This laudatory, hopeful Liberal Arts Mafia piece predicts it’ll be Bush vs. Howard Dean in 2004 and hopes readers will all take a closer look at Dean and help consolidate his position as an early frontrunner in the Democratic field. I think the piece is largely wishful thinking, as much as Dean’s principles fit pretty well for me.
LAM says that the multiplicity of candidates in the Democratic field — nine and counting — suggests there is a broad political consensus that Bush is beatable (after all, he was beaten in 2000…). It doesn’t necessarily follow for me. Does multiplicity mean anything? Declaring one’s presidential aspirations is usually pure unmitigated ambition and opportunism rather than realism or idealism. In a way, the more crowded the field is, the more encouragement for multiple candidates, since a marginal candidate has more hope in the shooting gallery atmosphere. Moreover, the variety of candidates speaks to the ineffectuality of the Democratic party as a true opposition party; anyone can claim to offer an alternative to Bush when the machinery of politics hasn’t tested anyone’s mettle as an opponent. So don’t make much of the multiplicity. And in any case, hey, it’s not the candidate’s own money he (usually he) is spending.
While we’re on the topic of money, LAM feels hopeful that the fundraising prowess of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Kerry, Edwards, Graham and Lieberman, all Senators who, as LAM aptly points out, all voted for the invasion of Iraq) can be outflanked by Dean’s exciting Internet-savviness. Someone once defined science fiction as literature where technology plays an important role in plot development. When I hear the breathless, wishful tones of those thinking that a “grassroots” (an overworked word already, and the mainstream media haven’t even caught on to the Dean phenomenon yet) movement of Internet volunteers can supplant money power with people power, I hear campaign science fiction. The American public is not ready to get its inchoate political impressions from anywhere else than, first, the slick costly television ads and, second, the mainstream news media.
LAM says it, excitedly describing Dean’s appeal to the ‘netizens, who are “youngish, well educated, and have grown increasingly skeptical (some might say bitterly cynical) of mainstream media. Politically, the internet savvy span the spectrum. Very few, however are particularly happy with the way things are currently done”. Precisely my point. Look around you; how many votes in the electoral college does an appeal to that demographic pull in, either directly or via an ability to shape the public debate in a manner that will reach the great American heartland? Not very many, I fear. To believe otherwise is incredibly myopic — and not cynical enough by half! — and is of a piece with the thinking that led people to vote Green in 2000 and, arguably, put Bush in office.
Maybe I’ll eat my words on this. I would love it if I were wrong. Dean seems to have about as much integrity on social justice issues and morality on foreign policy as one can have and still be a politician these days, certainly enough to forgive him the inevitable waffling and inconsistencies that will certainly get him raked over the coals during the upcoming national scrutiny he will face. Perhaps he can win on his platform even if he cannot on his internet savvy. LAM posits, “The primaries are not over yet [except for MoveOn’s meaningless net primary, they haven’t even begun! — FmH], and it is sure that Dean’s success will stiffen the competition from the other Candidates. However, it is quite clear at this stage that the Democratic campaign is going to be more than about fund-raising…” Perhaps, if Dean’s determination to take back his party and his country becomes the rule rather than the exception. The best chance to get the trash taken out of the White House is if the nine-plus Democrats agree that it is worth something to not blow their wad in the primaries, leaving the frontrunner bloodied, impoverished (none of them is going to out-fundraise Dubya in any case) and compromised by his primary opponents’ sniping throughout the campaign.
My breathless, wishful thinking about this campaign has much less to do with a naive faith in the readiness of the American electorate for some kind of cyberpunk revolution than it does about — a cooperative primary season among candidates who desire to make the Democratic Party a true opposition party to the madness rather than Republicanism-lite; who recognize and proclaim that they have not only a right to represent the Democratic party in the presidential election but a responsibility to oust the most ill-prepared and dangerous administration that ever seized power; who spend their debate time collaborating in making the anti-Bush case, whichever of them is to be the candidate; and perhaps even collaborate in raising a warchest for the final showdown. If Howard Dean can make all that happen, more power to him. But it is only going to be if he takes control of the party machinery. Ain’t no people power gonna make an end run around that.
