Posted on 12/09/2003 10:44:58 AM PST by .cnI redruM
Add one more name to the list of those who believe that Howard Dean will prove a cataclysmic disaster for the Democratic party: Al Gore. Why else would Gore have endorsed him?
Think about it. Does Gore still wish to be president? Pretty clearly, he does: Otherwise he would have found himself a real job and moved to LA, rather than dabbling in business while maintaining a theoretical domicile in Carthage, Tennessee.
But how to gain the presidency? Gore was right to decide against running in 2004. The problem for him was not just that incumbents are hard to beat, but that his party has gone nuts. Had Gore run, much of the rage now directed at George W. Bush for defeating the Dems in 2000 and 2002 would have directed itself instead at Al Gore for losing an eminently winnable race. Gore would have had to reply endlessly to questions about his campaigning in 2000, about his handling of the Florida recount, about his ultimate concession, about his silence on the Bush tax cut, etc. etc. etc. By 2008, those passions will have drained away.
Of course, should another Democrat win in 2004, there will be no contest in 2008 for Gore to join. So Gore has to wish for defeat this year.
And not for mere defeat, but for catastrophic defeat. A Democratic wipeout in 2004 would make Gore’s performance in 2000 – 51 million votes, 266 electoral votes – look retrospectively much more impressive.
That will be especially true when the Democrats wake up to the fact that Dean runs badly with working-class whites and African-Americans. (James Taranto yesterday cited this wonderful line from the Chicago Tribune: “The pre-printed signs ‘African-Americans for Dean’ were held by white supporters.” Meanwhile, Ryan Lizza is astutely observing in this week’s New Republic that Dean and Kerry are campaigning in Iowa’s richest towns, while Gephardt and Edwards seek their votes in the poorest ones.
Those who argue that Dean will be a more formidable candidate than expected point to his Vermont record as a fiscal moderate and to the comparative modesty of his health-insurance plan, which is way less generous than that offered by the other major Democratic candidates. But Dean’s combination of weakness in foreign policy, ultra-permissiveness in social policy, and stinginess in fiscal policy isn’t “centrism”: It’s the politics of the dinner parties of Brentwood and East Hampton, of people who read Vanity Fair and don't need an SUV because their grocer delivers. Look at this election from the point of view of a swing voter: say the assistant manager of an Ace hardware in suburban Nashville. He’s patriotic in foreign affairs, moderate to conservative on social issues – but worried about how he’s going to pay his mother’s nursing home bills. What is Dean offering him? Nothing but contempt. I’ll bet a box of Canadian doughnuts that if Dean is the Democratic nominee, Bush will win Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania – all states that Gore carried in 2000. I would not be entirely surprised to see Bush take California too.
It’s already easy to predict the Democratic party’s after-action reports on 2004: “We got pushed way too far to the extremes, especially on national security issues, by a candidate who lacked national experience and was foisted on us by a bunch of white college kids who didn’t know anything and didn’t care anything about the economic problems of our voting base.”
Sometime after November 2004, a candidate who hails from the border South, served in Vietnam, appeals to black voters, accumulated a long record on national security issues, held the country’s second-highest office, was associated with the longest economic expansion in the country’s history, and proved himself a popular vote-getter in three national elections will begin to look good to his fellow-Democrats, never mind the Florida recount.
So Gore needs to speed his party toward the cataclysm – and if he can win new friends on the party’s left and look like a good sport while greasing the skids, all the better.
It’s very striking that the party’s two frontrunners for 2008, Gore and Hillary Clinton, are both borrowing pages from the old Richard Nixon playbook. Hillary is reinventing herself just as the “new Nixon” did in 1968; Gore meanwhile is following exactly the same plan for 2004 that Nixon adopted in 1964, when he made sympathetic noises toward Goldwater while complacently watching his successor lead his party to the worst debacle in its post-Depression history.
2004 may not be quite as one-sided an election as 1964 or even 1972, unless of course Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein is captured or shown to have been killed before November. But even without a spectacular further victory in the war on terror, 2004 is shaping up to look a lot like 1988, when another Northeastern near-pacifist won only ten states, all of them except West Virginia in the band of Yankee settlement across the top of the country.
So: well played Al. We’ll see you again.
I'd almost laugh if Gore's real reason for endorsing Dean was because of his deep and abiding respect for The Mayor of Vermont. That's ironic enough to be downright funny, but probably not the case.
I'm willing to take this one step further. Say Hillary decides to run this election to "save" the party. If she loses (please let her lose), who is standing in the wings for 2008? Al Gore. Al has nothing to lose and everything to gain by going with Dean.
Maybe so, but the picture that comes to mind for me is Gore offering to hold Dean's coat as Dean walks into a gunfight carrying a knife.
More like Dean(D) = Mondale(D)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.