Howard Dean elected chair of the DNC

[yesthattom]

I once hear that one of the reasons that the DNC worked to undermine the Dean campaign was because in a fit of rage Joe Trippi told them directly that once Dean has the nomination "the first thing we're going to do is fire all of you."

Of course, that actually goes without saying. Once the Dem nomination is selected, the campaign essentially takes over the DNC. You just don't want to make enemies by reminding them of this fact.

Well this week was quite historic. After a few months of heavy campaigning (including Howard Dean personally calling each of the 447 Democratic representatives that would be voting on the issue) all other nominees for DNC Chair dropped out, making Dean's election to be a forgone conclusion.

Usually "the 447" are only given one person to vote for anyway. The DNC hegonomy picks who they want to be the next DNC chair and the "slate" is presented as a fait acompli to the 447 who vote by aclimation to elect him. This time it was different but the same. The 447 had one person to vote for, but it was not because the "Washington insiders" picked him, it was because the grassroots swelled up and pushed everyone else out of the race. The slate was presented as a fait acompli, but for a much better reason: Howard Dean Elected DNC Chair.

So what's happening to Dean's old organization DFA? Jim Dean, Howard's brother is the new chair of that organization. Jim, like so many other DFA members, was not political until recently. Read more about Jim and the new Executive Director.

Personally I feel vindicated by the groundswell of support for Dean as DNC Chair. It is a confirmation that the grassroots can take over (Dean's message). The conversion of so many anti-Dean people (Harold Ickys, from the Clinton camp) into Dean endorsers makes me feel like after Kerry lost everyone realized "oh shit, Dean was right." (My message).

However, the best article I've seen is by Jesse Jackson who says Dean should move to the center... the Moral Center.

Comments

[freeko.livejournal.com]

Well Dean getting the DNC is karma for McAulliffe and his cronies ruining Deans Presidental campaign. We have someone that is willing to fight and take out these fucking Nazi's

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

Absolutely!

[psongster.livejournal.com]

Maybe I shouldn't say this but... I am disturbed when people use the words "Nazi" or "fascist" casually. Those words used to have specific political meaning, before Rush Limbaugh started aiming them at people like me ("feminazi," "environazi"). Now people on the left are doing the same thing. One problem with vacating a word of meaning is that, when something with that meaning comes along, you can't name it any more -- the word has morphed into something else.

The current issue of the American Conservative has a thoughtful article discussing what the author sees as a rising celebration in this country of power, violence, and the authority of the state -- i.e., fascism. We need to be able to see, and speak, the real differences between people like Terry McAulliffe and fascists.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/article.html

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

We will see how wise it was to have Dean as the DNC Chair. I know the republicans are doing a happy dance over this, since they feel that Dean will make going to the center very difficult for the Democrats. I kinda agree. Still scarier is that Jackson thinks Dean is too far to the left, wow!

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

You didn't read Jesse's article. He actually doesn't think Dean is too far to the left, he's just defining the MORAL center.

The republicans are doing the happy dance because they are scared, and they know they have to hide that they are scared. The best thing for the Republicans is when the Dems play into their hand and move to the right. The worst thing for Republicans is when we move to the left.

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

As I said we will see. I know many republicans and the idea that they are scared of Dean is just plan silly. I have never understood how embraceing the politics of 10% of the population will allow a group to win over at least 51% of the population. In truth the democrat that scares republicans is H. Clinton. Why? Because she just may be able to sell herself as a moderate. Dean just can not.

I remember in the election my repubican friends hopeing Dean would win the Democratic nomination. They were kinda disappointed when he lost it. But I think it is very likely you don't have many republican friends nor do you often talk with republicans so I think it is highly unlikely you know what the republicans are thinking... other then what the democratic left tells you they are thinking.

[quietann.livejournal.com]

The very odd thing about this is that overall Dean is quite the moderate. He's more toward the "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" ideal that libertarians talk about. Yes, some of his most fervent supporters are very much to the left, but he himself is not.

Now the trick is to convince the rest of the world.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

Let me ask you this:

If Ralph Reed became chair of the RNC would the democrats be dancing in the street safe in the knowledge that people are going to leave the republican party? No, it would confirm what they already know about the Republicans: the party has been lost to the extremists. The Dems would be scared. The Republicans are scared too... they just tell their troops to act happy so that nobody knows.

