PhotoDude.com

Mon. Jun 13, 2005

Parting the Parties

Howard Dean has once again caused great hub-bub, and this is partly about that. Partly not. It’s partly about a parting. Or maybe a fracture in my crystal ball. At any rate, I’m going to move most of this lengthy piece off the front page, as it likely won’t interest most people. Those who are “party faithful” will say they have heard all this before, or would dismiss it as if it was thought from a fourth dimension. And those who aren’t “party faithful” likely have enough sense not to worry about the recent events in DC politics.

But you … you had to click on through. Well, you can’t complain you weren’t warned.

Howard Dean has been “in the news” of late for various pronouncements he’s made as Democratic Party Chairman over the past month or so. Like this one: “The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They’re a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much they all behave the same and they all look the same, and they all, it’s pretty much a white Christian party.”

Parsed on pure semantics, I suppose he’s technically correct. And if Osama bin Laden was quoted as saying “Americans pretty much all behave the same and they all look the same, and they all, it’s pretty much a white Christian country” ... well, I suppose he’d be technically correct as well.

It still dances on the edge of cultural bigotry, in my opinion, but hey, that’s apparently what you’ve got to do as Democratic Party Chairman to fire up the members of your party.

Well, other than Sen. Joe Biden: “He doesn’t speak for me with that kind of rhetoric and I don’t think he speaks for the majority of Democrats.”

And John Edwards: “The chairman of the DNC is not the spokesman for the party. He’s a voice. I don’t agree with it.”

And Sen. Barack Obama: “As somebody who is a Christian myself, I don’t like it when people use religion to divide, whether that is Republican or Democrat … I think in terms of his role as party spokesman, [Dean] probably needs to be a little more careful and I suspect that is a message he is going to be getting from a number of us.”

And House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: “I don’t associate myself with what he said. I think that it probably was said in the exuberance of the moment.”

And Sen. Joe Lieberman, Rep. Harold Ford, Gov. Mark R. Warner, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, well, you get the idea...

Also Thursday, two Democrats seen as rising stars — Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee and Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner — made a point of distancing themselves from Dean’s remarks.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on her way into the Capitol Hill meeting with Dean that he “ought to stick to organization, raising funds and supporting Democrats, rather than creating friction and splitting the party.”

Splitting the party? Well, we’ll get to the intramural wars later. But first, when Dean is pitching, he has a counterpart, an opposing batter for whom his utterances have been big fat softballs. Dean serves up “white, Christian party,” and…

Asked about it on the “Fox & Friends” show, GOP Party Chairman Ken Mehlman joked that “a lot of folks who attended my Bar Mitzvah would be surprised” he heads a Christian party.

“We gotta get ourselves beyond this point where when we disagree about politics, we call the other guy names,” he said.

CNN: “Dean defends remarks about GOP”

Swat. It’s outta here. Dean manages to allow Ken Mehlman, a man I generally view as fairly slimy, an easy chance to appear completely reasonable.

Previously, Dean had wound up like a little girl and tossed this slow fat softball across the plate: “Speaking about election reform, he said it is unconscionable for voters to have to stand in lengthy lines at polling places given the demands of work and family. ‘Republicans,’ he said, ‘I guess can do that because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives.’”

Ken Mehlman, at the plate, had time to phone in a pizza while watching this fat one slowly make its way to him, and then he hit it over the right field fence: “I’m not sure the best way to win support in the red states is to insult the folks who live there. I think that a better approach might be to talk about the issues you’re for.”

Now, you could argue that both Dean and Mehlman spoke relative truths. But which came across as the more reasonable truth?

I’ve read many Democrats who fully support Dean and his fighting nature. After all, it’s not like he doesn’t have a long history of what some think is foot-to-mouthitis, and everyone should have known what they were getting. Oh, sure, some said Dean would be “different” in this capacity, as opposed to his manner as a candidate. But my opinion is that this was just like a marriage … you’d better accept the person the way they are when you marry them, and not harbor some fantasy that they will change, or worse, that you can change them. Because that can get ugly, eh?

It appears to me that Howard Dean is being Howard Dean. The question of whether he’s appropriate as Democratic Party Chairman is as relevant as the question of whether Kerry was appropriate as the Democratic Party nominee. It’s irrevocably a done deal.

