Washington — Robert L. Bartley, the esteemed former editor of
the Wall Street Journal, writes
in his WSJ column that a “Stop-Dean Campaign” is emerging
from the smoke-filled rooms of the Democratic Party, or is that the
room-freshener-filled rooms? You know what hypochondriacs the
Democratic panjandrums have become. Says Bartley, “The chance of a
Dean nomination warms the hearts of the party’s faithful, but
chills the bones of its professional pols.” They fear that Dr.
Howard Dean will be another George McGovern, and they remember the
grisly fate of their party under the leadership of that glassy-eyed
gasbag. Apparently their fears are spreading. Such sober fellows as
Senator Evan Bayh and Senator Joe Lieberman are sounding the
alarm.
Very few people know much about Dr. Howard Dean because he comes
from such remote environs. He was governor of Vermont or was it New
Hampshire or was it Liechtenstein? I knew him for years on a
television show we did in Montreal and I could never get his point
of origin quite right. At any rate I did know him. We would tape
several shows every few weekends for a series called “The Editors.”
As he was not an editor I also tended to doubt that he was a
governor, and I had absolutely no faith in his claim to being a
doctor. He looked like a used-car salesman to me, and he still
does. Perhaps that is why he is doing so well among rank-and-file
Democrats in Iowa. When they meet him in Waterloo I expect as many
ask him what he thinks of the new Ford pick-up as ask him what he
thinks of the Federal Reserve Board’s plans for the interest
rate.
At our tapings of the “The Editors” he always met me head on.
Whatever we discussed, he met me head on. This is because I am a
conservative Republican, and he is a party-line Democrat. He is not
a left-winger or even much of a dove. He simply takes the position
that works for Democrats with Democratic activists. My support for
tax cuts is based on the evidence that tax cuts encourage economic
growth. Dr. Howard Dean’s position was based on opposing me. I have
a position on a forceful foreign policy based on the evidence that
such a foreign policy protects American security. Dr. Howard Dean’s
position was based on opposing me. I was against Bill Clinton
because I thought he was a menace to the rule of law. Dr. Howard
Dean’s position was based on opposing me. I was occasionally wrong.
Dr. Howard Dean was always wrong — even when I was wrong. In sum,
he has no independently-arrived at ideas, just opposition to
Republicans.
That explains his success with the rank-and-file Democrats. The
reason Dr. Howard Dean is at the front of the Democratic pack now
is that he is the most vehement opponent of Republicans. This is
what rallies Democratic primary voters, opposition to
Republicans.
They have come to oppose the Iraq war not because they have any
affection for Saddam Hussein but because the Republicans favored
the war. They are against tax cuts because the Republicans are for
them. This is what the Democratic Party’s faithful have declined
into, the party of opposition. The Democratic Party has declined to
the lowest percentage of the electorate in decades, 33%. The
Republican Party is now the leading party. So what do Dr. Howard
Dean and his fellow candidates call the leading party in the
country, “far right”?
Now Dr. Howard Dean’s candidacy has induced his opponent for the
Democratic nomination, Senator Joseph Lieberman, to warn that his
anti-tax position and anti-war position threaten to render the
Democratic Party the party of the left, an unelectable position in
modern American politics. Senator Lieberman, though the Democrats’
vice presidential candidate in 2000, is floundering with Democratic
primary voters while remaining popular among with the general
electorate. That tells us much about the kind of angry partisans
that turn out for Democratic primaries. If any Democrat running for
the presidency can lay claim to the great Democratic tradition of
Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman it is Lieberman. He has ideas
and persuasive reasons for holding them. He is for a strong foreign
policy, balanced trade policies, and against repealing tax cuts. He
opposes the Republicans not out of anger but out of principle and
policy. His campaign has been statesmanlike. Yet he is being swept
aside by Dr. Howard Dean whose boast is that he is the angriest of
all Democratic candidates. The Democratic Party, at least as
represented in its primaries, is the party of superior anger.
Somehow its adherents still call themselves liberal.
