Dean and the McGovern Thing

[tritsofme]

By Lawrence F. Kaplan
Sunday, January 4, 2004; Page B07


Will commentators never stop comparing Howard Dean to George McGovern? Will they never acknowledge that, far from being a single-issue "peace" candidate, Dean is a sensible moderate who boasts a fairly conservative record?




That's the repeated complaint from a chorus of opinion-makers who, having uncovered in Dean's antiwar harangues evidence of "nuance" and "moderation," argue that comparisons to the hapless 1972 candidate mislead more than they clarify. Neatly summarizing the revised wisdom, American Prospect editor Robert Kuttner instructs, "Dean is fundamentally a moderate. He was a fiscal conservative, rather centrist governor," while the National Journal's Jonathan Rauch warns that "Republicans chortling that Dean would be the next McGovern had better watch out: He may be the next Clinton." Taking the argument a step further, the Dean 2004 Web site trumpeted the rollout of the governor's ostensibly tough-minded foreign policy team with the admonition, "McGovernize This!" -- a request, alas, that anyone who bears the slightest familiarity with the writings of its members could all too easily oblige. Which is the burden those who reject the McGovern caricature must bear: In Dean's case, the caricature happens to be substantially true.

This would hardly be the first time backers of an antiwar candidate have convinced themselves that the truth contains more nuance than it actually does. Arguing that McGovern himself was no McGovernite, his campaign biographer, Robert Sam Anson, insisted that the candidate could "sound almost hawkish" and touted "an almost conservative philosophy." New York Post columnist Pete Hamill assured his readers that McGovern, who "comes at you like one of those big Irish heavyweights in the 1930s," stood a very real chance of winning the election, while peace activist Allard Lowenstein enthused that McGovern was "in a very real way almost too good to be true. He was a centrist . . . He was a bomber pilot."

The election, of course, revealed that Lowenstein's center was located several degrees to the left of the rest of the country's. Nonetheless, claims that obviously left-leaning candidates amount to something other than the sum of their words and positions were to become a staple of subsequent Democratic presidential runs, including the present one. But the subordination of fact to wish only gets you so far, and simply asserting that a candidate is a centrist does not -- at least as far as a public arguably better attuned to the substance of centrism than those advancing the claim -- actually make him one.
<snip>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50821-2004Jan2.html

I like Dean, I really do, but having lived through and supported McGovern in 1972, and even Mondale in 1984, there's a big part of me that is scared that Dean will be portrayed by the RW media too far to left and an extremist, even if it isn't true.

[slinkerwink]

1. that's why this election, it's all about energizing the base and

bring in new first-time voters, and Dean can do that to counteract the RW media by raising $200 million from two million supporters.

[Rowdyboy]

2. Absolutely no question...Dean is 2004's McGovern

The parallels are terrifying and they all point to the same thing- Dean 37.8%-Bush 62.1%-almost a rematch of 1972.

2004 will be another of those "learning elections" when Democrats remember why they don't like to have the base take over.

[Maddy McCall]

3. Exactly.

And congrats to you for ACTUALLY knowing who McGovern was. Bet you know who Dukakis and Mondale are too, huh.

[QC]

5. I remember them vividly.

My first election was Mondale. I campaigned for him, proudly cast my first vote, and then watched him lose 49 states.

Still, I somehow got up the motivation to vote for Dukakis, as absurd a candidate as any party has ever nominated, and watched him lose 40 states.

[TeacherCreature]

13. and you agree with him based on what facts Jchild?

It seems that your only motivation might be to snap at Dean.

[slinkerwink]

4. I never heard you make comparisons to Dean as McGovern before

I know you don't believe what you're saying, but you're saying it because you're angry that Clark is coming under attack now.

[Maddy McCall]

6. At least he knows who McGovern is

and he didn't find out last week. That would also apply to his knowledge about Mondale and Dukakis.

[TeacherCreature]

14. I know all about the democrats you are talking about

I campaigned for every democratic candidate since 1968. Is there some basis for your comparison of Dean to those two politicians? I would like to read your rationale.

