How can liberals support a fighting centrist?

[Armstead]

This is more in the realm of thinking out loud than an effort to pump up any candidate or bash any candidate. I suppport Howard Dean, but with both eyes open.

There are two strains of attack on Dean. That he is "too left" to win an election. Or, paradoxically that he is "too conservative."

My own opinion is that Dean is basically a centrist. His positions are not REALLY that different from the other major candidates. And, yes, in some ways he is more conservative. My own views are closer to Kucinich, and I suspect that based on issues alone, I am closer to Gephardt or Kerry than to Dean.

So how can one support Dean, given that reality? I've thought about it, and it boils down to two basic factors. He's a fighter. And, although a centrist he also understands that times have changed.

He is dealing with Big Themes. He is talking about the basic need for people to "take back the power" in a way that transcends the usual muddy lines of recent years.

Part of the problem with centrists (as it has come to be defined) is that they focus on specific issues while ignoring what has been happening in a larger sense over the last 25 years. It's not what centrists support that is the problem (with some exceptios) but what they DON'T support, or even talk about.

It's one thing to bash Bush on the economy. But Bush is just a symptom of deeper problems of how wealth and power have been distrubuted and concentrated in recent decades. The erosion of the middle class, the hiding of the poor. The rise of corporate power out of all proportion to their actual role in society.

Dean is getting to the core of that in his rhetoric. And right now, rhetoric is as important as actual policies on specific issues. Maybe if Dean gets in he'll be as centrist as anyone. But I think he "gets it" about what many people in the real world sense and want to change. He "gets it" as to why those on the grass roots and left flank are estranged from the Democratic Establishment.

To turn the tide, we have to first tap into and increase awareness of the overall problem we face. To articulate what many people know, but can't put their finger on. To make people feel like politics is about the common good again.

Right now, Dean is the most effective messenger for that. I wish Kerry and Gephardt and Edwards could move outside of the Beltway Bubble and acknowledge this in equally clear terms. They do make nods to this -- especially Edwards -- but they need to lead instead of carefully calibrated positions that follow the formula of politics as usual. And identify corporate power and the social values associated with it as the core problem it has become.

[2004renew]

1. Howard Dean supporter

I too am a Howard Dean supporter and also with both eyes open. He is what I call the "full package candidate". When Gov. Dean speaks he speaks from the heart. Most candidates say what you want them to say. I have heard Gov. Dean 20-25 times and at one location he told the crowd up front that they would not agree with everything he was going to say but he is standing by what he will say. He makes "no excuses" for what he believes in. He is not like Gephardt or Lieberman who are wishy-washy. One day they say one thing and if someone disagrees they will change their stance. Stand by with what you believe NOT what someone else believes.

"Let's show Bush to the door in 2004"

Give 'em hell Howard.......

[newyawker99]

17. Hi 2004renew!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Monte Carlo]

2. IMO, Dean is a centrist percieved as an uber-leftist...

... because issue-wise, Dean's straight from Vermont; generally rural values with a liberal tint. But through the filter of the national media, opposition to war => hippie => leftist radical. It's a pickle, and it almost seems to be the worst of both worlds. It would be much more advantageous, it seems to me, when you're running for the Democratic nomination to be liberal on the issues and percieved as a centrist.

[Armstead]

4. That is a pickle

Maybe the idea of centrist has to be redefined. In modern politics and society, the "center" has come to mean conservative, through Republicans setting the terms and Democtrats going along with it.

Being clearly liberal is also a centrist position, but it is more honest. And it doesn't imply the ties to the corporate elite that modern centrism does.

[Monte Carlo]

9. Well, technically, the center is conservative...

... and when I say conservative, I mean the actual definition of the word, not the Reagan version of it. (They are masters of word-play.) Bush is a reactionary-right, but he wraps it in a cover of centrism and calls it "conservatism". That should be attacked by any Democratic nominee.

[CWebster]

12. And support Bush on the war?

Why then, would Democrats want to support the candidate who supports Bush? We are handicapped by Democrats who discounted their base and jostled to stand shoulder to shoulder with Bush, and now, in order to promote themselves have to use Right-wing smears.

We want opposition to Bush in clear, honest outspoken terms.

[Monte Carlo]

15. I don't know why.

I'm just saying that Dean is a moderate on the issues while being portrayed and percieved in the national media (largely) as a far-left politician. I don't like it either, but that's what I observe.

[Zuni]

3. Howard Dean has run a brilliant campaign

and is tough. That shows to me he is practical, common sensed and a real fighter. I would classify him as Center-Left, a political moderate rather than as a true centrist like Clinton. But he is a fighter, and I can see him as an agreeable, commonsense President who will restore respectability to that office.

