far better it is not.

[Rose Siding]

7. He did reject attempts to centalize the campaign early on

Repeatedly. The numbers of people that showed for events very early shocked he and Trippi but I've read that it was Dean who resisted any formalization or centralization that is more traditional. He couldn't have known, but he facilitated the growth.

snip>
...At this point, after he has amassed the armies of small donors and bloggers and volunteers, blocking Dean is not blocking one man. It's blocking the hopes of millions of Democrats who—understand the importance of this—would walk through fire for a candidate for the first time in their lives. That isn't something that should be done cavalierly; in the long term, blocking the active participation of these millions may do more damage to the Democratic Party than four more years of George W. Bush.

[unfrigginreal]

5. kick

:kick:

[chiburb]

6. A slight quibble with Tomasky:

From the same article (thx for the link!):

"Besides, insurgents do win sometimes. Because the standard historical analogies to Dean (McGovern, Barry Goldwater) have now run their course, let me add two more to the mix. The first is Andrew Jackson—invoked, significantly, by Dean himself at the Dec. 9 endorsement event with Gore. Say all you want about 1828 being ancient history, but some things are eternal. Bringing new constituencies into the process and transforming politics through that infusion is one of them. Yesterday it was the pamphleteer, today it's the blogger; but the impulse and the ardor are the same. Another is Harold Washington. It was impossible, the experts said, for African Americans to elect a black mayor in Chicago. Couldn't be done. Well, it happened. He won the way Jackson did, which is the way Dean is hoping to."

I don't know about Jackson (maybe Maha can give us the perspective), but Harold Washington received less than 10% of the white vote in the primaries. He became the candidate in the GE because Rich Daley and Jane Byrne split the white vote, and Harold's black support was energized and turned out heavily.
In the GE, Harold still only managed 18% of white voters. Most voted Repuke for the 1st time in their lives, many stayed home.
My point is that Tomasky is wrong to use Harold as an example of what Dean might be able to pull off... unless (assuming he's the nominee) a Buchanan or Perot entered and siphoned off enough Republican votes from Bush.