The Rise and Fall of Howard Dean: Lessons in US Democracy

This is not a pro-Dean sob piece. It is a discussion of the how and why of the political system in the U.S.

This post is just to give you a taste, without reading the whole thing I don't think you'll really know what the article is saying. In other words please don't jump to conclusions and start posting replies after reading the first two lines of this post or even the whole post. Please reply if you've read the whole article and tell me honestly what you think about the argument. I hope we can have an ethical and well thought out discussion on how and why we are where we are politically today.


-The Rise and Fall of Howard Dean: Lessons in U.S. Democracy

In late 2003, Howard Dean was the "front-runner" for the Democratic nomination. Money, volunteers and endorsements were rolling in.

But suddenly, almost overnight, he was branded as "unelectable" and his campaign went into free fall. And just as suddenly, the long-lagging Senator John Kerry became the Democratic Party presidential nominee.

And all of this really happened before a single Democratic Party primary voter had actually voted on a candidate.

Who decided this? How did they do it?

What does this say about how elections work?

And what does this say about where the people should focus their creative political energies to oppose the madness of the last years?



-When Dean Seemed Like a Contender

"I actually do think the endorsement of Al Gore began the decline. The establishment in Washington really realized that I might be the nominee, and they did not like it."

Howard Dean, on Larry King Live

Over the fall of 2003, Howard Dean attracted disgusted, anti-Bush forces and drew them into the folds of the Democratic Party election process. But he also did something else: he started to look like he might win the nomination.

American presidential elections have a sharp divide between "serious contenders" and candidates who are supposed to run-but-not-win. Political figures like Jesse Jackson (in 1988) or Dennis Kucinich (in 2004) are supposed to bring new voters into the process or keep unhappy voting blocks from bolting. Dean had been tagged as such a candidate, but then after September he threatened to jump the unspoken divide and really contest for the nomination.

In August the New York Times was already calling him "the unofficial front- runner." By Labor Day 2003, Dean was leading his rivals in all the polls (of potential Democratic voters). In November he was endorsed by two major government workers' unions, AFSCME and SEIU, who provide money and "foot soldiers" for primaries. And a huge turning point came December 9, 2003, when Al Gore gave a surprise endorsement to Dean.

With this one endorsement, Dean suddenly seemed to have the signs of "Big Mo" (electoral momentum). It started a cascade of other endorsements from governors, 30 congresspeople, Bill Bradley and so on. There was talk that Dean might sweep the Iowa caucuses and then the first primaries. At that moment, polls gave Dean a rising 33% of the Democratic vote, and showed Kerry at the "back of the pack" with 7%.

Gore's endorsement is an example of how candidates can't really become "serious contenders" until they are anointed by established ruling class figures acting as "king- makers."

This time, however, Gore's endorsement immediately triggered high-placed demands for the Democratic establishment to pull the plug on Dean.

It is a long article that you can find here: http://rwor.org/a/1233/dean.htm

[AntiCoup2K4]

1. This pretty much sums it up

Kerry is a member of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)--a party inner circle dedicated to sticking close to a largely conservative agenda, especially on "muscular" international action, domestic police powers and cutting social services.
<snip>
The 2004 election plan for the Democratic Party was to strongly support aggressive U.S. moves abroad.

Their main criticisms of the current government were expected to be limited mainly to Bush's "handling of the economy" and some limited complaints about Bush's "unilateralist" failure to involve European powers in the Iraq war.

And, it was said, Democratic criticisms of economic policy also had to be limited. They would avoid putting forward sweeping or expensive plans for any economic crises--like the deepening impoverishment of the poor, unaffordable healthcare, the under-funding of retirement, or the gutting of manufacturing jobs from restructured global trade.

This had nothing to do with what the millions of members of the Democratic Party think or want. And it was said without ever having a national debate over any of this. In fact it was a way of preventing such a national debate.

This is what you want the Democratic party to be??

Anybody who agrees with the above agenda - there's already a party for people who think like that. It's called the GOP. Feel free to join them and get the FUCK out of our party :grr:

2. I think this section is more to the point

It's not that the Democratic party has been taken away from the people and become republican-lite, it's that it never belonged to the people and there is more shared interest among the elite who comprise our elected officials (especially today) than there is between Dems and there base or even Repubs and there base.