The only people calling Howard a extremist are the Republicans, because they know that will hurt him. If the Republicans had just spent 30 years making the word "tall" a bad thing then they would have called him "tall". The truth is that Dean is more conservative than Clinton... he just doesn't back down from a fight like Gore or Kerry. That's what scared the Republicans.

Why is being for the war in Afganistan and against the war in Iraq considered "liberal"? Why is ballancing the Vermont budget, cutting taxes, and creating a "rainy-day fund" and giving healthcare to all children under age 18 in the same year considered "liberal"?

[likethewatch.livejournal.com]

On the subject of Jackson's article, I stopped reading when he claimed that half of African American children grow up among broken sidewalks. WTF? It's hard to find someone who'll claim to stand for something other than what's right, which is all he's campaigning for in this article. That's a hollow call.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

Which part did you disagree with? That it's 50% or that he was only talking about A-A children and not all children?

it's not about moving left, right, or center...

[cos]

"going to the center" the way you seem to mean it, would be downright stupid. It has been failing the Democrats for a long time - the failure only masked for a while by Clinton's personal popularity. If you don't count Clinton, the Democrats have been losing power in every election since 1994, and the last three of those elections have happened with no Clinton and the results are pretty obvious. The more the Democrats try to move to the "center", the more they lose their soul, the more the Republicans move further right, the more the whole country's politics go to the right, and the less reason people see to vote for Democrats. Or as Dean and others have said, in a contest between a Republican and Republican, people will vote for the real Republican every time. The way to win is not to try to become more like them, it's to show people what you really stand for and why it's worth voting for. That's what the Democrats have been running scared from doing, and it's what Dean excels at doing.

To put it more simply: The purpose of a political party isn't to get elected, it's to promote their vision of what should be, to make something happen. If a party keeps trying to change itself to be more and more electable, people won't see what it stands for. It may get elected sometimes, but it will cede the power of making change to the other side. And it will lose whether it gets elected or not.

Democrats don't need to win the election, they need to win the argument - that will lead to getting elected. What the Democrats have been doing is ceding the argument, hoping to get elected in an environment where more and more people are convinced by the other side. That's a losing strategy no matter how well they succeed at it. It misses the point of politics. Dean understands that.

On a left-right spectrum, Dean isn't particularly far to the left or the middle, he's actually all over the map. He wants health care coverage for every single person in the country, he wants states' rights on gun control and got endorsed by the NRA in every election he ran in Vermont, he supports the death penalty in a limited set of cases but wants the system reformed to reduce conviction disparities and protect the innocent, he used to be on the board of northern new england Planned Parenthood, he was hard-nosed with the state budget and got into spats with the liberal side of his party when he refused to spend on things they wanted, he preserved more land than any governor in Vermont history, and promoted renewable energy... where exactly do you fit him on a left-right spectrum? It's just the wrong way to look at it.

Dean isn't about moving to the left or moving to the center, he's about making change, standing for a vision and really standing up for it, trying to show people a better way and getting them to vote for that and then making it happen, rather than trying to guess what they'll want and figuring out what to say and do to get their votes. Many people don't get it. Many Republicans are genuinely happy about Dean's election because they don't get it either. Dean is about winning the argument.

Re: it's not about moving left, right, or center...

[psongster.livejournal.com]

Amen.

Re: it's not about moving left, right, or center...

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

You may have a point but if I think the high ground is to be free from all police and I make a party based on that. I can safely say I will never win one set in the congress or have any real power to produce change.

The question is if the stands the democrats are taking are those that the average american will accept, or can be convinced are right. This does not seem to be the case. But instead of seeking stands that are more likely to win hearts they continue to push for the more and more extreme wants.

One may have all the answers for everything but if no one listens and everyone refuses these answer then One has no power to produce the changes of ones ideas.

That is why the Democrats are given a choice... Become more moderate and abandon the extreme liberal ideals so they can win elections again but with a watered down message. Or become more liberal alienate the moderates among them, shrink in size and power, and become very weak and on a large political field pointless.

Consider the many parties in the american system who stand the way you say they should.

