Thursday, August 14, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Mercury

Editor's Note: Not on Dean's list

My left-wing comrades don't want to hear this, but it's true: Howard Dean isn't the guy.

I wish it weren't so. By all accounts, Dean, the former Vermont governor seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, is doing the best job of distinguishing himself from George W. Bush. Dean unabashedly opposed the Iraq war. He wants to repeal Bush's tax cuts and use the money to provide universal health insurance. He signed the gay civil unions bill in Vermont. He's pro-choice and pro-renewable energy.

What's more, Dean's candidacy appeals to people who haven't previously gotten involved in politics. He's tapped into the Internet like no presidential candidate before him, raising big money and recruiting enthusiastic volunteers. At a meeting of Dean supporters last week in Las Vegas, 50 people showed up, two-thirds of whom hadn't been involved in politics previously or hadn't been for many years.

But we've been down this road a few times before. Idealistically speaking, Dean seems to be the best Democratic candidate, in that he espouses strong liberal values. Unlike Joe Lieberman, he isn't visibly ashamed of being a Democrat. But Dean, however appealing his platform is to us dyed-in-the-wool lefties, can't beat Bush. That's a sad fact of life in these United States right now.

A pollster reported recently that the Democratic Party enters the 2004 elections in its worst position in 70 years. While the party enjoys strong allegiance from union members and minorities, its overall support is startlingly weak. Fewer than one-third of Americans consider themselves Democrats, according to pollster Mark Penn, who worked for President Clinton. That's down from 49 percent at the party's peak in 1958.

Look around, and you'll see that the country has become more conservative in recent years. Partly it's a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the resulting wars on terrorism and Iraq. Right or wrong, Americans tend to rally around the Grand Old Party when national security issues are at stake. Blind patriotism is identified with Ronald Reagan and the Bushes, not Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Partly it's a lingering effect of the 1990s economic boom, during which the nation repeated the deregulation and speculation free-for-all of the 1920s. The boom went bust, of course, which, if history serves, should mean a swing left politically for the country, but we really haven't seen it yet.

Howard Dean is somewhat like George McGovern--a fine fellow but just too liberal-sounding to muster a large enough voting base to win. But the more relevant comparison is to Ralph Nader.

Nader, who could very well run again, was the Green Party's standard-bearer in 2000. He was the smartest guy in the race and the most liberal. And the biggest effect of his candidacy, which garnered 2.7 percent of ballots cast, was to take thousands of votes away from Vice President Al Gore in key states, leading to the Florida nightmare that put Bush in the White House.

Dean is doing well early in the campaign because this is when the party faithful, who tend to be more liberal than the Democratic masses, get involved. That's good for Dean, but potentially disastrous for the party come November 2004. Because when Election Day comes, the Democrats need a candidate who appeals to a wide and diverse audience, someone who can grab a few Republican and independent votes, as Clinton did, and who the bulk of Democrats can get behind. Not Bush-lite, by any means, but not someone rank-and-file Democrats would consider "radical" either.

It remains to be seen whether the Democrats have anybody who can do that. Assuming Dean isn't the guy, that leaves Lieberman, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt and John Edwards. Lieberman is essentially a Republican, Gephardt has more dirty laundry than Mission Linen and Edwards is a complete unknown who, if he wants to win, should be in Dean's ascending position right now.

That leaves Kerry, who, to me, seems like a solid left-of-center guy with the right experience (war hero/war protester) and credentials to appeal to a wide audience. He may be the one, although he has yet to capture the nation's imagination. Former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, a one-time party icon, said as much last week when he urged Gore to run again.

I, for one, would vote for Gore in 2004. He won the popular vote in 2000 and would make a good president. He didn't invent the Internet, but he was very funny on "Saturday Night Live" after the election, and that's not easy to do. Still, one suspects the general public isn't ready for Gore's return to the stage just yet, and Gore has said repeatedly that he's not running. (You get the feeling Gore thinks his odds increase substantially in 2008, when Bush would be out of the picture.) A newly launched "Draft Gore 2004" campaign wants New Hampshire voters to write in his name in the Democratic primary, but that seems like just another Naderish way to sabotage the party.

So, let's be clear: This isn't an endorsement of Kerry. It's too early for that. And it's not a call for Gore to enter the race. But it is a dis-endorsement of Dean, because politics isn't just about ideas, it's about winning, and Dean can't win.

--GEOFF SCHUMACHER