1968 Redux, Part I: Is Dean Still the Democratic Goldwater?

In this post, I introduced an upcoming series of posts comparing the mid-'00s to the mid-'60s, leading to how the 2008 election could be similar to 1968. A month later, here's Part I (finally).

1968 Redux, Part I: Is Dean Still the Democratic Goldwater?

I’m convinced that in this year 1964 we must face up to our conscience and make a definite choice. We must decide what sort of people we are and what sort of world we want–now and for our children.

Isn’t that a brilliant line? What a great way to say “Let’s stop with the stupid games; this is just too important for stupid games.” Somebody saying that today would be seen as a giant breath of fresh air, at least in the blogosphere. In real life, making voters acknowledge reality just gets you obliterated in an election. See Barry Goldwater. And Jimmy Carter. And, of course, Howard Dean. Saying “Let’s cut through the crap” got Dean labeled an outsider, a maverick, and of course, a crazy person.

In 2002, right after the Dems allowed themselves to get painted as giant wusses without so much as a single counterpunch, I was horrifically disillusioned with politics (and I didn’t even know nearly as much as I know now). Well, berlin niebuhr pointed me to a website called Dean for America. Some doctor and former governor of Vermont was running for president. He probably didn’t have a chance, but what I saw from him in random speeches posted on his website was quite encouraging. What he was saying just seemed like common sense to me, but nobody else was saying it. It was exciting.

(Now, berlin is also the person who sent me a one-line e-mail the day after 2002 election, saying “It’s going to be so much worse than you think,” so I don’t want him getting to much credit for leading me toward naïve inspiration.)

Then, in March 2003, Dean spoke to the California Democratic Party, and, I thought at the time, I was watching the start of something huge.

“What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President’s unilateral intervention in Iraq? What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting tax cuts, which have bankrupted this country and given us the largest deficit in the history of the United States?…

I am Howard Dean and I here to represent the democratic wing of the Democratic Party. I want a Democratic Party that will balance the budget….No Republican President has balanced the budget in this country in 34 years. If you want to trust somebody with your taxpayer dollars you better elect a Democratic because the Republican’s can’t manage money. I want an economy in this country where we create jobs that don’t move offshore. I want an America that has health insurance for everybody.

…

I am not surprised that only 15% of people between the ages of 18 and 25 vote because we have not giving them a reason to vote and we are going to give them a reason to vote now. I was Governor for so long that I got to serve through not one but two Bush recessions and in Vermont I was very proud to balance the budget. We balanced the budget, we set aside money in a rainy day fund, and we paid down almost a quarter of our debt.

…

We are not going to beat George Bush by voting with the President 85% of the time. The only way that we’re going to beat George Bush is to say what we mean, to stand up for who we are, to lift up a Democratic agenda against the Republican agenda because if you do that the Democratic agenda wins every time. I want my country back. We want our country back. I am tired of being divided. I don’t want to listen to the fundamentalist preachers anymore. I want America to look like America. Where we are all included, hand in hand, walking down. We have dream. We can only reach the dream if we are all together – black and white, gay and straight, man and woman. America. The Democratic Party.

It was like Jed Bartlet morphed from Martin Sheen into a real-life politician. Granted, Dean was a lot more raw in the way he spoke and acted (he’s not an actor, after all), but there was hope. And as millions of dollars started pouring in, national attention (and endorsements) followed. Dean became the ’04 Dem favorite. From pro2 at Live Journal:

The birth of the new movement led by Daily Kos came in 2003 with the unexpected emergence of Howard Dean as a presidential candidate. Since that campaign provided both the technological and spiritual inspiration of much that came later, it's important to reconsider what Dean's venture was (and was not) about. It rose in the shadows of the Bush ascendancy in the years following September 11, when very few people—certainly not presidential candidates with an eye to getting elected—were willing to challenge the White House directly. In that situation, Howard Dean's forthrightness, especially his willingness to strongly oppose the war in Iraq, united many people worried that Bush had succeeded in stifling dissent.

