As an independent, I believe strongly in the checks and balances of the two party system and thusly don't like to see either party get too far down or up. I want elections, especially presidential elections, to be about the relative merits of the individuals running, not the relative efficacy of their respective parties.
And it is for these reasons that I am quite concerned about Howard Dean taking over as Democratic national chairman, a result that was ensured when his last rival, Timothy J. Roemer, a former congressman from Indiana, dropped out of the running.
Among the statements of concern:
ABC News' The Note:
- If you haven't asked several smart people if your icky favorable/unfavorable ratings matter, and, if they do, what is to be done about them, a case could be made that you are even less prepared for your new job than those who are most worried about the words "DNC Chairman Howard Dean" fear.
- "I got into this race five weeks ago to talk about the devastating loss we experienced in November," Roemer said in an interview. "It was not about 60,000 votes in Ohio. It was about losing 97 of the 100 fastest growing counties in the country. If that's a trend in business or politics you're in trouble."
Republicans are in the strongest position they've been in since the early 20th century, Roemer said. [Washington Post]
John Bunzel, a Democrat and senior fellow with the Hoover Institution:
- "I think if Howard Dean is to be the spokesman for the party, he is going to have to become a different Howard Dean than the one who campaigned for president. So now the question is: What kind of coalition is he prepared to build? We'll see if he can transform himself into one who represents all parts of the party — and not just the peace wing. Because the Democratic Party can't win with those people being the vanguard of the party. It won't work.' ''
CNN poll: Dean - 31 percent favorable view among Americans in both parties, and 38 percent unfavorable view, with the rest undecided.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Maurice
Like the majority of voters I am middle of the road politically and not happy about being overwhelmed by one party. Bush has a big gun and seems to be firing in all directions trying to please everyone. It is interesting to note that as inept as he appears, there is no one from the other side that can compete with him. I don't think Howard Dean (arrrugh!) is the guy to fix the Demoncats unpopularity. They need to at least appear to be more mainstream than either party appears to be right now.
2 - Eric Olsen
one would think former pres Bill could tell them a thing or two about triangulation, which coincidentally enough, seems to be the direction Hillary is headed in.
3 - NC
Mixed feelings here. On the one hand, I'm thrilled by the thought of Howie steering the left off a cliff. On the other hand, I'm afraid that the more entrenched Republicans are, the more brazen the fundies will become.
There's a silver lining for folks like you (and me), Eric: this could be the first step toward the creation of a viable third party. As the wingnuts on each side take control, they'll alienate more and more of the moderates in their camps until, perhaps, a critical mass will come together and form a centrist coalition. Think socially liberal, fiscally responsible, and hawkish on foreign policy. Sound good?
4 - Steve S
From what I hear, it sounds like the Democratic party got Dean to be DNC because of his grassroots fundraising capabilities. The Right already has such a large movement in place, the Left needs one as well. Dean proved during the election, he's the best one for that job. That's why he got the DNC. That's what I hear from sites on the Left.
Since that will be his focus and not setting policy, I don't see why anybody should be concerned, he sounds like the best candidate for the job. And actually if you look at his resume as Governor of Vermont, I don't see why there would even be concern about him setting policy. It's a pretty glowing endorsement of his political skills.
5 - Eric Olsen
yes, but Ross Perot may have shot that wad for about the next 100 years - of course he added the rampant protectionism to which the unions so desperately cleave
6 - Anna
Eric - pick up a copy of "You Have the Power" and maybe you'll see why people like me love Howard Dean so much and are thrilled to see him taking the reins of the party.
7 - johnny7
The Democrat Party is suffering a 'schism'. That's why they seem to have lost direction and fail to speak with a united voice.
If the party sticks together, it's doomed to lose. If it splits up... no faction will have the power to win. Catch 21.
As a conservative, I'm very amused with their dilemma.
8 - RJ
Er, Catch 22, right?
9 - Al Barger
I predict that Dean will be surprisingly effective as chairman, and won't be driving the party off any cliffs. He's there for his fundraising and organizational talents, not as a candidate.
Also, to whatever extent he's cast as a spokesman for the party, he'll do well. He's smart, witty, and quick on his feet.
Yeah, he went a little bit over the top last year, and got slapped down. However, that was under the heat of being a leading candidate for president, and his first serious national exposure. He didn't realize quite how things were going to play in the national press until he got that cute little scream broke off up in him. He won't make the same mistakes again.
Also, it won't really matter so much if he does get a little overheated now and then in this context. It wouldn't be good for him to seriously cheese off the whole public, but being somewhat disliked won't matter. He's not on the ballot.
Indeed, if he doesn't have Republicans hating him, then he ain't doing his job.
10 - Big Time Patriot
I wish there were many viable parties to choose from, the two party system is not really healthy for either the nation or the parties themselves.
I do kind of think that all this talk of Democrats being doomed is a bit of wishful thinking by the Republicans.
"Republicans are in the strongest position they've been in since the early 20th century, Roemer said."
Sounds good, but the Democrat's have been in better positions than this MANY times in the last century and yet the Republicans held on. I think the Democrats will hold on too.
11 - Eric Berlin
Eric - What are your specific problems with Dean? Is it simply that you think he'll (further) tank the Dems chances?
