|
he understands how the Democrats are going to take back the majority again.
Right now the party is built to be a minority party. It doesn't have strong views, (hell, we even have an anti-choice senate leader), it reacts to what the Republicans do, rather than shapes the debate itself.
Dean knows that in order to win, we must give people a reason to vote for us. That means we must have our own ideas, and that we must work outside of the framework of the Republicans. That framework is designed to keep them in power.
Let me give you an example. According to the Republicans, the Iraq War is part of the war on terror, and it's connected to 9/11. When the Democrats voted for it, including Kerry, they were thinking "if I don't vote for this, I will be called unpatriotic and weak on defense." The Republicans set up this framework in order to make it impossible for the Democrats to vote against. For the most part, it worked.
In the real world, the Iraq War had NOTHING to do with either 9/11 or national security, since there was no actual evidence of any weapons or ties to Al-Qaeda. Moreover, it is a DISTRACTION from the job we need to do, that is arrest Osama Bin Laden for planning the attack on the WTC and pentagon. A good opposition party would have pushed this framework publicly.
I was for Kerry, preliminarily, a LONG time ago, before the IWR vote. I didn't think Dean could win. But when that vote happened, and Kerry was a part of it, I knew the Democrats were going to crumble before Bush. I said to myself, "this election has to be about more than who we think can win. It has to be about what kind of party we were going to be." I went for Dean after he bravely criticized both the war and the Democrats' sad response.
I knew, that if Dean were nominated, he would do something the Republicans' wouldn't expect, or know how to handle; he would stand up to them. He would challenge Republican ideas that the Dems normally don't: ie tax cuts are better for the middle class than social programs, the war in Iraq is a part and parcel of the war on terror, deficits are good.
He would make a competing framework from which he would run. It would go something like this: the tax cuts were a screwjob for the middle class, the war in Iraq was a distraction from our crucial unfinished national security duty of getting Bin Laden, and we MUST balance the budget.
The beauty of making a competing political framework is that it puts competing ideas in voters' heads. If all they hear is that the war is a good idea, of course they're going to think it really is. But if they hear arguments against it, they might not think so highly of the war.
Now let's compare that to Kerry's positions. Kerry tried to work within the Republican framework, but made his positions more "moderate".
1. Tax cuts are good. Kerry was therefore pro-tax cuts, but only for the middle class.
2. Iraq War is part of war on terror. Kerry did not challenge the morality of going, but instead claimed he could have done a better job.
3. Deficits aren't a big deal. Kerry did not really challenge this idea forcefully (or forcefully enough).
Using those value judgments, Republicans will always look better to voters. They are for MORE tax cuts than Democrats, and they are the ones who instigated the war. Kerry being pro middle class tax cut is not going to impress tax cut lovers when the other guy is the king of tax cutting.
Their framework is designed to make them win. They spend a ton of money and effort pushing it in the media and among the public. If we latch onto it, we will never win.
Dean knew this, and was prepared to play by a different game. Unfortunately he did not get the chance.
|