What's the establishment got against Howard Dean?

by: northcountry

Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 11:05


A lot actually, Howard Dean represents the most serious threat to elite politics since at least the 1960s.  

During Governor Dean's tenure as DNC chair, the Democrats won two back-to-back "wave elections" --- which has never happened before in American history --- and America's first multi-racial President was elected in a landslide.  Yet, for the last five years Governor Dean has been a lightening rod for criticism among both the "serious" people in the media and the "serious" people in his own party.  

So why doesn't the establishment like Howard Dean?  It's simple really; Howard Dean represents a significant threat to 21st century elite politics.  

northcountry :: What's the establishment got against Howard Dean?
Dean's family made their fortune as old school brokerage owners and executives. Dean grew up in East Hampton on Long Island and on Park Avenue.  Yet he turned his back on a financial career, went to medical school and became a family doctor in Vermont along with his wife Judith Steinberg.  He's the Park Avenue version of the hippy who went up country.  Yet his life and his career flourished.  He was elected to the Vermont legislature after getting involved in local politics as part of a coalition looking to get a bike path built along Lake Champlain.  He was elected Lt. Governor in 1986 and reelected Governor 5 times (becoming the second longest serving Vermont Governor in Vermont history) after stepping into the role after the death of Governor Richard Snelling.  He created the first mass political movement using Internet technologies.  And he transformed party politics by transferring power to the state and local parties.

In a thirty-year period dominated by an insane reverse wealth transfer, and in which the excesses of the financial elite threaten to crater the capitalist system without massive risk socialization by the federal government, Dean has stood out at as a critic of D.C. centered politics and elite domination of the federal government.   Think about it; a person who began their career in politics fighting to get a bike path built is at the gates of the highest levels of government.  A presidential candidate who stuffs his suit pockets with chocolate chip cookies, a guy who directs his staffer to go left rather than right at a house party so he can get another shot at the M&M; bowl.  A real person, a small d democrat, who viscerally understands the American elite because he was once part of it, rises to national leadership and pushes power back into the grassroots and the state parties.

The personal threat that Dean poses to elite rule is compounded by his rise through Vermont politics.  Vermont doesn't just talk about bipartisanship and use it as a cover for sample sales of the country's assets by elite politicians and financiers; they practice it in their electoral politics.  In the last twenty years Vermonters have elected a classic Yankee Republican (Jim Jeffords), a scrappy Brooklyn born socialist (Bernie Sanders) and a scion of Park Avenue wealth turned family doctor (Howard Dean) as their statewide representatives.  

These new Green Mountain Boys have a people and community orientation that comes out of Vermont's tradition of direct democracy through the town meeting.  Howard Dean's fifty state strategy is in essence an extension of the practice of direct democracy to party politics and electoral organizing.   And it scares the hell out of the D.C. regulars and the corporate elites.   It takes us beyond the culture of the expert --- the serious foreign policy expert from the northeast corridor, the Yale graduate organizing on behalf of janitors, Wall Street bankers trying to fix a system they broke --- to organizations and coalitions of ordinary people choosing leaders and solving problems on their own.   It harnesses the new communication technologies to spread power and enable real conversations between those on the ground and those back in a state capital, D.C., or elsewhere.  

For the D.C. and corporate elites, this model of direct democratic movement politics is very dangerous indeed.

David Sirota had a very penetrating insight into the marginalization of progressives in matters of economic and foreign policy during the Obama transition:

What I mean to say is that we live in a culture that now organizes around celebrity - and Obama knew it, and knew that lots of left organizations aren't really ideological - they are, if anything, organized around the Democratic Party and Bush hatred. So he basically figured out that if he could become a celebrity - and a Democratic Bush-hating one - he could swallow up a huge part of the "progressive infrastructure" and organize it around him (and all the hateful "if you question Obama, you hate Obama" comments that will inevitably be at the bottom of this diary actually confirm this!). And we shouldn't blame him for being a "celebrity" - it's not an epithet. And we shouldn't blame him for seizing his moment. Not at all.