[CWebster]

13. That is the view from here as well

Good sizing up.

[Padraig18]

5. Even Paul Simon said that "Liberal does not mean wastrel"...

Dean is a passionate centrist with rock-solid progressive values on issues that matter most to traditional Democrats. Fiscally, however, he IS as tight as the bark on a tree. :P

[bearfartinthewoods]

6. what does a centerist fight for?

isn't tht sort of a contradiction in terms?

[Armstead]

10. A centrist should fight to at least...

keep the center in the true center, and not the conservative version of it. And at this point, that requires a lot of fighting.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. As a leftist, I agree with your thoughts.

I came to Dean reluctantly. After the IWR vote, in which the alleged "liberals" sold us out without a blink, my thoughts turned Green. Dean is certainly not my ideal candidate (Kucinich is much closer to my thoughts), but he has convinced me that he will fight Bush, not pussyfoot around him like the infamous 4.

Having watched the Democratic Party drift to the right over the last 10 years under the "guidance" of the DLC who never fail to tell us that we must become more like the Republicans in order to "win", Dean has brought a refreshing pugnaciousness and defiance that is sorely lacking in the traditional candidates who cling to the DLC's mythology.

I believe that he will win the nomination. I acknowledge that in many ways he is a "centrist" but he is the foot in the door for the left. Whether he win's the presidency or not, his campaign has shown that ignoring the left is perilous at best. As has been discovered by the flagwaving Rose Garden "I'm not really a liberal" quislings.

[John_H]

8. There's no paradox.

Dean is pulling a classic rethug tactic--running to the base in the primary and moving center in the general--the problem is that he won't be able to get away with it because of the media's bias and chimp's money.

Not only that, but our candidate is going to have to convince America that he's at least as experienced and competent as Bush on national security. Sure, we all think our Irish Setters fit that bill, but the majority of Americans don't see it that way.

Clark can utterly negate Bush's national secirity advantage and then procede to beat him to death on the economy. Why do you want to run a guy who's going to be on the defensive?

[IrateCitizen]

11. Read Armstead's original post again, and you'll find the answer

Part of the problem with centrists (as it has come to be defined) is that they focus on specific issues while ignoring what has been happening in a larger sense over the last 25 years. It's not what centrists support that is the problem (with some exceptios) but what they DON'T support, or even talk about.

It's one thing to bash Bush on the economy. But Bush is just a symptom of deeper problems of how wealth and power have been distrubuted and concentrated in recent decades. The erosion of the middle class, the hiding of the poor. The rise of corporate power out of all proportion to their actual role in society.

I've heard Clark's statements on "free trade", and they exhibit this kind of massive disconnect in clear terms. Clark has made some rather amorphous statements regarding trade as it is currently being practiced. He has also proposed things like "retraining credits" and such to help those who lose their jobs as a result of "free trade".

IMHO, such a measure would be the equivalent of attempting to put neosporin on a severed limb. It completely misses the real problems underlying "free trade" as it is currently practiced. The ongoing campaign of large corporate interests to completely take over every aspect of our lives (and the huge problems with that) is not even addressed.

Dean at least has come to mention this reality, which is a huge step in the right direction. He has demonstrated a willingness to listen to grassroots constituencies and hear their concerns. Clark, unfortunately, seems to be following the opposite course -- taking on Robert Rubin as his chief economic advisor, a move that will only result in his adopting the "what's good for Wall St. is good for America" economic plan. Moreover, it is a shame, because in so many "image" areas, Clark completely has what it takes to oust Bush. Some of us just want a little bit of "substance" to go along with that "image".

[CWebster]

14. Nice post

I just saved it.

[Armstead]

19. They will all be on the defensive

>>>Clark can utterly negate Bush's national secirity advantage and then procede to beat him to death on the economy. Why do you want to run a guy who's going to be on the defensive?<<<

If the Democrats nominated Newt Gingrich, the GOP would find a way to demonize him as too far left and out of the mainstream.

That's something all candidates will have to deal with. If Clark is nominated, he will be characterized by the GOP as an ineffectual General with a Napoleon complex who butchered babies in Europe to help Clinton divert attention from scandal.

My problem with Clark is that he seems too tight with the Wall St./Corporate world. As NSMA noted above, the idea of "more training" as the cure for the immense problems caused by our present trade policies is missing the point. What good is training for a new job that will be eliminated anyway?

[library_max]

16. Great post. Kick, kick, kick.

Just don't be too disappointed when Dean runs back toward his actual record and political center in the general election (assuming he is nominated).

[Cheswick2.0]

18. good post

I agree that Dean gets it.

[info being]

20. As long as the majority of his funds come from the people

then I'm comfortable with him.