From the diaries, since there is nothing quite like seeing the Dean-o-phone squirm--Chris
Jonathan Chait has an intriguing editorial in the L.A. Times, A Suicidal Selection: With Dean as party chairman, the Democrats wouldn't need enemies.
Are Democrats suicidally crazy? Wait. That's too easy. Let me rephrase the question. Why are Democrats suicidally crazy?
Chait has done us the service of clearly expressing all of the reasons the DLC centrists were/are opposed to Dean. Chait also demonstrates that, like a lot of well informed commentators, doesn't understand the Dean phenomenon. First, Chait recycles the conventional wisdom of what Democrats need to do to win elections; appeal to culturally traditional voters who "worry about the party's commitment to national "security." That was the assumption that compelled Pelosi and Reid to put Roemer forward as the ABD candidate; an assumption that Jerome and Chris have thoroughly discredited.
Next, Chait recycles the stereotypical complaints against Dean.
Dean, with his intense secularism, arrogant style, throngs of high-profile counterculture supporters and association with the peace movement, is the precise opposite of the image Democrats want to send out. The conventional rap is completely right. But, in a way, Dean is even less suited to run the DNC than he is to run for president.
Well, if you accept Chait's, and O'Reilly's, assumptions about Dean, the Democratic party is certainly in trouble. Chait is lining up with Dick Morris, Hugh Hewitt and Peter Beinart to save us from outselves.
Chait provides his DNC chair job description:
The DNC chairman has two main jobs. First, he transmits the party's message -- an important role when the party lacks a president and majority leaders in Congress. This job requires one to master the dismal art of "message discipline," boiling down the party's ideas into a few simple phrases and repeating them over and over until they have sunk into the public consciousness.
Funny, that's exactly what I think Dean can accomplish very well, but I don't recall Terry McAuliffe being particularly effective at getting "the message" out to the public consciousness. Nonetheless, Chait concludes that Dean is "particularly ill suited" for this task.
For presidential candidates, the negatives of "straight talk" usually outweigh the positives. Paul Maslin, Dean's former pollster, wrote in the Atlantic Monthly after the campaign fell apart: "Our candidate's erratic judgment, loose tongue, and overall stubbornness wore our spirits down." But at least for a presidential campaign there are some positives in going off message. In a job like party chairman, a loose cannon is nothing but downside.
If you can't trust Democratic insiders to tear down your best people, who can you trust? Does the name Zephyr Teachout ring a bell? Is it possible that the DLC inspired attacks by Gephardt and others wore down the campaign's spirits? Nevertheless, Chait barrels forward with his conclusion that Dean is a loose cannon and proceeds to the managerial job description for DNC chair.
The second major task of the DNC chairman is to run the party organization. And here, if this is at all possible, Dean looks even worse. Garance Franke-Ruta, who wrote sympathetic Dean pieces in the American Prospect during the campaign, spoke with several former Dean staffers. One called the candidate "a horrible manager" and added, "I wouldn't trust him to run a company." Another called his management style "just a disaster."
Several former Dean staffers are disgruntled with Dean's management style. The DNC chair should be a disciplinarian. That's what we need. A Ross Perot type who runs a button downed tight fisted operation. A top down micro-manager who runs a tight ship. Perhaps a Yale graduate with an MBA who brooks no dissent in the ranks?
Next Chait reminds us that Dean was reckless with his war chest. "Dean, remember, raised about $50 million by positioning himself as the most anti-Bush candidate, but blew through it so fast that he was nearly broke by January." I'll let others address the bookkeeping details. If Dean had not been sabatoged by the DLC, he would have had the nomination locked up after New Hampshire. Whatever errors of judgment Dean made about spending campaign contributions, was exacerbated by underestimating the irrational lengths the DLC centrists were and still are willing to go to take down a threat to their power base.
Chait also takes a shot at the grass/netroots:
So, how did Dean manage to trounce all comers for this position? Dean's supporters see his triumph as the victory of the masses over a tiny Democratic elite desperately trying to cling to power. As one left-liberal blogger gloated: "The fact that Howard Dean will most likely be heading up the Democratic Party is our victory. It is the voice of the grass roots lifted up into the halls of power once owned by the 'aristocracy of consultants.' " That actually has it backward. A recent Wall Street Journal poll found that only 27% of Democrats approve of Dean.
"Only" 27% of Democrats approve of Dean? Or "only" 27% of Democrats are wildly enthusiastic about Dean? Did anybody even bother to poll how popular Terry McAuliffe was with the Democrats? Were any of the remaining 73% capable of naming even one other candidate for DNC chair? How many Texas democrats did the WSJ poll? Does it make any difference to Chait that the 27% who support Dean are the foot soldiers, activists and muscle of the Democratic party, as well as its heart and soul?
Chait saves his most ludicrous mischaracterization for last:
In the latest issue of the New Republic, Ryan Lizza described how Dean had prevailed in a process of third-rate intrigue. The choosing of the DNC chairman has been dominated by state parties, whose concerns revolve around expanding perks, including a demand for a $200,000 handout for each state party from the national party. Nobody seemed to pay much attention to the good of the party as a whole. Meanwhile, Dean touched those leaders' ideological erogenous zones, promising to "feed our core constituencies" and not be "Republican-lite."
Chait stands reality on its head. Dean prevailed in a process of third rate intrigue? How about Dean prevailed in spite of the DLC's process of third rate intrigue. The good of the state parties may not be exactly identical to the good of the party as a whole, but a commitment to minimum funding for the state party in each state is a profound commitment to the good of the party as a whole. For unstated, sinister reasons, "feeding our core constituencies" instead of pandering to sensible centrists is bad, very bad.
As the last election showed, the core constituencies are plenty well fed. There just aren't enough of them to win the White House.
Is that what the last election showed? Wow! Somebody should tell Ruy Teixera to stop wasting his time analyzing the last election, not to mention the forty political forecasters Jerome and Chris have links to on this very site.
