Howard Dean and the Death of Reform
The New Republic Online: The Outsiders
I know, I know ... I've never been crazy about Howard Dean, so you'd be allowed to think that this was yet another pile-on. But it's not. I've long been of the opinion that the role of DNC chair is not about ideology. Of course, I've also been of the opinion that Howard Dean lacks many of the skills necessary to be an effective chairman: he's undisciplined and many of the campaign innovations were not his doing, but rather those of one Joe Trippi. And while I don't begrudge Dean's New Left turn anymore than I did Ron Brown's tenure as Jesse Jackson's ransom note author at the 1988 DNC Convention, I think there's more to be made of Dean as a higher profile albatross.
So when I see something like this:
"I am the Howard Dean who knows how to build things. I'm not Joe Trippi's creation," he told members, according to an adviser.
... I have to roll my eyes upward and contemplate the genius of having as chair one who is a) dismissing some of the very innovativeness on Trippi's part and b) he's now bragging about a term as Governor in which he couldn't (and still can't) tell the difference between civil unions and gay marriage?
It all begs the question of what it is that Howard Dean actually stands for as a "Reform Democrat." Well, Ryan Lizza gives us the lowdown on just what sort of "reforms" Dean will make:
Dean ran a steady and methodical campaign that stood in sharp contrast to his presidential bid. He hewed closely to the asdc demands, supporting the Fowler amendments and promising to deliver $200,000 to each state party, and he used his celebrity to sew up rank-and-file members.
Bribery and a cult following do not a reform agenda make.
Harold Ickes had it about right when he claimed there were a fair number of state parties that needed to get their acts together. Howard Dean, on the other hand, never met a special interest group he wasn't willing to suck up to. Mondale-ism is apparently back with a vengeance.
So, for all those self-styled "Reform Democrats," I'm curious how they see this as reform. Party building usually requires some accountability. Just throwing money at wannabe kingmakers has long been a way that the party has "built" the party among black churches and noise-making squeaky wheels among the party infrastructure. As part of that $200,000 was there any requirement for things like a voter registration drive? ... a voter outreach program? ... anything? No, it's just ransom money. And as long as college students fork over their trust fund money to "the bat," somewhere there's a state party chair who thanks them for a do-nothing payday.
Chris Bowers is quoted as suggesting that with Dean's ascendancy, "outside becomes inside." Left unsaid is how "the status quo ante has become reform." Somewhere, Walter Mondale must be smiling.
Comments
This is not cool at all
Posted by: Daniel | February 6, 2005 12:32 PM
OK, Greg. You've lost me.
How exactly is an agenda of decentralization - and I'll conceded that does play well to the state party folks - constitute bribery?
There's been considerably belly-aching for years among lots of people that the biggest intraparty problem is the over-centralization of party infrastructure. And to the extent that revenue-sharing and the Fowler amendment decrease that, it seems to me to be rational response to what many people consider to be a serious problem.
We all know that Charles Soechting was not a Deanie (at least until everybody else was), but he was beating the "DNC doesn't support us" line months ago.
Now, I understand your wont to give anything a viciously anti-Dean spin, but why it is that you insist on calling state party people just another special interest is beyond me.
Posted by: Jim D | February 6, 2005 01:06 PM
Moreover... any form of accountability which comes in a form of a laundry-list of "thall-shalt-nots" from on-high is likely to stifle innovation. Aren't the SDECs and, by extension, the people supposed to hold their state chairs accountable!?!?!
(See for example why people hate the federal Department of Education).
Posted by: Jim D | February 6, 2005 01:13 PM
I'm a bit iffy on "decentralization" as an overarching guide to reform. The biggest question I have is how "devolution" is just being labelled as "decentralization." Name one state party that's worth it's weight in terms of volunteer coordination, fundraising, and other resources. I'm sure there's some out there, but how many jump to mind? Any?
With all due respect to the job that even Charles Soechting does here in Texas, I've got to think all that's been accomplished is pushing centralization to state party organizations that more-frequently-than-not don't have their own acts together. In the words of one unnamed elected official here in Texas: "You mean we have a State Party?" If that's the perception, then what on earth justifies an automatic $200,000?
Yet, still ... Texas is a bit of a sidenote in this debate. Why? We raise a ton of money for the DNC and they have genuinely treated the state, electorally, with all the fondness that a corner ATM is usually afforded: not a lot. So while $200,000 is a pittance for Texas and I don't have much of a quarrel with that meager paycheck headed back home, what of other state parties that have an even more decrepit state of affairs, do less for their candidates, but who will gleefully cash their newly minted $200,000 check?
Instead of just blindly awarding state parties with cold hard cash, wouldn't a more effective strategy of decentralization be to reward those lower-level party and extra-party organizations that have a better, more proven track record of success?
Accountability, for my own measurement, has a simple metric: what have you done to elect Democrats? If you have favorable terrain, are you hitting for the cycle? (check Massachusetts for their luck in electing a Governor) If you have unfavorable terrain, are you beating the spread? (outside of the obvious comeback states of CO & MT, check the success GA Dems have had below Governor and Senator). Are the parties employing a 100% slate approach or are they employing a "don't swing at every pitch" approach? If these questions cannot be answered affirmitively, then go outside of the party and either spend the money there or better yet ... BUILD such entities outright. Worth noting is how TDP measures up by that standard ... not well.
Bottom line, there's nothing inherent that says the State Party is the best avenue for decentralization in all 50 states. And the fact that they've behaved as a special interest group, via the Fowler Amendments, indicates that they've deserved the label this time around. There's nothing comprehensive about the plan ... just a ransom note saying "give us money." It's as absurd as it gets and quite a perilous sign for the overall party organization in light of this "Reform Era."
Posted by: Greg Wythe | February 6, 2005 03:45 PM
Greg --
Well reasoned. Moreover, as you seemed to be saying above in your initial post, to offer $200,000 to each party chairman almost smacks of buying votes.
The problem with Dean is much more fundamental, however. Let's leave ideology aside. When Howard Dean left the state house, he did not help the Vermont State Democratic Party carry the governorship. It went to the Republicans. As a presidential candidate, Dean burned through record amounts of money and won one primary, his home state of Vermont. At least he could carry his own state when he was on the ballot himself. Most of the candidates that he backed in the fall lost. Turning to Dean to run the Democratic Party today, would have been like the Democrats turning to Gene McCarthy in 1969, George McGovern in 1973, or Walter Mondale in 1985. Moreover, Dean is about as polarizing as McCarthy and McGovern were. Mondale, bless his heart, earned no enemies. He just lost in a landslide. It just doesn't make a lot of sense. In fact, it borders on irrational.
Posted by: Scoop Jackson Democrat | February 6, 2005 05:00 PM