Alaskan Independence Party
Aloha Aina Party
America First Party
American Heritage Party
American Independent Party
American Nazi Party
American Party
American Reform Party
American Patriot Party
Balanced Party
Charter Party of Cincinnati, Ohio
Christian Falangist Party of America
Communist Party USA
Conservative Party of New Jersey
Conservative Party of New York State
Constitutional Action Party
Covenant Party (Northern Mariana Islands)
Family Values Party
Freedom Socialist Party
Grassroots Party
Independence Party of Minnesota
Independent American Party
Independent Citizens' Movement (US Virgin Islands)
Labor Party
Liberal Party (New York State)
Liberty Union Party (Vermont)
Light Party
Marijuana Party
Mountain Party (West Virginia)
Natural Law Party
New Party
New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico
New Union Party
New York State Right to Life Party
Peace and Freedom Party
Personal Choice Party
Popular Democratic Party of Puerto Rico
Populist Party (unrelated to earlier so-named parties)
Progressive Party (Vermont)
Prohibition Party
Puerto Rican Independence Party
Reform Party
Republican Moderate Party (Alaska)
Revolutionary Communist Party
Socialist Action
Socialist Alternative
Socialist Equality Party
Socialist Labor Party
Socialist Party USA
Socialist Workers Party
Southern Party
Southern Independence Party
Spartacist League
The Greens/Green Party USA
United Citizens Party
U.S. Pacifist Party
Vegetarian Party
We the People Party
Workers World Party
Working Families Party
Workers Party, USA

Do ANY of them hold any power? Do you care about any of them?
But this is the road that the liberalist of the Democratic party think will get them power.

Re: it's not about moving left, right, or center...

[labrown.livejournal.com]

That is why the Democrats are given a choice... Become more moderate and abandon the extreme liberal ideals so they can win elections again but with a watered down message. Or become more liberal alienate the moderates among them, shrink in size and power, and become very weak and on a large political field pointless.

This is a false binary choice. Another alternative is to take a page from the Republican/Conservative playbook and learn how to reframe the debate and re-level the public discourse playing field. cos's comment on this post is right on the money. Dean can help the Democrats learn to build a new message based on liberal/progressive values and to communicate that message instead of being stuck reacting to Republican/Conservative framing of all issues.

Re: it's not about moving left, right, or center...

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

Your advice is to do what they've been doing since 1994 and losing badly. It's a failed strategy.

The purpose of a party is not to win elections. The purpose of a party is to take a stance on a set of values, sell it well, and win elections because you've convinced people that you are right. The advantage that the Democrats have in this arena is that they have the better values (helping people, opportunity for all, cloth the naked), they just need to start selling those values again.

Re: it's not about moving left, right, or center...

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

And where the heck did you get that list of organizations?

There's a difference between organizations that support any anti-American suggestion that they can glom onto vs. naming the American ideals and where we fall short so that we can reach higher in those areas.

[airshipjones.livejournal.com]

So, does this make all the time working for the Dean campaign feel worthwhile?

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

Absolutely!

(though, not until you mentioned it!)

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

Dean becoming DNC chair is the best political news I have had since the Massachusetts SJC ruled in favor of equal marriage rights.

[psongster.livejournal.com]

I find myself thinking of Robert Reich's comment:

"Nonvoters know you can't change a corrupt system by being polite. The only way to speak truth to power is with the moral fervor of a true reformer."

("Reason," p. 200)

[holzman.livejournal.com]

Jesse Jackson endorses marriage discrimination.

Until he deals with the beam in his eye, no one should give him any credibility when he points out the mote in his brothers'.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

Can you use that without using code like "marriage discimination"?

He supports same-sex marriage, if that's what you're talking about.

[holzman.livejournal.com]

He supports same-sex marriage, if that's what you're talking about.

Could you cite that? The last I heard, "Jackson reiterated his support for the heterosexual definition of marriage, saying, "In my culture, marriage is a man-woman relationship."

I'm happy

[mrfantasy.livejournal.com]

I've read Reich's "Reason", Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant" and "The Right Nation" by two Economist writers, and am convinced someone like Dean will do exactly what the Democrats (and all progressives) need, which is to stop letting Republicans frame the issues. Dean's not a flaming liberal, but really neither am I, mostly the fiscal conservative, social liberal type. He is sort of hard to pigeonhole and I like that, because I think it means he won't just be constantly responding to the Republicans, instead saying new things that people need to hear and will hopefully believe in.

Dean and Lakoff

[cos]

Have you read Lakoff's Moral Politics? It's the book that came before Elephant, and describes his theory in detail. I highly recommend it.

Also, Dean made Moral Politics required reading for his key staff. He's a big believer in Lakoff. And if you watch Dean's June 2003 announcement speech after reading Lakoff, you can clearly see it.