Rebellion Among the Rebels
Doug Ireland has succinctly stated something I've been trying to put into the right words for a while: "The Dean movement was always more interesting than its candidate." In this it resembles the grassroots campaigns that assembled themselves behind men as different as Jesse Jackson and Pat Buchanan: It's a force far more populist than its standard-bearer, and one much more rambunctious than presidential politics ordinarily allows. It's the movement more than the man that has prompted the establishment's condescending meme of the hour -- that by leaving Dean behind, the Democrats are "finally" turning to "the grown-ups."
Now that movement may be rebelling against its titular leader, as a post-Iowa anger seeps into Dean's camp. (And Kucinich's, too. Writes Ireland: "Dennis Kucinich, who ran as the 'principled' candidate of a 'new politics' similarly betrayed those idealists who had given his protest candidacy unexpected millions of dollars when he cut an 'old politics' last-minute caucus deal asking his supporters to vote for John Edwards.") I think Ireland might be writing off Dean too soon, but the resentment he's describing within the candidate's ground troops is very real.
Real enough to be fatal? Stay tuned for New Hampshire.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
For a taste of the comments on Blog for America from caucus night, check out my article on Dean Nation's efforts to grapple with the loss at:
http://thecolumbiaunion.com
(Lead article.)
It's not that the campaign *is* truly more interesting than the candidate, imho. Rather, in the process of trying to "empower" its supporters, Trippi et al. forgot to remind people of why they got involved in the first place.
And so the campaign devolved somewhat into sloganeering about "taking our country back from the special interests," which is so generic that it just as easily be a Pat Robertson or Ralph Nader's campaign slogan.
It looks like they're frantically trying to correct that now but who knows whether they will correct course sufficiently to recuperate in New Hampshire.
Any resentment towards the leader is, at its base, about disappointment with a failure to win.
The ground troops of the Howard Dean army worked hard to build a campaign and sacrificed their time and dollars for him on the premise that Howard Dean's campaign knew what to do with the money and knew how to direct their volunteers' efforts in an efficient manner.
Empirically speaking, those 3500 volunteers in Iowa didn't create a good enough Get Out The Vote effort to bring it home for Dean. A little known fact about the letter-writing campaign is that since the end of November, the letters haven't resulted in any movement in the polls for Dean. Tens of thousands of letters written by Dean supporters have gone into an electoral sinkhole, and the campaign never changed strategy when the saw something wasn't working.
The only thing that really succeeds is success. Dean's supporters will hang in there if they know that their efforts aren't wasted. If all of that effort is poured in to no measurable effect, then they'll start to look elsewhere. Simple as that.
"I would imagine skipping out on one of those might be a career limiting move."
Or farting during the "Amens"
I see the vote in Iowa as being against Dean-- other candidates had lagged in the polls because anti-Dean voters hadn't settled on who to back instead of Dean, and waited until the caucus to see what the neighbors thought.
To some extent, it was a vote against Dean's "movement". American voters are uncomfortable with movements (apart from the mainstream parties, themselves).
A cause will often do itself more harm than good with an organised movement. The exercises of evangelicals proved so distasteful to both Republican and swing voters, that the Democrats have kept the myth of the Christian Right alive decades after Christian involvement in Republican politics began to wane.
"Democrats have kept the myth of the Christian Right alive decades after Christian involvement in Republican politics began to wane."
Then I must have imagined the whole "faith based program" thing, the DOMA, the FMA, and the existence of National Review.
Why are a bunch of moronic college students populist? Why is "rambunctious" good in and of itself, without reference to aims or goals or ends? Nothing could be more empty and less "interesting" than Dean supporters, even if they listen to the same music Jesse Walker does.
The "movement" that Jesse seems to be intrigued by is little more than people frothing mindlessly against the war. It's surprise disappearance can only lead one to say good riddance.
Why are a bunch of moronic college students populist?
The average age of a Howard Dean meetup attendee was about 40.
The decentralized and self-assembling Meetup/MoveOn/Dean-blog/etc. phenomenon is new and interesting in a way that the other campaigns are not, whether or not you like everything (or anything) its members espouse. I actually can't stand MoveOn, for instance, but that's beside the point. Hell, Dean himself is beside the point.
And I have no idea what kind of music the Deaniacs like. These days I mostly listen to country, which I suspect isn't at the top of most Meetup playlists. But who knows?
Up to the caucus in Iowa every four years, we can all pretend that this is a process about determining the visionary leader of the party.
After Iowa, and sometimes after NH, we are reminded that this is really about beating the other party in the electoral college.
Run to the middle ensues.
Having downloaded that speech he made in Iowa, well, I am glad that he is imploding; as I said, I think Bush is a swine, but Dean is insane. 🙂 Swine can be influenced with food; the insane are only influenced by their badly firing neurons. 🙂
Swine can be influenced with food;
How ironic that the Bush family food is pork rinds. Both literally and figuratively, come to think of it.
Bush is a swine. How poetic. Chirac is a snake's asshole. A snake's asshole can be influenced by the consistency and make up of snake shit. 🙂
I do agree with a line from yesterday's Wall Street Journal editorial about the Democrats this year: They seem to be in an Al David mood--"Just win, baby..."
If that is true, watch out. Here comes John Edwards.
Above should read "Al Davis."
hick american:
YAWN.....
no cookies for you after recess.
bored with that "anti france baiting theme",
drf
But he started it! May I please have a cookie?
🙂
cheers!
drf
Andrew:
"Democrats have kept the myth of the Christian Right alive decades after Christian involvement in Republican politics began to wane."
Doesn't Ashcroft begin each working day with a prayer session? I would imagine skipping out on one of those might be a career limiting move.
Proof that not much has changed in the last few decades:
"I don?t belong to any organized political
party; I?m a Democrat." ?- Will Rogers