PhotoDude.com

Tue. Jan 20, 2004

Primary Darwinism

Primary Darwinism – It’s been quite interesting today to read the words of those who feel they must explain (or rationalize) the fact Howard Dean failed to meet expectations. Or even half the expectations. And a lot of them don’t seem to be doing too well adapting to the reality of this harshly altered environment.

In the next week or so, some may fall victim to one of Darwin’s basic laws: adapt, or die.

I’m no political guru, and can’t pretend to offer you The Reason It Happened, but I can sure smell out the stinkers. I’ve heard from a Dean supporter that he lost due to ”voter superficiality” (Can I have a little cream with that mug of condescension?). I’ve seen it blamed both on the Republicans (”they wrote the score, and the Dems are dancing to it”) and the capture of Saddam (wasn’t this solely Democrats voting in Iowa, 75% of them opposed to the war with Iraq?). And of course, many blame it on the relentless attacks on Dean by the media (aren’t they usually accused of liberal bias? What’s up with that?), in concert with the negative campaigning of his opponents (a victim?).

Perhaps there are some supporters who are engaging in some introspection to find the source of this setback. But they sure don’t seem to be very prevalent today. Denial and fingerpointing seem to be the current standard. Few seem to see Dean’s tone as an issue.

I’ve seen his ”concession shout” rationalized as simply a defiant guy being who he is. Maybe. Perhaps my favorite was that Dean was doing a deliberately over-the-top satire of the way he is portrayed by the media. It was supposed to be funny! I’ll admit, I laughed when I saw the whole thing live, but it was a laugh of embarrassment. If it was satire, it went over my head. Why? Because of the context. On Saturday night at 11:30pm, in the context of guest hosting Saturday Night Live, I would have laughed my ass off and given him credit for self deprecation.

But this was an entirely different context, for many reasons. One, the candidate had just taken a hard and unexpected shot. People love to see how you react to a blow. The tone of Dean’s reaction wouldn’t have been too far out of place on a pro wrestling telecast. But this isn’t wrestling. Two, he had to know his concession speech would be shown nationwide, right smack dab in the middle of the context of his opponent’s concession/victory speeches, before and after him. The comparison was stark.

I wish I could find it now, but I read someone today who said it seems like Howard Dean often forgets that he is speaking to more than just the people in the room with him. Last night, I’m sure he was reacting to the energy in that room, and doing his best to ”cheerlead” the troops on to New Hampshire. But that approach blew the larger context: Joe and Jane Amurcah, sitting on their couch during prime time TV hours. Imagine someone flipping around the channels on TV, and suddenly there on CNN is Howard Dean, face flushed, shouting in Spanish.

What the hell is going on here? Is this Saturday Night Live?

Dean’s shouting soundbyte has gotten played to death today. Is this a turning point? As is always true when the front runner takes it on the chin (as always seems to happen in these early contests), it all depends on how the campaign reacts. Howard Dean needs to ”refine” his Angry Man persona. Turn it back a notch (”This one goes to eleven”).

People were drawn to the passion of his delivery, and he can’t betray those roots. But I think you have to be seen as an Angry Man who is deliberate and controlled in that anger, focusing it in constructive ways. In terms of his presentation, the anger should never leave his eyes. When it travels to his voice, and his arms, he defeats his own purpose: to look Presidential.

Yeah, he’s got to do that. You can play the outsider. But people have got to be able to picture you in the Oval Office. And last night wasn’t a productive picture.

It’s possible the adjustments are already beginning, according to Josh Marshall: ”He said thered be no red meat (his words), and that he wanted to give a policy speech. He said it would be a ’different kind of speech.’ And it certainly was.”

”He didn’t talk much about the war. It was mainly balanced budgets, health care, etc. He seemed to be working at least in part from prepared remarks. It was nothing like the speech I saw down in DC a few months ago, a raucous rally.”

One of the measures of a candidate is how well they respond to these challenges. Very few (if any) start as front runner, and maintain that lead all the way through November. Right now the pressure is on Dean, as well as Clark and Lieberman, to adjust to this new political reality as they try to push their message anew. To adapt, or die.

And they’ve all got one week to get it right, before the voters of New Hampshire ”stir and winnow” the field again.