A counter-fisking

Normally I don’t respond to comments but every once in a while I get a novella from one poor, misguided baseball fan that is so detached from history that I feel compelled to slap him around a little before sending him on his way. Here’s his response to my post below that suggested that Howard Dean might be worse for the Democrats than Terry McAuliffe:

Yeah, because vituperative belligerence paid off so poorly for the Republicans in 1993-94, right? And "getting along as best we can, agreeing to disagree" has brought such major dividends to the Democrats in the last 2 to 3 cycles.

Let’s see: who was in control of both houses of Congress as Bill Clinton was trying to ram through his secret health care proposal in 1993-(Nov.) 1994? Why, it was the Democrats! All the Republicans did was make note of the fact that Bill and Hillary were trying to restructure one-seventh of the entire U.S. economy without a debate. Then Newt Gingrich came along with the Contract for America detailing in large letters and black ink exactly what the Republicans would do if they were given control of Congress. Result: GOP landslide that has not been reversed (or even reduced) since 1994.

The problem for the Democrats is not that they obstruct or “get along” – it’s that they’re now a party completely bereft of ideas. I defy you to find a single Democrat with a clear position on Social Security, the cornerstone of FDR’s New Deal. Even the New Republic’s editor (and Al Gore’s Harvard professor) Marty Peretz recognizes this problem. Get along, stand astride, whatever: the Democrats aren’t going anywhere if their message is: “We’re not Republicans” and nothing else.

Bush won by an historically slight margin last time, with his wartime standing and financial advantage, against a bum candidate nobody liked. Presidential nominee Howard Dean would have been a lot more likely to narrow that gap or better, as opposed to provoking some kind of GOP blowout (unless you know of some untapped supply of 10,000,000 Bush voters who didn't turn out last November, but would have rushed to stop the "Deaniacs'). Even a grinning cipher like Edwards could have outperformed Rondo Hatton, reporting for duty.

I won’t quibble with anything here. Kerry was a dud but I doubt that Dean would have done better.

So you think Mr. Status Quo (McAuliffe) was a loser, and now you think that Mr. Snarky Sound Byte will be a loser, too. Quelle surprise, to quote France's troop. Who would your most-feared choice for the party job be, then? Who's out there who would restore the Dems to glory? Zell Miller's very available.

Well, allow me to retort! The secondary problem for the Democrats after their lack of a lucid and unifying ideology is their perception as a party of East-coast liberal elitists. John Kerry (along with crazy Teresa) was a perfect embodiment of this smarter-than-thou smarminess that turns off all the NASCAR dads and Midwest Moms. So who do the Democrats install as their figurehead? The anti-war doctor-governor from Vermont! When Dean was making his “Red States” tour last week, even the Democratic governor of Kansas couldn’t find the time to meet with Dean. She’s no dope.

Who would have been a better choice? John Breaux from Louisiana or Bill Richardson from New Mexico or even Martin Frost from Texas. But Howard Dean?! Why not just take a Kennedy and tell the Red States to kiss his drunk rump?

The Democrats' big national problem is that they haven't gotten 50.1% of the votes for any candidate since the Voting Rights Act was passed and they lost the South. That's not likely to change, but there's no reason they can't rile up the base like the GOP did in the 1980s and 90s, make Congress more of a dogfight, and continue to pick off weak targets like Bush Sr. and Gerald Ford when they get the opportunity. Dean's much-vaunted "grass roots" effort-- the only reason he had a national campaign at all despite party friction-- would seem to be a good starting blueprint.

"Rile up the base?" What have the Democrats offered in the past four years aside from angry, unsubstantiated rhetoric that Bush stole the election in 2000? They’re a party of whiners, gripers, and thumb-suckers that won’t win against a Gerald Ford or even a Rutherford B. Hayes until they grasp that national security is now the #1 concern among Americans. A month before the last election, you couldn’t find a pol in Washington who had the slightest idea where Kerry stood on the most critical issue of the day. Howard Dean is not likely to change that paradigm.

The "Karl Rove is salivating to get a crack at Howard Dean" stories of a year ago were obvious B.S. then, but the Dems fell for them. (The fact that they gibed perfectly with certain bigwigs holding onto their institutional power-- cough, Hillary in '08, cough-- didn't hurt a bit, either.)

It’s true you know: we’re really scared of Dean. Please, please don’t nominate him in 2008! Pinkie-swear!

Now the Dems have pulled a switch in tactics, at least from the rhetorical side. And I'd be interested to hear someone explain how the attempt's certain to make the numbers worse for them.

Harry Reid caused me to chuckle the other day when he predicted that Democrats would pick up from one to nine seats in the Senate in 2006. Well, when you’re down to the lowest representation in the Senate since the 1920’s, I guess you have nowhere to go but up…