The Dean Campaign: The *Republican* Wing of the Democratic Party? [View All]

[JHBowden]

While Dean was ahead, many heard claims how Dean and his rank'n'file were "true" Democrats, while everyone else was a Republican fraud. If one wasn't on board to "tack our country back," one must have been a spineless Republican in disguise. While the chest thumping made sense while Dean was in the race, it is awkward to see it persist. In anycase, we seemed fearless in the face of Bushler. The Republicans were going down no matter what, and it was awesome. Nobody was going to stop us.

Fellow Democrats who weren't with Dean were labelled Republican cockroaches. Many found this surprising, given that many of the candidates attacked were more liberal than Dean on a myriad of issues. Gun control. Capital punishment. Taxes on the middle class. The flag of southern treason. Medicare. The environment. NAFTA. Dean had backbone, but dammit, he was a centrist from the Lieberman wing from the Democratic Party, not a liberal Messiah, regardless how important and special the campaign made us feel.

There was optimism. It was thought Dean could raise a lot of money and supporters to take down George W. Bush, supposedly the #1 goal. I also appreciated his moderate record, and thought it could be an asset. I supported Governor Dean throughout 2003, donated money to his campaign, and attended several meetups. The candidacy seemed to be a very attractive package, but this idea was completely falsified in Iowa and beyond. Since then, the loss has been rationalized by conspiracy theories and make-believe about the liberals in the party being conservative.

Now, there are people with Dean avatars all over the place in this community making excuses for Ralph Nader, the thug who claimed Gore would have invaded Iraq for oil. Unknown, mysterious, shady figures in the centrist DLC must have brutally crushed little ol Dean and his puny warchest of $40,000,000.00 from overwhelming the other candidates. Hence, we can now "take our country back" by going easy on Ralph. Four more years of Bush is an expression of "democracy," after all. If we get a liberal like Kerry instead of a centrist like Dean, damn the world, and put Bush in office. Or one can show contempt by promising not to lift a finger to help Democrats while nominally claiming to only punch the correct ballot.

Thus, I don't get it. Dean supporters can't be angry solely because they lost a rough campaign and were treated like shit, for this happened to Clark supporters, called "Republicans" by Dean partisans. One doesn't observe Clark supporters acting up today after Clark's withdrawal, claiming Edwards and Kerry = Bush. In addition, Dean supporters can't be mad because their candidate was the most principled on issues, because he wasn't. Nor were the distinctions on issues that were talking points, like the war in Iraq and civil liberties, all that sharp. Hence, the question presents itself: Could Dean supporters really desire another four years of George W. Bush?

One can speculate what is causing this. Perhaps Dean made his supporters feel important with the letter writing, "you have the power" talk, and all of the complements he bestowed upon his support. Maybe cognititve dissonance is at work; one doesn't want to feel like an idiot for maxing out credit cards for a loser, so a rationalization is needed, and that happens to be Kerry & Edwards = Bush. How to interpret the behavior isn't clear.

If someone wants to fill me in on what's going on, go right ahead.