This, by the way, is very different from the Reagan model. Reagan was a telegenic, for sure - but he was a product of a movement. In the age of celebrity worship - the age where we literally organize AROUND celebrity - Obama is a movement unto himself.

Obama Ate the Left

This continues to be a problem for progressive politics in the United States.  We continue to lack a real movement or institutional structure.  Unfortunately in many communities, progressive politics and institutions stand outside the fabric of everyday life.  There are exceptions of course, but it is rare to find in suburban, exurban and rural communities organizations or institutions that can easily serve as a rallying point for progressive candidates, politics and ideas.

Howard Dean actually addressed this issue by transferring power and budgets to the state and local parties.  The end result was back-to-back wave elections, wins in unexpected places like Mississippi and the revitalization of some state parties.    

The famous question "What do we do now" is taking on an increasing urgency for progressives as folks like Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers are appointed to Treasury and to Senior White House posts and the architects of the democratic resurgence are cast into the wilderness.   If the auto industry is allowed to collapse after this last Citigroup bailout, this Democratic resurgence architected by Howard Dean will be quite short lived.

The challenge over the next 12-18 months is to build new networks of state and local power that don't rely on the Democratic National Committee or other D.C. based institutions.  Howard Dean showed us the way and used the DNC to further state and local politics.  We now need to take his model and build independent institutions and funding sources that forward the vision of direct democracy.

The establishment hates Howard Dean.  We can turn the tables by showing them that we do indeed have the power.

Cross posted at Booman Tribune


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
it's still spillover from the Iraq war. (4.00 / 2)
You had to be pretty radical to oppose such an important effort to defend America from WMDs, right?

"Wrong War, in the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time" (4.00 / 2)
Now Afghanistan is crumbling (again) and Mumbai is attacked, most likley by people trained in the Tribal areas of Pakistan.  

[ Parent ]
radical, or Sen. Byrd of W.Va. (4.00 / 3)
At least one of my Sens. got it right. I still get chills when I listen to his speech before that vote.

They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue

[ Parent ]
Excellent essay. (4.00 / 4)
Sirota is right about organizing around celebrity.  Obama did it brilliantly.

Dean still can go back to DFA.

That may be where our movement grows.


True, I don't think Dean's done yet (4.00 / 4)


[ Parent ]
Not DFA.. (0.00 / 0)
They blew their money on ridiculous ads that only pushed everyone's 'extremist alert' buttons.

The Democrats of olde are too corrupt and infiltrated by self-serving cliques.  We should all just form a 'gang of millions', and elect only Independents and Greens.
Absolutely not one more Democrat should we support.
NONE.  

If the gang of 14 or the Blue Dogs or Joe !@#$ Lieberman can clog the arteries of Progress, if anything they proved how powerful majoritys AREN'T, and the damage just a handful of 'insurgents' can be..

If the Progressives and Dean Democrats can't get to the mountain, we can force them to come to us.


Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.


[ Parent ]
I'm with Dean. (4.00 / 1)
If he goes back to DFA, then DFA will be getting my donations and not the DNC. People Powered Howard!

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
Perceptions (0.00 / 0)
I think part of the perception, right or wrong, is that Dean was responsible for a debacle of a primary that lasted into May, first with the questions of Michigan and Florida cutting in line and (kind of) being penalized, and second with the perception that Hillary was treated with a double standard while Obama was given a free pass by the party and the msm.

Debacle? (4.00 / 2)
Are you kidding me? The extended primary made sure that all states mattered, not just the ones that voted early.  

[ Parent ]
Phrasing (0.00 / 0)
I'm just reiterating what many others were saying at the time - that the GOP was efficient in choosing their man, while the Democrats had problems selecting theirs.  Obviously, it didn't matter in the end, but at the time it was a real concern - often, I might add, voiced by Obama's supporters claiming that Hillary's resilience would damage his chances in the general.