12 - Eric Olsen
lots of good points made and I agree Democrtic national chariman is not the same thing as candidate. I think for the Dems to be viable nationally they have to be more centrist, especially involving national security, and Dean was so strongly anti-war he seems about he last guy to point them in that direction. I guess I'm really looking for the thrid party NC described above, but that isn't going to happen either.
13 - Dave Nalle
>>Sounds good, but the Democrat's have been in better positions than this MANY times in the last century and yet the Republicans held on. I think the Democrats will hold on too.<<
If true, this is unfortunate, because the only real chance at a viable third party is if the Democrats collapse puttig the Republicans in a situation where the party might split in two along ideological lines.
Dave
14 - NC
I hear this from leftists all the time and never once have I understood it to mean anything other than "I wish there was a viable socialist/Green party."
15 - Steve S
I think for things to be safe, we'd have to jump from the two-viable party system we have now to 4.
If a moderate party came out, and say 80% of Republicans identify as moderate, and the same for Democrats, with the remaining 20% of each party being extremists, then 80% of each party could go to the new party. That would leave the Republican and Dem parties with only 20% of their current number. I don't see how that could compete with a party that just got 80% of both. And I don't see how they can combine for strength since they are so ideologically opposed.
Which would make us end up with a one party system. I think it's gotta jump from 2 to 4 to be safe.
I was told the way it was always supposed to be was that the two parties were supposed to be extreme, and it was through compromise that things settle in a middle. But something happened around the Reagan era and through the Kenneth Starr witchhunt phase. Now neither side wants to compromise, it's more about attacking the other side.
16 - Veteran1999
NC: "Think socially liberal, fiscally responsible, and hawkish on foreign policy."
I'm an independent centrist. As a former military man and a Kosovo vet, I'll take the first two but not the last. I hate chickenhawks with a passion, and that's what you'll get with a bunch of suits flexing our military might while others do the fighting.
A centrist party sounds damn good about now though. These democrats and republicans are little more than corporate whores. Our democracy is in sad shape right now.
17 - NC
Fair enough, V1999. Not to spin this thread off on a tangent, but what do you propose by way of solving the problem?
18 - Eric Olsen
V1999 apparently resents civilian control of the military
19 - Al Barger
In addition to rejecting civilian control of the military, v1999 also seems to wish to limit general political debate by cheap abuse of the language. That is, he would appear to wish to impose the socialist liberal agenda by simply labeling it "centrist." Thus, anyone who opposes the failed and immoral left wing agenda is by definition some kind of radical, not a moderate "centrist" like him.
20 - Hal Pawluk
Relax, Eric - Dean is a great choice.
Think of him as the Democrats' Ed Gillespie, rather than their George Bush.
That still leaves the Dems in a deep hole - Hillary doesn't cut it for president.
And no, I don't know who does for the Dems.
21 - Mike Kole
If you are wanting socially tolerant, fiscally cosnervative, and militarily non-interventionist yet strong on defense, there is a third-party option, that starts with an 'L'.
(I can't bring myself to plug as shamelessly as usual today. Please forgive me.)
22 - Veteran1999
Looks like I stepped on some chickenhawk toes. Or the office desk jockey cheering on war from the safety of his cubicle. Fair enough, you can't toss a stone without hitting a half dozen of them these days.
Eric, you're daft. Civilian leadership? Sure. Politics are best handled by politicians. War is best left to the generals. What we have today in Iraq is the result of chickenhawk micromanagement reminiscent of LBJ during Vietnam, only this time starring your boy Rummy and his fellow draft-dodging coterie. The military hates that fool for a reason.
23 - Dave Nalle
>>f you are wanting socially tolerant, fiscally cosnervative, and militarily non-interventionist yet strong on defense, there is a third-party option, that starts with an 'L'.<<
You left out ideologically inflexible and absolutely incapable of ever being a viable national party.
Yes, I think there could be a third party with Libertarian values, but the LP as it exists today cannot adjust to political reality enough to become a viable party. They might end up joining a new liberty-oriented party by mass defection, however.
Dave
24 - Veteran1999
Mike, the Libertarians are the true conservatives of today. Back in the early 20th century there were also neocons. They were called Wilsonian idealists back then, or liberal hawks if you prefer. Constant military interventionism, nation-building, and a pipedream of reshaping the world in our image. Wilson was famous for once saying: "Make the world safe for democracy". Sound familiar? What we have today is a republican party that is more hopelessly liberal than the democrats. The latter would be proud if they weren't out of power.
I'd support the libertarians but unfortunately the two-party corporate whoring is very good at keeping such parties marginalized.
25 - Mike Kole
You are quite right about the traditional flaws of the Libertarian Party. Rather than being a political party- meaning, capable of compromise, working to move policy in a particular direction and to elect candidates- the LP has been more of a political debate society or supper club.
Increasingly, the leadership of the LP has moved towards more truly political operators. Certain state affiliates show this more than others.
Here in Indiana, I'd like to think that we get the distinction, and are working to build a viable third-party alternative. Our statewide base is about 4%, and in a handful of counties where we have good local leadership, it is as high as 7%. We are most hopeful that as the LPIN continues to grow and show continuously improved results, other states will take notice of our methods and adopt them, transforming the national party.
Time will tell, of course. Keep your eye on Indiana, though.