The Nation: Dean is Liberal's answer to Ronald Reagan

The Nation ^ | 08/05/2003 | Online Beat

[jmcclain19]

Hold your noses folks, as Howard Dean is now officially, in the minds of the uber liberal editors of The Nation magazine's Online Beat, been christened Howard Dean the new version of Ronald Reagan, the Left's leader in the new liberal revolution.

It's a lengthy article, so I have just quoted the second half.

Harry Truman warned that, when given a choice between a Republican and a Democrat imitating a Republican, voters would not hesitate to vote for the real thing. And, with his support for the Bush administration's agenda on foreign policy and trade -- fundamental issues not just for Democratic activists but for millions of disenchanted citizens who need to be drawn to the polls if the Democratic nominee is to prevail in November, 2004 -- Lieberman has positioning himself as the pale imitation of Bush that grassroots Democrats fear will depress turnout.

Lieberman's National Press Club speech signaled his intention to echo the conservative Democratic Leadership Council's theme that nominating a Democrat who shares the values of the party faithful would be dangerous. Like the DLC, he is trying to paint more liberal candidates as 2004 versions of 1972 Democratic nominee George McGovern. But the comparison that comes to mind when Lieberman bashes candidates who are popular with the party's base voters is not to the 1972 race, but rather to the 1980 contest for the Republican presidential nomination.

That year, moderate Republicans were horrified by the prospect that the party cadres were preparing to nominate former California Governor Ronald Reagan for president. Reagan's foes warned that if the conservative icon became the nominee, the November election results would be as disastrous as the 1964 campaign where standard-bearing conservative Barry Goldwater got trounced.

The pundits repeated the Goldwater-Reagan comparison constantly; even after Reagan's campaign took off, Time magazine declared that, "His biggest problem may be that the very hard-line conservative positions that appeal to the enthusiasts who vote in G.O.P. primaries are exactly those that might not attract the much larger body of people who vote in November." There was even talk that former President Gerald Ford might have to be drafted into the primary competition in order to stop Reagan. But the party faithful could not be dissuaded. They followed their principles and their hearts and went with Reagan. The November election results proved them right. Even if Americans did not agree with Reagan's ideology, they preferred his confident style to the more nuance and centrist offerings of Jimmy Carter and John Anderson.

Democrats who counsel compromise going into the 2004 contest are likely to find themselves disregarded in much the same way that Republican compromiser were in 1980. And rightly so. If the party chooses a candidate who is confident enough to aggressively challenge George W. Bush, Democrats might well find that steering an uncompromising course is far more appealing to the great mass of American voters that the circumnavigations proposed by Joe Lieberman.

[John Valentine]

Only a Liberal dupe, predisposed to beleiveing Liberal lies, could read this without gagging.

[TastyManatees]

Comparisons are in order, but not to Ronald Reagan. Reagan felt the pulse of a pent-up conservative backlash against serious challenges to this country's social and economic values by reigning liberal Democrats. Dean is best compared to Walter Mondale, who attempted to get a relatively stable and sucessful nation to vote for him by promising more of the same economic malaise and social decay the people rejected by voting for Reagan four years ago.

Howard Dean may think he is running to win by bucking his party's more prescient members, but he is in fact doing the exact opposite of what Reagan did, from a purely political point of view. More like Mondale, he is asking the American people to vote for the same decay that Al Gore represented, and I personally doubt it would have worked even before September 11. Heck, I think I may contribute to him, just to see another 49 state landslide.

Tasty Manatees

[luckydevi]

Wait I thought he was fiscal conservative

[gov_bean_ counter]

Doesn't Cris Lehane work for John Kerry?

[Mr. Bird]

The comparison to 1980 is preposterous, on many levels. First of all, the incumbent in 1980 is widely recognized as one of biggest Oval Office failures in history. Without speculating on the specific numbers, a significant portion of the electorate would have voted for a hamster before voting for Carter.

Secondly, Reagan was an optimist and champion of the human spirit. Voters wanted to believe that things would be better again. Dean is a polar opposite, who believes that the answer to this country's problems is taking responsibility away from the individual and expanding government. That's not inspirational; that's defeatist.

[gov_bean_ counter]

When Cris Lehane (aka, Pencil Necked Geek) releases his oppostion research on Dean, he will quickly disappear from the political landscape.

[mewzilla]

Yup. Bet Kerry's hire will come back to bite him...

[rogue yam]

If Grits had been running unopposed in 1980 the majority of Americans would have voted write-in for the rabbit that kicked his ass.

[Petronski]

[Semper Paratus]

Dean is most definetly the anti-Reagan.

[.cnI redruM]

I'm glad I ate a light lunch. Dean is not even close to Reagan. He is a loudmouthed, glad-handing huckster. Raegan would NEVER had sealed all of his records as a governor for 10 years.

[capt. norm]

"Liberal Revolution"

As if liberals aren't already revolting enough!

[Uncle Miltie]

Actually, Dean is the Democrats' Barry Goldwater. He is hollering a full throated defense of basic ideological principles. Also, he cannot win against the popular incumbent.

The jury is still out on whether he can create the liberal equivalent of Ronald Reagan 16 years later....

[Tamzee]

Ahhh, a nice after-dinner-giggle ;-)

[headsonpikes]

Maybe the thinking is that Dean should co-star in a movie with a monkey.

Since it's about liberal Democrats, it could be called 'Bedtime for Bozos'.

[jaime1959]

I have a friend who was a student at Washington University in St. Louis in 1972. She said people there were crushed and in disbelief that Nixon steamrollered McGovern. Within their cloistered environment, EVERYBODY was supporting McGovern. The editors of The Nation are just as divorced from reality as those as Washington U. were in 72.