Howard Dean
(Project Vote Smart)
Qualifications: Dr. Dean is a Yalie, but we can't hold that against him. Seriously, he is qualified in the traditional way, although on fast-forward. A quick rise through the State House of Representatives, Lieutenant Governor, Governor. Less than ten years from first election to the Governor’s chair. At every level, success. He's quite young, actually.
Strengths: I don't really know. He appears to understand technology rather well, and has an interest in progressive regulation and support (zero-emission cars?). He clearly understands the health care issues in great detail, and was pushing for reform of the industry throughout the 90s, even after it fell off the national table. His main strength, so far as I can tell, is in working with various groups without antagonizing them. You can't really talk about Dean without talking about civil unions, and usually he either gets too much, or too little credit. Civil unions were not his idea, nor did they get his backing until the Vermont Supreme Court insisted on it. He gave every evidence of entering the topic with reluctance, and continued to show reluctance throughout the legislative fighting (although that display may well have been calculated, and not genuine). He has not shown any interest, ever, in being a civil rights leader, or in taking up a Cause. On the other hand, he was put in a very difficult situation, and handled it very well indeed. He was able to work with everybody, or nearly everybody in an issue that could well have been more divisive that it was. He seems to understand compromise, and to be good at achieving it.
Weaknesses: He has very limited foreign policy experience (other than backing Canada on homeland security grounds). He does not appear to have an overarching vision; he is not a particularly charismatic, or at least inspiring, public speaker. He has almost no Washington experience; Pres. Clinton had a rough transition (as did Pres. Carter), in part because his friends from back home didn't mix well with his new surroundings. Compare that with Our Only President, whose 12 years of White House experience taught him a thing or two about how to work the angles. On the other hand, Clinton overcame that, and there's no reason to believe Dean won't. In fact, Dean is an awful lot like Clinton, in a way: Small-state governor, detail-oriented, fiscally conservative (or at least prudent), a good negotiator, clearly very smart and knowledgeable, no Washington experience, no Causes, no obvious connection with the party (no senatorial Dad, nor Old Party Hack mentor, as far as I know).
Priorities: Someone on his blog referred to Dean's "core belief in getting things done." I see that as a pretty accurate picture of him. He appears to believe strongly in balancing the budget. Health care is clearly a priority as well, but within the context of a balanced budget (he, for instance, thinks Gephart's plan is too expensive). After that, education, and civil rights. Housing? Not so much, at least not yet. As far as international relations, he is a moderate internationalist, pro-UN, seems to acknowledge the importance of, for instance, having an Africa policy, but all of this seems pretty far down the list.
Coalitions : So far, this has been how Gov. Dean has gotten where he's gotten. He appeals to different groups for different reasons, without feeling like he is a captive of any of them. Civil rights groups, deficit hawks, anti-war activists, and Gore-style greens (not all the greens, but the high-tech pro-growth greens) have all come out for him. As far as I can tell, he hasn't reached out to Labor, nor has Labor reached out to him.
Legislative: He has only four years experience in any legislative position, and that's in Vermont’s part-time House. From the executive branch, he seems to have worked well with that part-time legislature, and he does appear to have some interest in well-crafted legislation, but honestly, this is a blank slate.
Executive: He was in the executive branch in Vermont for 17 years. I think he's got a good handle on it. This will be, of course, a huge step up, but there's no indication he couldn't handle it. As for appointments, I simply don't know. I'm still looking into his record.
Judicial: Again, I have no idea. It's hard for me to believe that he will be particularly active or progressive; but that's a guess. He did show quite a bit of respect to the Vermont Court during the civil unions business.
Crisis: Again, a blank slate. He performed well under the national spotlight the one time it was trained on him even a little bit, but he had plenty of time to prepare for that.
Day-to-day: I suspect that he would be a very good administrator. He's got the right level of interest in getting things done, and would probably strike the best balance of anyone for a long time between getting involved and micromanaging. Resources would be put in places where Results could be expected, and not frittered away on Big Ideas or Visions.
Leadership: He's got guts. He doesn't have a ton of charisma, and what he has doesn't come over well on tv. He does have what it takes to make a stand, clearly. He has already moved the Democratic Party to the left (which is kind of sad, considering he's a centrist), and could very well change the national conversation to his taste. That's a good part of leadership right there.
This is not so much a comment on Dean per se as a query about the Democratic candidates as a group and on recent Democratic administrations. V is uncertain who C. M. Braun is “surrounding herself with” and he raises the possibility that Dean might have a rough start, as Carter and Clinton did, because he and his people are outsiders to Washington. This uncertainty about teams is presented in contrast to the current Bush administration. I don’t give Bush fils much of the credit for this. He appears to me to be the front man, the face, for a long-enduring right-wing conspiracy, as it were. The current Bush administration is the Nixon/Reagan/Bush-pere administrations with a new face and a more aggressive political strategy. I find that profoundly disturbing.
Yet, I’ve seen a reputable leftish pundit make the argument that the Democrats need to find a seasoned Washington poltician as their candidate to have any hope of a successful presidency, which might change the perceptioni that Democratic presidents are not very good at being President.
This seems to me the sort of argument that points to someone like Kerry or (gulp) Gephart or (Lord help us) Lieberman as the more truly “Presidential” candidates in the crowd.
But to change the direction of Federal policy, don’t we need to elect a candidate who will not already be beholden to the currrent Washington consensus, such as it is, a candidate who, as president, will have to struggle to displace or reorient entrenched interests? Isn’t a president who sets out to do that more likely to “fail” than someone who leads by following the path his backers have already mapped out?
I don’t know if this post is making much sense, but I’m trying to figure out what I want from a President and what I can reasonably expect. Are “efficient governance” and “Washington savvy” qualities that I should care about in a candidate? They seem like safe qualities to look for and to support. I’m more inclined to support someone who is more likely to be unsuccessful but who, if he or she fails, will fail while trying to do the right thing. Should I rethink that inclination of mine?
Well, I try to rethink all my inclinations every now and then.
And, yes, I do think that efficient governance is a good goal for a president. On the other hand, there is a difference between (for instance) Jimmy Carter, who had no Washington experience, couldn’t work well with Congress, and with the best intentions couldn’t govern effectively, and Bill Clinton, who had no Washington experience, worked … indifferent well with Congress, and with moderate intentions governed effectively. And then there’s the Bush presidents, each of whom came to the office with tons of Washington experience (although Our Only President’s is by proxy), worked reasonably well with their Congresseses, and governed very badly indeed.
So. There are a variety of strengths and weaknesses. Yes, Dean may have more difficulty getting his cabinet together than Bush (tho’ not likely more than Clinton), but the Cabinet he would gather would have neither a John Ashcroft nor a Jack Snow. Sen. Graham (to pick a contrast) would likely get all his first choice appointments through, but there might well be a Jack Snow in there. You takes your chances.
In politics, I tend to be a compromiser. I don’t expect to get what I want; I just want something better than there already is.
Redintegro Iraq,
-V.
One odd thing about Dean is that he’s probably the only Democrat who is likely to get a favorable rating from the NRA. He has come out very strongly against national gun control laws, saying instead that those issues should be decided on a local level.
The Dean campaign has been interesting to watch develop so far. My initial feeling, which has gotten stronger as time has passed, was that Dean was going to be the McCain for 2004, namely someone who attracts a rather oddly varied base of support much to the surprise of the party higher ups.