"One particularly revealing call came from Fred Barnes, the editor of the influential, conservative "political insider" magazine Weekly Standard. Barnes wrote:

"The anti-war, Bush-loathing, culturally liberal left now has the upper hand. Its dominance will likely culminate in Dean's nomination. This is an event to be feared. Why? Because it will harm the Democratic Party and lead to a general election campaign brimming with bitter assaults on the very idea of an assertive, morality-based American role in the world. And all this will play out as the war on terrorism, and the outcome in Iraq, hang in the balance. Gore's lurch to the left and Dean's likely nomination mean trouble. Can Dean be stopped? A stop-Dean movement may appear quixotic, but it's not. Dean has no lock on Iowa, and a lead even as large as Dean's in New Hampshire is always precarious. For themselves and their party, and because others haven't the moxie to step forward, it's time for the Clintons to take on Dean." (Weekly Standard, Dec. 18, 2003)

It is rare that the inner dialogue of the ruling class is expressed so bluntly.

First, Barnes is arguing that the coming "general election campaign" needs to be forcefully restricted to affirm "an assertive, morality-based American role in the world"--and not encourage "bitter assaults" on that idea. Barnes is not just saying that the election should be used to defeat and humiliate antiwar sentiments (as is sometimes done)--but that in this particular moment they should not even be allowed a prominent expression within the election.

Second, what does it mean to say Dean's nomination could "harm the Democratic Party"? It is a threat that a party that doesn't firmly enough stick to the ruling class consensus may find itself barred from power for a long time.

Third, Barnes (a notorious Republican Clinton-basher) is appealing to the Clintons on the basis of common class interests--calling on them to prevent Dean's campaign before the Democratic race gets to the primary voters. And Barnes completely assumes that ruling class figures (like the Clintons and him) will decide (and enforce!) what is allowed into these elections and what is not. Why does he assume that? Because that's how the electoral process actually works. The election circus is a year-long televised seminar where people are instructed by the ruling class on what to think about politics.

And fourth, Barnes openly talks about fear that "bitter assaults" might get heard in the "general election campaign." Why? Because the whole global U.S. gamble and the occupation of Iraq "hang in the balance."

Barnes is saying that this system and its offensive are vulnerable--that things can get out of hand, and that this election must be used to tightly control the political sentiments and hopes that are allowed to define the terms of mass debate and expression. (Which is all the more reason for opponents of the government agenda to organize massive opposition outside this tightly controlled electoral arena!)

Barnes' public call (and the largely internal ruling class discussion it was part of) illustrates Bob Avakian's point that "elections are controlled by the bourgeoisie; are not the means through which basic decisions are made in any case; and are really for the primary purpose of legitimizing the system and the politics and actions of the ruling class, giving them the mantle of a `popular mandate,' and of channeling, confining, and controlling the political activity of the masses of people."

A growing consensus was reached to simply not allow this election to become a public referendum on the Iraq war. This was decided in a high-level dialogue of key political figures within the bourgeoisie (the capitalist ruling class and its political establishment).

And then, Dean was simply "taken down" systematically--mainly by the political establishment of his own party, eagerly aided by the mainstream media (including especially the so- called "liberal" press like the New York Times, Los Angeles Times , etc.)."

[blm]

6. Kerry was the furthest left of the DLC pulling left against the centrists

who pulled the DLC further to the right like the centrist governor of Vermont.

btw....Kerry was challenging Bush LONG before the media was ready to air criticisms of Bush. Too bad the media was so afraid to let Kerry's damaging accusations against Bush be heard - Maybe some of you would be better informed about Kerry.

Note the date of the Conason article.

Kerry Shows Courage In Challenging Bush
Thursday, August 8, 2002 By: Joe Conason

New York Observer

>>>>>>>>
But it was John Kerry who delivered the most interesting, substantive and challenging message. His subject was George W. Bush's shortcomings as a world leader.
The New York Times reported that Mr. Kerry "offered a long attack on Mr. Bush's foreign policy," although the paper gave short shrift to the details in the Senator''s speech. What he began to articulate was a Democratic critique of this administration''s blunt and myopic unilateralism, and a vision that restores international alliances to the center of American diplomacy.