[ Parent ]
of course it mattered! (0.00 / 0)
It was why we won the general!!  All the exposure, publicity, vetting and position refining made the ultimate winner much stronger than a party-annointed pick would ever be!

[ Parent ]
uh, really? (0.00 / 0)
I thought the economic crisis and corollary discontent with the current administration was why we won the election.

[ Parent ]
disagree (0.00 / 0)
I don't think that if Hillary had been annointed and ran unopposed that she would have had the breadth of support to beat McCain. I do think that if she had won the primary she would have won the general, but the generic support for the Dem ticket seemed far greater than in past years, even before the economic collapse started in the fall. Do you remember any excitement approaching that with Kerry?

[ Parent ]
That was the nail in the coffin (0.00 / 0)
I firmly believe that Obama would have won even without those things. They just turned a squeaker into a blowout.

[ Parent ]
Ok but why does it seem then that Dean is not being considered for anything in the Obama administration? (0.00 / 0)
Why is no one asking why isn't Dean getting some position of some consequence in the new administration.

Especially since so many rightly or wrongly considered him biased against Clinton and for Obama.?

Frankly the answer to me is a mystery..but it does seem to be playing out that way.

If he is offered something...I'll eat my hat..if I had a hat.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
It was amusing (4.00 / 4)
as a Democratic PC, to watch my state party (AZ) deal with the fifty-state strategy. They loved the money, but they were confused about the relationship between the DNC's neighborhood leaders and their own PCs. While it's true that initially we were largely the same people, the potential attraction of large numbers of the unwashed to a process then dominated totally by the county organizations was clearly freaking some of the leadership out.

Once, when I referred to my hopes for the Howard Dean insurgency to a member of the progressive caucus at a state meeting, I was rewarded first with a blinking lack of comprehension, quickly followed by flustered assurances that the State Party was totally on board with the DNC plan, that we were all on the same side, etc., etc.

Meanwhile, the DCCC and the state leadership were targeting districts, picking and funding congressional candidates just as they always had, without any broader consultation among the membership from particular districts, and filming an AZ Democratic Party Platform which didn't refer to a single issue dividing Republicans and Democrats. (It reminded me of an old Exxon commercial, actually.) The neighborhood leaders disappeared as the actual campaign got underway, and the candidates replaced party building with getting out their own vote. This was natural enough, but when it was over, the vacuum returned. It remains to be seen what happens next.

Now I hear that the good doctor is on the outs, and that Rahm Emmanuel is taking credit for his strategy. Somehow, it doesn't surprise me.


Arizona party leaders don't work in the heat, any kind of heat. (0.00 / 0)
This is ol' boy DLC territory, who they don't take kindly to any o' them 'radicals' disturbing the air conditioning.

It was only because of Dean, with his truthiness and bold plan to get us out of a rut Emanuel, Schumer, McAulife and the Clintons drove the party into, did people - as KOS Marcos once said - stand up and say they were proud to be Democrats.
the state started to come around - we finally turned my District 1 blue.  After 8 years of Renzi in a 50/50 District.

I'm furious with Obama on a number of substantive issues.  But the one that ends my being a Democrat once and for all  - is what appears to be a pre-planned strategy to give McCain a prize - us.  By taking Napolitano out of the picture. Obama just about guarantees McCain will win in 2010, where just weeks ago it was growing more unlikely -50/50 or less.

In removing our Democratic Governor, knowing we would then revert to the hands of a hard-core Republican religious extremist, who would likely bring McCain and Lieberman back in the Senate in a new power team from hell, and completely destroy any future Democratic gains in my state, is  the ultimate dirty trick of any Democrat - next to Lieberman - that I've ever seen.

Obama got his.
And as the popular Yiddish phrase says:

Wen ich ess, ch'ob ich alles in dread

When I am eating, everybody can go to hell!

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.


