By John Tabin on 1.7.04 @ 12:03AM
What’s this from conservatives about a Dean nomination being good for the country?
It's no secret that many on the right are giddy at the prospect
of Howard Dean as the Democratic nominee. National Review
even featured a tongue-in-cheek endorsement of Dean on its cover last month (which the New York
Times reprinted in full) Dean would make such a singularly
unappealing candidate as the standard-bearer of the opposition that
it's easy to cheer for him in anticipation of his November
trouncing.
Regular readers might guess that I don't share the sentiment; I
wrote last
week that it's perfectly possible, with a culturally polarized
electoral map, for Dean to beat Bush in the event of a serious
error or two by the White House. I've even re-registered
as a Democrat not as a saboteur but as an infiltrator on behalf
of a candidate I could actually live with as president (among the
Democrats, my first choice is Lieberman, followed by Gephardt and
Edwards).
But while I think the "bring on Dean" attitude is misguided, I
can certainly understand it. Far stranger is the latest idea that
Dean's nomination would somehow be good for the country. Bill Kristol writes in the current Weekly
Standard that Dean presents "a choice, not an echo," and that
this "is perhaps as it should be." Well, perhaps. But would any of
the Democratic candidates really constitute an "echo"? All of the
Democrats, to one degree or another, want to raise some or all of
the taxes that Bush has cut. All of the Democrats, even Lieberman,
would pursue a foreign policy more deferential to the United
Nations, and the "international community." Kristol, of all people,
ought not fall for the old Naderite fallacy that Washington is all
"Democans" and "Republicrats."
Andrew Sullivan shares Kristol's enthusiasm:
The Dems haven't given themselves an opportunity to
vent about the way they really feel -- about those benighted
rednecks, dumb-ass preppies, preposterous puritans and economic
snake oil-salesmen they believe are now running the country. It
would be really unhealthy for America and the Democrats to repress
that any longer. They'll give themselves a collective
hernia.
Far be it from me to question Sullivan's medical opinion, but I
think there's been ample opportunity to vent -- on the legions of
Dean-worshipping blogs, in the pages of magazines like The
Nation (which has recently enjoyed a surge in readership, as
political magazines tend to do in opposition), and on scores of
op-ed pages. There are far less dangerous places to channel anger
than into the White House, and Sullivan acknowledges the
possibility of Dean's election.
Having dismissed the other candidates on various grounds, some
of which amount to "they're Democrats" (Edwards is a '90s
throwback, Gephardt is "too left on economics and healthcare")
Sullivan concludes, "If I were a Dem, I'd support him. And feel a
lot better for it." Thanks, Andrew, but I am (technically)
a Dem, and I feel fine opposing him.
John Tabin is a frequent online contributor to
The American Spectator whose website is JohnTabin.com.
topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, Economics, Oil