He agrees with the objective of removing Saddam Hussein, but objected to the vague plans for what will replace the Iraqi dictatorship. He called the latest arms treaty with Russia a "cosmetic" one that inadequately safeguards decommissioned weapons. He denounced the "Cold War" approach to North Korea that has undone the progress achieved by the Clinton administration. He expressed scorn for the administration''s disengagement from the Middle East crisis before Sept. 11.


>>>>>>>
He is, however, no naïïve internationalist who abhors military force. As he has done before, Mr. Kerry wondered aloud why the President didn't muster sufficient firepower in Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda''s army when the chance arose at Tora Bora.

And he sought to connect the trouble America encounters abroad to the oil-dominated energy policy of this oilmen's government. "We must search for clean, renewable resources," he said, "not just because it is in the interests of our environment, but because it is a demand of national security." Liberating the nation from oil "can liberate our foreign policy and empower the United States to tell the truth throughout the Middle East."

Mr. Kerry is staking out a politically perilous position at a time when conventional wisdom declares foreign and military issues to be the exclusive province of the President.>>>>>>>>
 According to the scientific measurements made by political consultants, Mr. Kerry''s chosen path is marked "dead end." The safer domestic route is crowded with competitors who talk only about corporate responsibility, prescription drugs and Social Security. The boldest among them now criticize the lopsided tax cut that shouldn't have passed last year.

>>>>>>>>
There is, however, at least one benefit for Mr. Kerry in speaking out on those faraway places and problems. While his rivals sound as if they''re campaigning for the offices they already occupy, he sounds as if he is running for President.
>>>>>>
Whether Mr. Kerry can engage the electorate in a discussion of America''s global responsibilities is far from certain. His own dispassionate style may hinder him. Yet he deserves great credit for reclaiming international leadership for his party when others cannot or will not.

_________________________________________________________

During that same timeframe here was Dean's response to Russert after being shown clips of Kerry criticizing Bush's military strategy in Afghanistan:



 MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the military operation in Afghanistan has been successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: Yes, I do, and I support the president in that military operation.
       
       MR. RUSSERT: The battle of Tora Bora was successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: I’ve seen others criticize the president. I think it’s very easy to second-guess the
       commander-in-chief at a time of war. I don’t choose to engage in doing that.

10. That's not the point

I don't want to belabor the issue, but this isn't about who's more left Dean or Kerry. It's about the fact that the system is rigged.

As far as claiming that Kerry's criticism of Bush proves something, all it proves in my mind is exactly what the article is saying about the limits of debate on issues like the war in Iraq and who sets up those limits. There is nothing interesting about saying that Bush isn't a good "world leader". The fundamental issue is where does Kerry stand on the actual Bush legacy? He supports the continuation of the War in Iraq and the deployment of more troops there. He supports Bush's work on the growth in the military's budget. He supports this whole conception of a war on terror which is simply a cover for more US instigated war around the world. He won't repeal the Patriot act. He won't reform healthcare. etc, etc, etc. The difference between Kerry and Bush is over tactics and not strategy. They have the same ultimate international goals, but Kerry wants France and Germany to be more active in the next country we invade.

I'm not impressed by august 8th 2002 report whose clear purpose was to consolidate the idea of Kerry as a frontrunner at the expense of his rivals. That is again a perfect example of what the article I posted is talking about. Conason's article served to train people into thinking about these issues in these narrow terms that we now see embodied by the Kerry and Bush candidacies.

As far as Russert is concerned I'm not surprised that Dean said that and I think it describes his point of view very nicely. Dean was never very far from the conservative end of the dem party until he started to flirt with the antiwar movement, which he was always (in my opinion) willing to drop at the first sign of political trouble. In fact I think he was doing that shortly before he was destroyed.

The point is not that Dean lost and Kerry won the point is that the ruling elite won and we all lost. If they had wanted Dean he would be in right now. His peak shortly before the primaries was fueled by the media and endorsements, i.e. the ruling class. They created him and they destroyed him, politically. In fact as James Carville advised the democrats it was good to let Dean go for awhile because he would bring people into the election that might have stayed out.

[Voltaire]

3. Too bad that folks will still label us as Kool-Aid Drinkers

That was a wonderful piece. Painful to read (having been live at the scream speech myself) but its nice to be validated. This whole experienced has sickened me on politics in this country and I have many doubts whether or not there is any effective way short of....well, I won't say short of what, but whether or not we can be effective enough to change the system IN TIME. For that time is running rapidly out.