At this point, the comparisons started. Was Howard Dean the Democratic version of Barry Goldwater? If so, what did that mean exactly? Was he going to get crushed in the national election? Did that even matter? Was this the start of a decades-long movement? Was I just being naïve and idealistic?

Rhetorically, Goldwater and Dean definitely had similarities. Let’s compare. The following is from Goldwater’s 1964 RNC speech.

Today, here at our home, in this State I love, with my family and with the people whose friendship and political interests have placed me where I am, I want to tell you this: I will seek the Republican presidential nomination. I’ve decided to do this because of the principles in which I believe and because I am convinced that millions of Americans share my belief in those principles. I decided to do this also because I have not heard from any announced Republican candidate a declaration of conscience or of political position that could possibly offer to the American people a clear choice in the next presidential election.

…

I was once asked what kind of Republican I was. I replied that I was not a “me-too” Republican. That still holds. I will not change my beliefs to win votes. I will offer a choice, not an echo. This will not be an engagement of personalities. It will be in engagement of principles.

I’ve always stood for government that is limited and balanced and against the ever increasing concentrations of authority in Washington. I’ve always stood for individual responsibility and against regimentation. I believe we must now make a choice in this land and not continue drifting endlessly down and down for a time when all of us, our lives, our property, our hopes, and even our prayers will become just cogs in a vast government machine.

I believe that we can win victory for freedom both at home and abroad. I believe that we can be strong enough and determined enough to win those victories without war. I believe that appeasement and weakness can only bring war. I’ve asked and will continue to ask: Why Not Victory–why not victory for sound, constitutional principles and government–why not victory over the evils of communism?

I’m convinced that in this year 1964 we must face up to our conscience and make a definite choice. We must decide what sort of people we are and what sort of world we want–now and for our children.

My candidacy is pledged to a victory for principle and to presenting an opportunity for the American people to choose. Let there be a choice–right now and in clear, understandable terms. And I ask all of those who feel and believe as I do to join with me in assuring both the choice and the victory.

“Me-too Republican”. Changing your beliefs to win votes. A choice, not an echo. Engagement of principles. Feel that fresh air? A lot of the 126 other Democratic hopefuls in 2003 were “Me-too Democrats”, voting for the Iraq war resolution (among other things) simply because they didn’t want to look weak. Of course, it made them look weak and spineless, but hey...minor details, right?

Of course, we all know what happened. The “Me-too Democrats” and the Democratic establishment succeeded in marginalizing Dean and making him seem to extreme and “unelectable”. In Crashing the Gates, Kos and Jerome cover this in detail. Again from pro2:

The reason the Dean campaign collapsed in Iowa, [Kos and Jerome] argue persuasively, was largely that the new kind of campaign he was assembling threatened so many powerful people, from rich donors used to the kingmaking power their money gave them to "media advisers" unhappy at seeing their conventional wisdom ignored. Jerome and Kos tell the story of the series of TV ads that helped turn the polls against Dean; they were sponsored by a mysterious new group called Americans for Jobs and Healthcare and they showed, among other things, the face of Osama bin Laden in order to argue that "Howard Dean just cannot compete with George Bush on foreign policy." A few months later when mandatory financial reports finally emerged, it turned out that the ads had been financed by supporters of John Kerry and Richard Gephardt and organized by the "disgraced, corrupt former New Jersey senator Robert Torricelli." All in all, the backers of the ad had given more than $8.7 million to the Democratic Party in the previous few years. Dean made plenty of political gaffes on his own but he had been eliminated by powerful Democrats.

It goes without saying that the “Dean Scream” effectively marked the exact time of death of the Dean candidacy, but the Democratic establishment had already dealt mortal wounds.