Some have said his job is simply to rally the party faithful, raise money, and piss off Republicans. From the quotes above, the party’s public face is a bit too fractured over him to judge he’s been a success there, and the Republicans don’t exactly seem pissed. Gleeful might be a better adjective. As Sen. John McCain said, “Howard Dean is the gift that keeps on giving.”

It’s also not hard to find criticism from the Democratic “rank and file,” like this from Ezra Klein

Edwards and Biden, frankly, are right to denounce Dean. I like the Governor but his recent rhetoric doesn’t just go too far, it goes there pointlessly. What, for instance, is the use of saying Republicans have never made an honest living in their lives? I’m as partisan as they come, but with Republicans easily winning the middle class, even I’m not able to believe this is a clear cut proletariat v. bourgeoisie confrontation. And even if Dean was, as he says, limiting his comments to the Republican leadership, that’s still idiotic.

There’s a right way and a wrong way to be virulently partisan.

The lesson? Nail them for what they’ve done, not what you think of them. DeLay’s corruption is proven, his criminality is not. The leadership’s myopia is obvious, their working habits are not. It’s fine for Dean to punch hard, but even the newest fighter knows you have to hit from higher ground.

Otherwise you come across as a head butting ear biting Mike Tyson. You may think, “enough sports metaphors,” but it’s the tenor of this whole thing. It’s right there in Howard’s weekend rededication to feistiness: “Howard Dean said Saturday that positive responses from key supporters have reinforced his determination to keep talking tough. Some congressional Democrats have suggested that the party chairman should tone down his rhetoric. ‘People want us to fight,’ Dean told the national party’s executive committee. ‘We are here to fight.’”

OK, Rocky. But you open yourself to obscene parody (though I suppose you do that simply by stepping on the political stage these days). And really, I’m not personally offended by the things Howard has said, and I’m not sure that anybody else really is. I just find them … quite questionable strategy.

It resulted in quite a media scrum the other day, as described by Mark Leibovich: “About 60 reporters and cameramen attempted to shove their way into an office equipped to handle about 20. The resulting spectacle offered yet another distillation of why so many people believe that politicians and the media deserve each other.”

At the meeting, we get this odd quote: “Mr. Dean echoed both Mr. Reid’s and Mr. Durbin’s complaints, telling reporters before the meeting: ‘We’re not going to let the Republicans set the agenda, and to be quite honest, we aren’t going to let you set the agenda.’ He called the fallout over his comments ‘a media circus’ and ‘exactly what the Republicans want.’”

If Dean sees this as “exactly what the Republicans want,” surely he must understand he started this “media circus” by feeding red meat to the lions. Surely he must see that, in effect, it is he that is giving the Republicans “exactly what the Republicans want.” It may not have been his intention, but the end results are plain as day now. 60 reporters crammed into a space fit for 20 ought to be a Really Big Clue.

In the end, however much it riles or bemuses the Republicans, it is also dividing Democrats: “What is a major Democrat doing bad-mouthing another Democrat on national television? I thought we had learned that this was stupid … So do us a favor, Joe: next time you have a problem with Dean, make a fucking phone call.”

Now, that I do find somewhat offensive, in that it’s not the kind of “group-think” I find attractive. I saw the TV appearance in question. Biden was asked a direct question about his opinion of Dean’s rhetoric. The above suggests he should have obfuscated, tap danced, and refused to answer the question (or flat out lied). Sorry, I see through the tap dancing, just as I recognize truth. And that’s what Biden offered … his honest and brief opinion, as a clear response to a direct question.

How shocking and shameful for a politician to do such a thing.

It also suggests that elected Senators should not use their brains, never mind their conscience, just their cell phone to find out The Party Line, and otherwise shut the F up. If that is the Democratic Ideal for an elected representative, you can count me the F out of that.

This episode has been revealing not only in that it shows the hardening of our two party state: Fit into Cubbyhole A with us, or Cubbyhole B with them, or shut the F up. But also because those doing the “insisting” on both sides don’t appear to see the fractures they are creating.

He continues: “Plus, it is way past time for establishment Dems like Biden to stop trashing the party’s rank and file, which is what Biden is doing by trashing Dean. Biden has no clue what ‘the majority of Democrats’ think, unless by that he means the majority of his buddies in the Beltway. Dean does speak for me, at least more than any other major Democratic figure. Certainly more than Biden. And I’ll bet a lot of folks feel the same way.”