[ Parent ]
Another set of lenses (0.00 / 0)
In drerd? Nu.... I'm in CD-1 also, and was a big Shanker supporter. I'm hoping he'll be off to Washington with Grijalva -- it would be good for the Jews, I think (I mean that metaphorically) and a fitting reward for all the shoe leather he wasted fighting the DCCC.

Nice to see a homegirl here. (And for the record, I don't hate Ann K. I pounded the pavement for her, and she got my vote, too.)


[ Parent ]
It sucks for you... (0.00 / 0)
...but Obama has to balance a lot of concerns beyond just yours. What that means is some will get the short stick.

It's nothing personal. It's just politics.


[ Parent ]
No other Back-to-Back Wave elections? (0.00 / 0)
Hmm, not really true.  Check out 1930 and 32 for example.  You could even argue 34 and 36 were wave elections too.

True, Dems did not retake either chamber in 1930, but gaining 8 in the Senate plus 52 in the house is wavey enough for me.


Over the last two years: (0.00 / 0)
Democrats have won more than a dozen U.S. Senate seats, over 50 House Seats (in the process taking control of both Chambers), 7 Governorships and hundreds of state legislative seats.

Many of these seats are in Republican and Republican-leaning districts, which since redistricting have been much more favorable to Republicans overall.

We won in Mississippi, in Indiana, in Virgina, in North Carolina.  Colorado and Montana are now viable states for democratic party politics again.

It's very difficult to find a similar period in U.S. History where the electoral shift was so stunning top to bottom.


[ Parent ]
I don't know (0.00 / 0)
What happened at the State and local level in 1930 and 1932, but they surely qualify as "wave" elections.  And 1934 and 36 continued the Dem win streak leaving them ultimately with over 3/4 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate.  In 1937 there were 16 Republican senators.

In the Senate:
1930  Dems +8
1932  +12
1934  +9
1936  +5

Anyway, I don't dispute 2006/8 are two consecutive Dem waves, I am only saying, yes this has happened before, and in fact was even larger.  


[ Parent ]
I think it's a definitional issue (0.00 / 0)
and an issue of comparing one era to another in terms of district competitiveness.

For instance, NY Democrats now control both houses of their state legislature, which is the first time since the New Deal.  

At the federal level Democrats had to win back control of congress one house at a time in two subsequent elections, which they didn't have to do in 1930 and 1932.

Districts also tend to be much more partisan and less competitive today because of all the gerrymandering that's gone on.  

The cumulative effect of these elections in restoring democratic power is unprecedented.  


[ Parent ]
What voters can do to spread "direct" democracy (0.00 / 0)
The closest thing to Town Hall meetings the real kind that Vermont has, where citizens vote directly on the laws is ballot initiative which 24 States and D.C. have.

The most evolved project for better and national ballot initiatives is led by former Sen. Mike Gravel. Registered voters can now vote to ratify the National Initiative for Democracy at http://Vote.org, much as citizens ratified the Constitution at the Conventions when the Legislatures wouldn't!


This isn't just a national problem (4.00 / 1)
It occurs at the local level as well.

My experience with dealing with the local party was that they were a lot of really smart and well meaning people, but they still tended to think in terms of power-bases. Anything that threatened those power-bases, even if they might be good for progressive causes, was treated with suspicion.

For example, I tried to organize a "Democrats club" in my local neighborhood that was designed to bring out Democrats who wanted to talk about the issues but didn't want to feel like they were just going to be a cog in the local party machine. I identified a gap and I wanted to fill it. I initially got support from the county party for this. But once it became clear that I DIDN'T want this club to be just the first step towards getting more people signed up to canvas and make telephone calls I almost immediately got the shut out. The hostility was palpable.

They wonder why ordinary citizens don't want to get involved in party activities and then they do things like this when it happens. It still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

That's why I like organizations like Drinking Liberally. It does essentially what I was trying to do without ever relying on party machinery or people. Democratic party people are more than welcome to come. But they are invited to be participants, not herders. And that's a role a lot of them have difficulty switching to.






USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

STATE BLOGS