[Bucky]

7. We're a more polarized nation than in '72

Your numbers are way off. Bush will probably dominate the swing voters, Slink was implicitly pointing out that they're conceding the center and going for a "broadening the base" strategy. I think that's a mistake, but it's clearly one that Dean will be forced to rethink if he's nominated.

It's not that he's being McGovernized by the press, but that he'll be Dukakised by moderate Democrats. If you remember '88, you'll remember that Dukakis couldn't even go to campaign in some sections of the country--none of the local candidates wanted to appear on the same podium with him. A few asked him not to even show up for separate events because they didn't want to be dragged down with their own elections. That's the real nightmare scenario that we risk with a Dean candidacy.

But it won't be as bad as '72. Nixon wasn't near the screw up that Bush has been. But the real reason is that we're more polarized than 32 years ago. Back then the political "floor" was a 35-40% base for both parties and a 20-30% swing vote. In 50-50 America, the floor has probably moved up to 45% with only 10% of the voters swinging. I think we can expect Dean to get 45-47% of the popular vote.

I'm still cringing at the thought of what happens when Rove finally turns his guns on Dr. Dean. I think Dean's best hope is that Rove will overplay his hand, get too negative. The question is how does Dean fight back against Rove's attacks' without becoming part of the all-negativity vibe that will turn off his newbie supporters and still not appear wimpish to the centrists?

I don't see a way out of this straight jacket. I feel like I just overheard God telling Pat Robertson His latest plan.

[hellhathnofury]

8. We aren't conceding the swing voters.

Our idea is to show so much base enthusiasm that they flock to us. There's some guy at UCB that came up with the theory.

[Bucky]

9. I hate to say this. I reject the McG analogy. But this was McGovern's plan

This is exactly what the plan was for 1972. I don't doubt that Dean's a lot more sophisticated in his thinking and strategizing. He's sure a better stumper than McGovern (it's almost painful to watch the man talk in those old newsreels). But this has been tried before.

[lib 4 all]

10. true

[TeacherCreature]

15. We are not conceding the middle

There is no need for Dean to concede the middle. There are many swing voters coming to my meet-ups. They think Bush is a radical and they like Dean because of his populist ideas, his NRA rating and his fiscal conservatism.

[TeacherCreature]

12. based on what?

You don't seem to have any facts on which to base your opinion.

[T_i_B]

11. The real Howard Dean

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1120778,00.html

Purveyors of opinion in the national press continue to brand him as a north-eastern liberal, an anti-war activist who will appeal mainly to white, well-educated, granola-crunching and latte-sipping liberals of the type who supported George McGovern in 1972 . In recent weeks, the infamous McGovern comparison was raised once again by David Brooks, a regular columnist for the New York Times. It's a ridiculous notion, worth discarding as soon as possible.

I write this as a Vermonter who has known Dean personally (as an acquaintance) for many years. Several of my friends worked with him closely when he was governor, as members of his staff or advisers. Only a few weeks ago I had dinner with him and he brought up the McGovern comparison himself, drawing a chuckle from everywhere in the room. Dean is, let me tell you, no George McGovern. He is actually the furthest thing from a typical north-eastern liberal that can be imagined.

It is worth recalling that Dean was elected governor of Vermont five times in a row - a tribute to his appeal in this largely rural state. Indeed, there are many more cows than people in Vermont, which has a population of just over half a million people. Pick-up trucks are the vehicle of choice around here, and deer hunting is immensely popular. Dean is popular with the hunters. Indeed, the National Rifle Association has bestowed upon him its highest rating. Every citizen, in Dean's view, has the right (if not the duty) to blow the back end off a buck or doe. Few liberal politicians in the US, I should note, have ever received such positive attention from the National Rifle Association.

During his years as governor, Dean was mainly known as a fierce budget cutter, a proponent of fiscal responsibility. I remember complaining loudly to friends that he was just a Republican in disguise. He balanced the state's budget year after year, even though Vermont does not require a balanced budget, as do many states. My friends in the environmental movement were often unhappy with Dean's refusals to support their cause if it meant spending money or doing anything that might inhibit the growth of business in our state. Dean's own father was a well-known figure on Wall Street, and he grew up among business people, in New York City and Long Island. He understands them well, and is genuinely in sympathy with their needs: not something one could say of George McGovern or most liberal Democrats.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=104324