I believe he’s probably right on that. When Biden says “I think this country has a purple heart, not a red heart or a blue heart. If we can’t bring this (country) together, man, boy, we’re really in deep trouble,” he is completely out of step with what seems to be the predominant consensus of the “Democratic rank and file.” They don’t want to be purple, they want to be a brighter blue.

Now, I define the “Democratic rank and file” as those who are not only self declared Democrats, they are “actives.” People like Biden and Lieberman are appalling to them, because they are more to the center of the political spectrum than this “Democratic rank and file,” which leans as much towards the left end as the Republican “actives” do to the right. They wouldn’t support a moderate like Biden for dogcatcher, just as many on the right feel the same way about John McCain.

But let’s look at the current prospects for 2008. On the Democratic side, we have Hillary “Circling to the Center” Clinton. Many say she’s nearly “got a lock” on the nomination (though some of them may have once said the same thing about Dean). But if you go all the way to the left, to California, we have the beginnings of the Anybody But Hillary movement: “Two far less well-known Democrats — Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh — were hits on recent visits to California, mainly because they were not Hillary.”

Perversely, we read elsewhere that “Skeptics in the party say Warner is too moderate to capture the nomination of a party still dominated by powerful, liberal interest groups.”

And, from my viewpoint, therein lies the rub for both parties. The “powerful, liberal/right-wing interest groups” dictate that a moderate simply won’t do. Yet, the leading candidates on each side right now are Hillary Clinton and John McCain. I personally think they are both flawed candidates (though how long has it been since there was an election when that wasn’t true?). But they would both find powerful intra-party enemies trying to strike them down, long before they could get to the general election against each other.

It seems clear to me, there’s going to be a defining fight for both parties in 2008. Because there’s no joyous unity on the right, either: “In the just-out Associated Press/Ipsos poll , Bush’s job approval ratings and the public’s confidence in the direction he’s taking the nation are both at their lowest levels ever.” Meanwhile, the approval rating of Congress has sunk to an abysmal 31%, and is trending down at a such a rate that soon Michael Jackson will have a higher approval rating, even if he’s found guilty.

If there was ever a “mandate” in the last election, it has been completely frittered away. The support is gone.

I’ve harped on these numbers again and again, but only because they seem so relevant, so often. On election day, 37% of voters labelled themselves as Democrats, 37% labelled themselves as Republicans, and 26% did not accept either label. But all we hear about election day is “51-48.” I’ve read Democrats recently who literally say “we don’t need everybody, we only need another 5% or so.”

Well, 37 + 5 is 42%, and the last time that was enough to win was when there was a legitimate third party candidate drawing 19% of the vote. But I see precious few signs of Big Tentism in either party.

Quite the opposite, and far from subtle (look at the reaction from both sides to the moderate compromise in the Senate). I anticipate that in 2008, the “powerful interest groups” on both sides will push their party hard in that direction. It will be a Purity Drive, and both parties may drive themselves down to that 37% level again … the “party faithful.” If I had to bet money, I don’t think either Clinton or McCain (or Biden, or any other moderate/centrist) will get the party nod. It will be someone for the True Believers, on both sides.

And instead of 115 million voters, maybe we’ll have 88-90 million in 2008 (“the party faithful” times two, plus 2%). But if that happens, in 2012 … there will be a third party. There will be a home for moderates and centrists, once the two parties finish making it clear they are not welcome in their home. I think that may happen with full clarity in 2008, for those who don’t feel it already.

Like I said, maybe my crystal ball is cracked. But it’s not just me:

As the new Washington Post survey shows, independents are particularly estranged from the Bushies. The overall electorate is annoyed by both parties and the Washington politicians. The deficit is growing and the economy is anemic. The popularity of the Iraq war is plummeting and no end is in sight.

These are combustible conditions that could very well produce a third force in American politics. It is striking how similar the current situation is to that in 1992 when Perot emerged. Actually it is far worse – then, we were in the aftermath of a successful war although the economy was in a worse state.

The question is whether the Democratic party can fill this political vacuum – as Clinton did in ‘92 It will take more than Bush bashing to appeal to the disaffected.

It will take more than Bush bashing, but that’s all we’re getting. It will take more than Dean and media and judge bashing … but that’s all we’re getting.

We’ve long had a pretty rigid two party system. But we’ve also long been capitalists. And we should know that the market not only abhors a vacuum, it will fill before you even recognize it is a vacuum.

That’s what I see coming. A continuing shift left, a continuing shift right, and a growing vacuum in between. Faster, please.