So the question is, even though Dean didn’t actually win the ’04 Democratic nomination, even though the entrenched leaders of the party successfully resisted change, does Dean still qualify as the official kick-starter of a movement? It’s obviously too early to tell (you couldn’t exactly see the “Reagan Revolution” coming in mid-1966), but let’s look at what has and hasn’t happened so far.

For one thing, the art of running an effective campaign has changed dramatically. Now, a true grassroots effort can generate almost as much money as George Bush’s “pioneer” luncheons, where rich donors get together to pool their money. Now, you have to run a strong web-based campaign to go along with your on-the-ground efforts. Just as Napster, mp3’s, Myspace, etc., have succeeded in making music a bit more democratic (it’s a lot easier as a music fan to find music you like thanks to the Internet, and it’s a lot easier as a musician to find an audience thanks to the Internet), Dean’s campaign efforts have succeeded (somewhat) in making democracy a bit more democratic.

Dean himself has continued to make a strong impact on today’s political culture (not strong enough yet, but strong nonetheless). His efforts with Democracy for America have furthered the importance and effectiveness of online rallying and fundraising, but more importantly, his success in winning the chairmanship of the Democratic National Party has ensured that he will have the opportunity to make a lasting effect.

As DNC chair, Dean is attempting to make his mark through the “50-State Strategy,” another one of those ideas that seems like common sense, only almost nobody else in the Democratic Party thought of it. Basically, the heart of the 50-State Strategy is volunteers in every state, a candidate in every race, money to every candidate. It increases the odds of picking up random races instead of just focusing on a specific few, and more importantly (to me), it increases of the odds of finding and funding those diamond-in-the-rough candidates who can make a lasting difference.

Nonetheless, the 50-State Strategy has seen its share of critics, namely Paul Begala. All I can say is, if Paul Begala is complaining about it, I’m all for it. In all, though, the strategy makes sense and is seeing its share of praise. First, from Western Democrat:

“Win for today” as a long-term strategy has left many areas of the country without a healthy dialogue. The April 29 canvass where we put the DNC message on 15,000 registered Democrats doorsteps was a first for Utahns. They have never heard from the DNC. When Clinton was in the White House, he never made a public address to the people of Utah.

Democrats have become outsiders who do things to us, not insiders who do things for us. The 50 state strategy is one way to turn it around.

Even in Utah, there are thoughtful Democrats elected to office like Congressman Matheson, Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, and Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon. The DNC’s investment here will make sure that they retain their seats. I expect it will help Mayor Corroon get a majority of Democrats to support his policies on the Salt Lake County Council. That will show Utahns for the first time in a decade that we have the ability to govern.

And from Democratic Illustrator:

Parties are permanent, they need to be robust in every state. No matter how small the county, every Democratic voter in America should be within a 1-hour’s drive from a Democratic field office, year-round every year. I call it the Red County Bill of Rights, rural people should be entitled to party support. With party support, then over time, candidates will come up the ranks from school boards and be running for high office. It took the GOP 30 years form the Goldwater defeat to take Congress. But they started by putting operatives in Democratic states and training candidates for their careers, not the next election.

And finally, from Scatablog:

Now, the inside the beltway Dems are criticizing Dean for wasting money that could be spent better, in their view, on the key districts in the upcoming elections, so the Dems can take over the Congress. Yes, that is a worthy goal, but not at the expense of building the party for the future.Just look at where this "spend every dime on the current race" has gotten us. We were once the solid majority party. Now, we're a mostly forgotten and ridiculed minority party without any voice whatsoever. Yes, we need to survive the short-term in order to stay viable for the long-term, but I'm on board with building for the long-term. At this point, most of the griping is coming from the consultants who are parasites on this party. Yes, let's take it out of their pockets. They have been useless -- less than useless, downright harmful, by coaching our "leaders" to hide in their foxholes until they can tell which way the wind is blowing.

So. What does this mean? A movement could be underway, but we won’t know it for a few more years. A Democratic win this fall will be more because of George Bush’s failures than Democratic strategic achievement. But it will take a big win at some point to show that Dean’s strategy, and the blogosphere’s influence (which also spawned from Dean’s campaign), is the way of the future. The sooner, the better.

