Howard Dean isn’t a liberal
Perception is reality in politics. That explains why the Republicans are hammering Howard Dean so much and claiming he’s some sort of radical leftist wack-job.
The truth, as is almost always the case with GOP rhetoric and spin, is almost completely the opposite.
What “radical leftist” positions does Dean actually hold anyway? The only two that are generally cited are his support for Civil Unions (not Gay marriage) and his opposition to the war in Iraq.
Neither one of those positions is a “radical” one, let alone a “leftist” one.
Take the war in Iraq, for example. A quick perusal of Pollingreport.com shows that in almost every single poll taken about the war in January, the American people were actually in much greater agreement with Howard Dean on the war, than they were with George W. Bush.
In a recent Fox Poll (so the wingnuts will not be able to dismiss it), a slight plurality of the American people said that after the elections that were just held in Iraq, we should start pulling our troops out. The specific question asked, was:
“After the January 30 elections in Iraq, do you think the United States should start bringing some troops home or should U.S. troops stay until more stability is established?”
47% said we should “start bringing [our troops] home. Only 46% said we should “stay until [there is] mre stability.” The country is evenly split.
Moreover, in every single January poll, a majority of the American people “disapprove” of the way George W. Bush is handling Iraq.
CBS News/NYT — 55% disapprove, 40% approve.
ABC News/Washington Post — 58% disapprove, 40% approve.
Fox News/Opinion Dynamic — 51% disapprove, 40% approve.
CNN/USA Today.Gallup — 56% disapprove, 42% approve.
So, if Howard Dean criticizes George W. Bush’s handling of Iraq, he’ll be echoing the MAJORITY opinion of the American public.
But, you might say, Howard Dean opposed the war! Surely, even if the American people are not happy with how Bush is handling things right now, they still support our efforts there.
Oh, but that is not the case! At best, the public is evenly split on the question of whether going to war was WORTH THE EFFORT! In fact, in a couple of polls, a plurality assert that it WASN’T!
Here’s how the CBS/NYT poll phrased the pertinent question:
“Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?”
45% said “did the right thing.” But 49% said “should have stayed out”!
Here’s how the ABC /WaPo question was phrased:
“All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?”
44% said it was “worth fighting.” But, a whopping 55% said it was “not worth fighting!”
My favroite question, though, has to be this one from the CBS/NYT poll:
“So far, do you think that George W. Bush has developed a clear plan for getting American troops out of Iraq, or hasn’t he developed one yet?”
The responses? 18% of the American people think Bush has a “clear plan.” But an overwhelming 75% say that he “does not” have a clear plan!
Is Howard Dean a leftist wacko on Iraq? If he is, then so are the majority of the American people!
As for Howard Dean’s support for Civil Unions, it need only be pointed out that none other than George W. Bush came out just before the election in an interview with Charlie Gibson saying that he believed states had the right to pass civil unions laws if they wanted to!
For some reason, this little tidbit didn’t get much coverage.
While it is helpful to point out that Howard Dean is well within the mainstream (or even in the majority) on these two issues, it is also necessary to explain that until he decided to run for President, Howard Dean was mostly known for creating a state health insurance program in Vermont, and being a fiscally conservative, pro-business, low tax DLC governor.
Yes. That’s correct. Howard Dean, until he started telling people the emperor had no clothes, was actually considered kind of a conservative Democrat. Just ask the liberal Democrats in Vermont who butted heads with him on various issues
So, Dean’s pereceived “liberalism” is all about style rather than substance. He “must” be a liberal, people assume. Look at how angry he is with George W. Bush!
It’s so bad that even many Democrats are buying the B.S. We have a duty and an obligation to set the record straight.
February 2nd, 2005 at 7:39 am
Howard Dean is very liberal on one issue - he believes that the people themselves should driving the engine of government and not the fat cats with lots of money to donate. I suppose being in favor of democracy is an extreme left wing position, but, so be it.
February 2nd, 2005 at 8:14 am
Sadly, media perception is everything these days.
February 2nd, 2005 at 8:34 am
Great post.
He also wasn’t exactly unfriendly to business when he was a governor. I read somewhere yesterday (can’t remember where) that he was a darling of the DLC in fact. I agree with Vaughn though. He’s very liberal when it comes to decentralizing the real power in the Party. That scares Dems more than it does the GOP and not because they think it will mean lost elections.
February 2nd, 2005 at 9:21 am
Dean is not a liberal, but he is, as Vaughn notes, a radical democrat (proponent of citizen control), which makes him VERY SCARY to a number of powerful cabals, not least on the corporate, right-wing side of the Democratic Party.
Another thing the man gets far too little credit for his his big cajones: running for the piddly little office of DNC chair was not likely to do him personally any good, but it could have ended his political career. It’s mainly a post for party apparatchiks, not politicians. There’s only one reason he’s running–to make the Democratic Party relevant again. God forbid.
February 2nd, 2005 at 9:29 am
“Another thing the man gets far too little credit for his his big cajones: running for the piddly little office of DNC chair was not likely to do him personally any good, but it could have ended his political career.”
Another myth. George Herbert Walker Bush was Chairman of the RNC during watergate, and he became Vice Presdent and Preisdent.
Bob Dole was also, at one point, Chairman of the RNC. Again, he won his party’s nomination for President.
Haley Barbour was RNC Chairman, and is now the Governor of Mississippi, and will probably runfor President at some point.
It doesn’t hurt Republicans to be RNC Chairmen.
And it won’t hurt Howard Dean. If Jim Jeffords were still a Republican Dean almost certainly would be running for the Senate.
But since he’s voting with the Democrats, the DNC is Dean’s main springboard. I think he IS positioning himself for another run in 2008. Which is the primary reason the Clintons are opposing him.
February 2nd, 2005 at 9:57 am
One has to have a healthy ego to run for DNC chair. Dean gives the impression, though, that he’s running to fix the Democratic Party and to help America rather than for personal gain. I believe he really is doing this because he thinks he can accomplish something good. And I’m ready to help.
Labels like liberal just don’t mean much anymore. I’d call Dean a progressive, pragmatic idealist.
February 2nd, 2005 at 2:38 pm
Except that Dean will be committed to a 4 year term as DNC chief and won’t be able to run in 2008. A candidate usually kicks off his/her campaign a good 1yr/1.5yr in advance of the election. And, it’s likely that the Clintons supported Ickes throwing his support to Dean because they want him out of the way in 2008.
I do see him in running for the Senate or Congress at some point.