Posted on 02/08/2005 10:23:03 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
Last August, Edvard Munch’s famous masterpiece, “The Scream,” was stolen again. Armed gunmen took the painting from the Oslo Munch Museum in Norway. Saturday, the Democratic National Committee will elect former Governor Howard Dean as the Chairman of the DNC. Are these events connected?
Sometimes, reality is its own parody. As the satirical website ScrappleFace.com reported this week, “Faced with the fact that former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is the only person still seeking the chairmanship of the Democrat National Committee (DNC), the nine-member panel of elected officers announced today that it had posted the job on CareerBuilder.com, and would consider applicants from outside the party....
“Other party leaders privately said that the ‘working with a bunch of monkeys’ ad for CareerBuilder, which ran during the Super Bowl, ‘sparked some real soul searching at the DNC.’”
Were the Deaniacs looking ahead to this Saturday? Did they commission the theft to acquire the new symbol of the Democrats? Does the new image justify the new slogan, “YEAAAAGHH”?
In theory, parties exist to win elections, but that breaks down in practice. The first case study I read in college (when ice covered the earth) was about the Mississippi Republican Party in the 50s. For decades, they’d lost all statewide races. When a group of young Turks decided to compete with intent to win, the first opponent they had to defeat was the Old Guard of their own party.
Planning for defeat seems counterintuitive for a political party. Why would this happen?
Parties offer more potential gains than just winning elections. Local, state and federal laws guarantee second place parties a number of appointments to public boards and positions. Leaders of such a party have certain power and patronage even if they always lose the next election. I call this “the lesser lion’s share.”
This phenomenon explains the election of Howard Dean as DNC Chair. It also explains the Republican nominations of Barry Goldwater and Bob Dole, and the Democratic ones of George McGovern and Michael Dukakis, as hopeless candidates for President.
Bob Dole is the exception to the general pattern in that list of doomed candidates. His was not a staunchly ideological choice. Instead, he labored long and hard in the vineyards of his party, and built up chits in all parts of the nation. When he cashed those chits, he became an unstoppable nominee. However, that meant nothing in the general election, which he lost overwhelmingly.
The other three nominees were all strong ideologues. Each represented the crest of a wave of “true believers,” who were convinced that the nation and the world would be vastly improved if only their candidate were elected President. But beliefs like that go hand-in-hand with an aggressive neglect of the question of electibility. As a rule, the stronger the belief that a candidate OUGHT to win, the less the examination of whether the candidate CAN win.
And that brings us to Howard Dean and the Democratic Party.
Howard Dean is one of the most spectacular examples of the phrase applied to the very worst of candidates, that he “crashed and burned.” From a position of having $50 million raised and leading most polls for the Democratic nomination before Iowa, Dean ran through his money and lost ignominiously in the first two primaries, and was then dead as a candidate in short order.
Is this what the Democrats need? A proven loser to lead them into the 2006 midterm elections, followed by the 2008 presidential election?
Though either of the current major parties can occasionally grow blinders and nominate a candidate who cannot win, generally they learn from their lessons and don’t repeat the same mistake until a few national elections have passed. There are exceptions. The Democrats nominated Stevenson again, after he had been soundly trounced by Eisenhower. And the Democrats nominated William Jennings Bryan not twice, but three times.
What’s the history of the Democrats leading up to Dean? They lost the Presidency twice, in 2000 and 2004, they lost the midterm election in 2002. An indication of whether Dean is another failed leader, urging the Democratic lemmings to follow him over a cliff, will come in the midterm election of 2006.
I’ve started handicapping that election, now. The Republicans will gain in both the House and the Senate. The Democrats will stick with Dean despite his bad results, just as they stuck with Terry McAuliffe in his series of national losses.
Will the Democrats ever learn? Apparently not. Or at least, not before the next two national losses.
About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment attorney and author who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
LOL!
Are you kidding me? We don't want them to learn, LOL.
(BtL like your handle)
Right! :^D
I'm pretty rusty, but it looks like that would both fix the scansion AND keep the sentiment; schöner is a trifle redundant at that point in any case, given what it's modifying, no?
Much better than mine -- wtg!!
Barry energized hardcore types. Unfortunately there weren't enough around to win a national election. I liked his '64 platform. But it wasn't viable and still isn't viable at this time. The K-flopper won a bunch of states...
Has anyone checked Sandy Berger's pants for a "Scream"?
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.