WurfWhile

It now appears that Howard Dean is the last candidate standing, with other contenders seeing he has the votes and the support to become the next DNC Chair next week. While some will see this as the beginning of Dean leading a Newt Gingrich-like revolution for Democrats, the analogy goes only so far. Dean is not, ideologically, the liberal response to Newt Gingrich. In fact, he is arguably quite conservative on a number of issues compared to traditional liberal Democrats. Dean has a stellar rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA) from his years as Vermont’s governor. Dean practiced, and believes in balanced budgets - an issue that traditionally has represented a conservative position (George W. Bush may have changed the calculus on this for many liberals, but the reasons many liberals have been against balanced budgets during difficult economic times have not changed). Nor is Dean a peace candidate - he was for the first Gulf War, and the recent war in Afghanistan in response to the September 11th attacks. Dean simply did not agree with the current Iraq War for reasons that, in hindsight, have proven absolutely right. Further, as governor of Vermont, Dean was considered a pro-business Democrat. He was praised by the conservative Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), and led both the Democratic Governors’ Association and the National Governors Association. This is not the resume of someone out of the moderate political mainstream.

The secret, and it appears to be one only amongst those with an anti-Dean agenda - or those who don’t dig very far into Dean’s public record, is that Dean until recently was considered a moderate to conservative Democrat by most.

Why does this matter?

It matters because we should understand what we’re getting with Dean. With Dean we will have a DNC Chair who will try to shake-up the insider “beltway” national Democratic Party power structure and, related to this, increase the power of state and local parties. This shake up will be from a politician who has governed at the state level - and led those who govern at a state level. Only to a lesser degree will there be a shake-up of policy priorities for Democrats.

To the extent that Democratic state parties better connect with voters, Democrats will strengthen the whole party and stop the Republican-led social and fiscal hemorrhaging of America that is leading us back to the 19th century (before President Franklin D. Roosevelt). This is where Dean’s grassroots experience and appeal comes into play. As he has pointed out, if the state parties or local parties can’t get it together, then through Dean’s organization, Democracy For America (DFA), he can provide party infrastructure to work concurrently with a local party or, if necessary, to supply a functioning party. As a money-raiser, Dean will be well positioned to help DFA augment or, again if it becomes necessary, replace local parties.

On policy I don’t know that Dean will deliver a lot for Democrats as DNC Chair, and he has said as much publicly (and prudently), but here’s what I suspect we will get to the extent he does influence policy (likely through the DFA). The Democratic Party will continue to have moderate to liberal views on social issues, with an increased attempt to engage traditional Democratic voter that have strayed (socially conservative blue collar workers, religious voters who break with many Democrats on abortion and ‘traditional’ minority groups among others).

When it comes to fiscal policy I do not anticipate a lot of progress. Democrats will try to hold the line in the face of substantial Bush Administration debt and face a longer-term struggle to make better public investments with our tax dollars. While GOP moderates in some states, like outgoing Republican State Chair and Illinois State Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka and Illinois House Minority Leader Tom Cross, are often “moderate” in their stance on social issues, they tend not to be as moderate on fiscal matters. That is, they tend to lean a bit libertarian on the conservative spectrum, which is why many Democrats find themselves agreeing with their more “hands off” approach to social issues. There is not a similar political coalition, at least now, on fiscal issues. If there is to be a greater consensus, it will come from a popular groundswell in policy areas like Social Security, national healthcare, retirement and, to go out on a limb, possibly a living wage. Demographics will help these causes (e.g. the increasing elderly population, the decreasing standards of living in the American “middle class” and the increasing number of Hispanics in the population who still disproportionately work in low-wage jobs). It remains to be seen if the numbers and organizations to rally them can bring moderate or progressive fiscal policies to fruition - or whether issues like Social Security will be treated successfully in isolation, but ignore a broader set of policy goals.