As for how this compares to the 1960s...in the 1966 midterm, displeasure about the president’s policies led to major gains for the Republicans. From Something Old, Nothing New:

The 1966 midterms were a different story...there was widespread discontent with the President's domestic agenda, with the war abroad, and with the President's party in general. This led to a big win for the Republicans in the midterms: they didn't manage to take back either house of Congress, but they won a large number of seats in both Houses, effectively crippling Johnson's ability to get anything passed. Now, the parallels are never perfect, of course. A lot of discontent with Johnson's domestic policy revolved around the best things he'd done, like his anti-segregation policies. The discontent with the current administration, on the other hand, is more akin to what happened during the Carter administration: the perception that the President can't get anything worthwhile done even though his party controls Congress. Still, the parallels are there. And while discontent with the war hadn't reached the boiling point in 1966, it was certainly there, to the extent that HUAC opened an investigation into anti-war protesters in the summer of 1966.So if the parallel holds, and I'm not saying it definitely will, the Republicans would be expected to sustain losses in both Houses while not losing control altogether. That seems like a reasonable prediction, and close to what the professional forecasters are forecasting. The one thing to note is that the margins of control are slimmer now than they were in the '60s, so a relatively small swing of seats (by historical standards) could swing control; however, large swings of seats are relatively uncommon now.I will add again that if the parallel holds this year, I'm going to be betting real money an Al Gore presidency for 2009.

We’ll get to the “Gore presidency” part of that in the future, but this account shows that Goldwater’s blowout defeat did nothing to send Republicans into the wilderness, as it was feared a Dean candidacy would do.

In summary, I turn to Dana Blankenhorn:

Just as Republicans split 40 years ago, between those who would accomodate the Democratic majority and those who rejected it, so Democrats are now splitting in a similar way.

…

Conventional analysts will call this split a sign of weakness. History shows it to be a sign of strength.

…

The split is over tactics. The "movement" wing rejects both accomodation with Republicans (Joe Lieberman) and with big business "Astroturf" campaigns. The accomodationists claim the movement can't win, that it's extreme, that it's impractical.

…

What does this mean?

I think it means Democrats are preparing a new Thesis.

One of the first steps in this is a process of "purification," in which symbols of the old Anti-Thesis are swept away. It's a multi-cycle process, which begins a few years before power is taken, and ends with the full triumph of the new Thesis.

Think of Reaganism. It emerged with Goldwater, as early as 1962, it elected Nixon in 1968 (although he was the Vice President of Eisenhower, the Anti-Thesis to FDR) and by the Reagan landslide of 1980 it held the whole party.

…

The key to the 1966 election was not ideology, but "new faces." The candidates who triumphed were new to politics, they were true challengers. Except for Reagan, they were fairly moderate (they would be liberal by today's standards). The movement-accomodationist split was under the radar.

That is what we should be looking for this year, real traction and real victory by challengers whose claim is purity. They may drag some of the old guard along with them (some may turn out to be old guarad themselves), but by next year it should be quite clear that the old guard is old.

This does not mean we won't see an Anti-Thesis candidate in 2008, and a President elected by virtue of their bridging this divide within their own party. Nixon ran that way. FDR ran that way. So did Abraham Lincoln.

But the Thesis, in the end, will dominate. The Democratic equivalent of Reaganism will triumph. And today's Old Guard will be left in the dust.

In 2006, the results of the power struggles within the Democratic Party are almost as important as the results of the power struggles in Congress. The old guard (the Joe Liebermans and Chuck Schumers) are getting ready to defend their positions with whatever dirty tricks they can muster. If Howard Dean really is the Democrats’ Goldwater, his side will win the internal struggle, then eventually claim victory in the national political struggle as well. If not, then the wilderness will be a pretty familiar place for Dems in the near and distant future.