[LiberalManiacfromOC]

4. I hate the fact that Kerry is our nominee so very, very much

But all anyone heard was his remark that "The capture of Saddam has not made America safer."

John Kerry said, "All the advisers in the world can't give Howard Dean the military and foreign policy experience, leadership skills, or diplomatic temperament necessary to lead this country through dangerous times."

Everything is so terribly corrupt. I wonder sometimes, did the Bush administration start the war in Iraq to "secure" our nation from having an actual liberal democrat as the nominee? He targeted all those people who hate terrorists and now we have oursleves a war. It seems that he has shut us off from having Dean or Kucinich as a president because they are anti-war on Iraq. Does anyone else think so too?

On edit: meant to say anti-war on Iraq, not pacifist (althoguh Kucinich is a pacifist)

5. The Bush Admin

They didn't start the War in order to keep Dean and Kucinich out. Dean couldn't win because he wasn't acceptable to the ruling class. Likewise with Kucinich. The war happened because of larger political and strategic reasons relevant to economics and U.S. empire building. The other side of Bush's push has always been to move politics to the right, hence the patriotism and patriot act, but that can't be divorced from the needs and the desires of the people the Bush admin represents, i.e. the same people the democrats represent, the ruling class elite. In other words the Dems are just as responsible for the rightward drift in politics and the inability of "progressives" to win as the repubs. Look at 2000, where was the party support for Gore in Florida? It didn't exist, they sat back and let him get crushed, more than that they pushed him to give up. And they did it because if they hadn't it could have been even more destabilizing for both dem and repub interests to see the thing continue and to have the reality of the voting process fully (even more than it was) revealed to the public.

Look at the Fred Barnes quote. As the article says there is an implicit threat to the very ability of the Dems to be in government ever and that came from not just Barnes, but the ruling class through the various signals that they send out. The situation was the same in Florida in 2000. Hence all the pressure to end the conflict ASAP and not delve into the specifics, hence the supreme court.

This is electoral politics! It is a rigged game that only gives the impression of voice to those that participate in good faith as the average voter.

We need a movement not an election.

[LiberalManiacfromOC]

8. I know..... just over analyising i guess.

I've been very capricous latley. The ABB stance has me REALLY angry. I've also been in a bad mood about the DLC. The "centrist idea" for winning the election is discouraging. We need Dennis Kucinich.

How ever the system is still corrupt :grr:

[RichM]

7. I agree with this analysis. There was indeed an orchestrated "take-down"

of Dean. The ruling class did not want to see the election campaign become a forum in which the decision to go to war would be on the table for discussion. So they had to eliminate Dean, who, for all his shortcomings, would have ensured that that kind of discussion would take place.

They replaced him with Kerry, whose only disagreements with Bush about the war are on unilateralism-vs-multilateralism; and on other more narrow tactical issues, such as "Did Bush plan well for the postwar period," "Did Iraq divert attention from Al-Qaeda," "Do we have enough troops," etc.

In this way, the great issue - the decision to go to war - is off the table.

[KittyWampus]

9. After Dean's Outlandish Speech In Iowa He Was Doomed

Of Course the Media went with it for a few days... but Lo and Behold, they gave Dean Prime Time interviews to try and rehabilitate him afterwards. Hell, the Media even apologised.

This after essentially giving Dean glowing and unquestioning coverage month after month.

There were Dean supporters here on DU tauting his Teflon.

Remember how the Media gave Dean a Do-Over on his Osama statements?

Of course, Dean COULD have had Judy do a few token Photo Ops

Dean COULD have skipped all those negative ads in Iowa

Dean COULD have not pretended with the Religious talk

Dean COULD have given a freaking NORMAL concession speech after the Iowa vote.

Throughout the primaries, Dean supporters acted like overindulgent parents who refuse to discipline a child for bad behavior.

It didn't matter what stupid gaffe Dean made or what flip flop in Policy... Dean supporters just kept on throwing money at him. And even now, his supporters can't face the fact that Dean and his Campaign failed on their own merits.

Kerry won Iowa and got the very same momentum that EVERY candidate wanted. Including Dean.

I am sick of this Myth that Dean was labelled "Unelectable" BEFORE Iowa. Talk about revisionist history.