So the Democrats have now coronated Howard Dean as the Democratic National Committee Chair. The best way I can visualize this is to think of the Democratic Party shooting themselves in the foot and keeping the trigger depressed as they move the gun up along their body.
As a conservative Republican, I am really torn. I believe this can be a great thing for the Republicans as the Democratic Party goes off the deep end of the left side of the pool. However, as a conservative I much wish the Democrats had attempted to pull the party toward the center.
But I know more than a few people who are quite happy to see Dean come to this post. On the surface I can see why. If I were a Democrat right now, I’d feel as though I’d been wandering the desert looking for a drink and Dean would be holding an ice-cold glass of water.
Dean does have fire, he does have an ability to fire up the base, he doesn’t pull punches and he did harness the power of the Internet in his bid for the presidency. So, on its face, a Dean chairmanship seems like a good thing for the Democrats.
However, I think there is a problem in that so many people in the Democratic Party looked to endorse Dean’s personality rather than Dean as an effective chair of the party.
Think of the obstacles the Democratic Party has to overcome. It has lost Middle America – many feel they are out of touch with the values of the country, poor on national security and simply the party of big government.
To solve this problem, the party is going to push forth the poster-boy for liberalism?
Also, think of what role he is supposed to play as chairman of the DNC. He’s supposed to be the public face and spokesman of the party.
Bear in mind that this is the same man who said, “I hate Republicans and everything they stand for.” Now, for the partisans, I’m sure that’ll feel nice but will that help you sway voters one bit? Is he to reach Middle America by reiterating how he thinks the Book of Job is his favorite book of the New Testament? Dean’s words, once he was appointed, don’t put me any more at ease.
He seemed to think that if he simply attached the word “values” onto any Democratic position, he would suddenly be a Moses leading the party out of the wilderness.
Now, just imagine if you were someone who was pro-life listening to a party put out the message that it was full of values for favoring abortion. The word “patronizing” comes to mind.
This nomination also bodes ill for where the party is going as well.
Tim Roemer wrote an editorial warning the party that it is rapidly becoming a part of orthodoxy rather than one of inclusiveness. As a pro-life candidate for the DNC chair he wrote, “Opposition to my candidacy – which I ended this week – from the Democratic ‘choice’ constituency was vigorous and unrelenting.”
Rather than looking at this member as a centrist organizer, and member of the 9/11 Commission, as a man to take a chunk out of the GOP base – the Democrats looked at him as an enemy.
This is not the sign of a party thinking rationally. If one looks across the aisle, you can see how the Republicans, long decried by Democrats as the “intolerant” ones, appointed pro-choice Jo Ann Davidson as co-chair of the Republican National Committee.
This is a party that recognizes it is the party of the big tent, and will use all available tools to help them put out the best message.
The Democrats, it seems, preferred to simply preach to their own choir – I believe they do so at their peril, without the support of the general public.
Clemm can be reached at rclemm@campustimes.org.
