Dr. No… Dr. Yes… Dr. Who?

drno.jpgDr. No… Dr. Yes… Dr. Who?

: Howard Dean is sliding in Iowa and New Hampshire and all God’s children have their analyses; here’s mine: Victory will not come from sniping. We don’t want to elect Dr. No and then find him in office. We want to elect a Dr. Yes who makes things happen. Howard Dean has not so much made himself into a radical as he has made himself into Dr. No.

He has made himself into the leader of the negative wing of the party. And it’s hurting him now.

Read Paul Krugman today and you’ll see him trying to egg on both Dean and Wesley Clark to lead that negative wing.

Earlier this week, Wesley Clark had some strong words about the state of the nation. “I think we’re at risk with our democracy,” he said. “I think we’re dealing with the most closed, imperialistic, nastiest administration in living memory. They even put Richard Nixon to shame.”

In other words, the general gets it: he understands that America is facing what Kevin Phillips, in his remarkable new book, “American Dynasty,” calls a “Machiavellian moment.” Among other things, this tells us that General Clark and Howard Dean, whatever they may say in the heat of the nomination fight, are on the same side of the great Democratic divide….

The real division in the race for the Democratic nomination is between those who are willing to question not just the policies but also the honesty and the motives of the people running our country, and those who aren’t.

True. Sad but true.

The negative wing of the party has been in control. But we just may be seeing a shift toward the positive wing and an effort to find a leader for it; that’s how I intepret the numbers all coming together in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Wesley Clark might have been a good leader for that positive wing — he might have been Gen. Yes — had he not followed along after Dean, yapping when he yaps at the heels of Mailman Bush. If Clark acted like a general in time of war, I could like him. Instead, he’s trying to act like a sniper.

As for all the others: I just can’t tell yet; they’ve been drowned out by Dean’s barking. And that’s why I think we’re seeing them all so even in the polls: The voters, suddenly tired of Dean, are trying to figure out the rest of the pack.

Dean and company find themselves at a strategic crossroads, perhaps too late. And I smell some desperation. Here Krugman is acting like a losing pit-bull trainer, kicking his dogs, trying to make them meaner, trying to go for the kill — even if it kills them. MoveOn has done that, too, with its no-no-no commercials. They are treating the primaries as their big fight. For them, it’s all about venting, even revenge.

But that doesn’t find a leader. That doesn’t create a winner. That doesn’t build the nation. That just makes them feel better.

And we, the people, are smarter than that. Whether in politics or media or business, you make a mistake if you think we live on the edges. Network executives do it all the time: If we like one hour of Who Wants to be a Millionaire, we’ll want 40 hours, right? And for a while, we do. We Americans are cultural and political and marketing bulimiacs — binge, purge, binge, purge. But then we’ve finished purging our latest appetite, and suddenly you’re Regis Philbin — or Howard Dean — left standing there, yesterday’s fad, yesterday’s news. Nobody wants to be a millionaire anymore. Nobody wants to just bitch anymore.

All the Deaniac pundits — and the posters on those weblogs — may have pushed Dean too far, not toward radical views but toward radical negativity (just read that Krugman snippet again). And Dean let himself be pushed. It felt so good. The people enjoyed getting that out of their tummies. But now it’s time to get serious. Now it’s time to build. Now it’s time to find a winner.

Dean et al have made the mistake of making this campaign about George Bush too soon. He seemed to have believed his polls and his publicity and his blog posters and thought he was fighting for the election, not the nomination. But Bush is not the issue in the Democratic primary; the Democrats are. None of this means that Bush is off the hook; his time in the ring will come. But in the meantime, hose who already like George Bush already like him. Those who hate him already hate him. And everybody else won’t pick Howard Dean just because he hates Bush best.

Of course, it’s too soon by far to write off Dean. John Podhoretz thinks Dean has hurt himself but is still the likely winner. But if he continues to slip, I say this is why: He is Dr. No.

28 responses to “Dr. No… Dr. Yes… Dr. Who?”

  1. Lola Avatar

    I think you’ve got it spot on. Dean should have concentrated on knocking out the other Dem candidates first before taking on Bush. He should have realized that in noticing that there is an unusually large field of Democrat candidates. I think another mistake was trying to prevent people from digging up those records from when he was a governor. No matter – people will find what they need on him from other sources – such as that obscure Canadian show.

  2. BTD Greg Avatar

    As much as I’m not a fan of Dean, I think you’ve got that backwards. Dean is where he is precisely because of his attack stance against Bush. Anti-Bush is a winning strategy among Democrats. If anything, I think Dean would do better to bash Bush now, then moderate it when he wins the nomination.

  3. Greg Avatar

    Great post, great analysis. Reminds me of one reason I think both Reagan and Clinton were so popular (and it could probably apply to FDR and JFK as well): They came across as essentially optimistic people. Agree or disagree with their policies, they all exuded (either naturally or cosmetically, who knows?) a belief that things could–and would–be better someday. A current Democrat, stating a positive and essentially optimistic foreign policy vision, would go a long way toward making me proud to be a Dem again.
    – Greg

  4. Mike G Avatar

    First Outkast, now we find out that Jeff owns the soundtrack album to Dr. No (well, that calypso version of Dr. No is pretty cool). What’s he trying to tell us about his musical tastes? That he’s even cooler than Lileks?

  5. JorgXMcKie Avatar
    JorgXMcKie

    So. Who is the potential Dr. Yes? Not Dean. Not Gephardt. Not Kerry. Not Sharpton. Definitely not Kucinich. Not Clark. We’re down to Lieberman (maybe) and Edwards (quite possibly). The first probably can’t win the nomination nor unite the party if he should, and the second is, in all likelihood, not seasoned enough to win. Now what?

  6. Scott Harris Avatar
    Scott Harris

    I hope your right. From my point of view as a lifelong Republican, Dean represents Democratic political insanity. I hope the Democrats get their act together and nominate a decent candidate who will give Bush a stiff challenge.
    I still want Bush to win, but good ideas are not restricted to one party; and even good ideas become better ideas, better policy, and better law when they are forced to moderate toward the middle.
    Call me a right-leaning radical moderate, but I believe we need both parties. Dean is a train wreck waiting to happen. Trouncing him in the fall would get us Republicans so full of ourselves, we would inevitably do stupid things which would hurt us and the nation.

  7. cris Avatar

    3,500 Deanie weenies in Iowa, and the Dr.’s numbers are falling: “Hi, I’m for Dean. Bush is Hitler. He kills babies. Why are you staring at my nose ring?”

  8. cris Avatar

    3,500 Deanie weenies in Iowa, and the Dr.’s numbers are falling: “Hi, I’m for Dean. Bush is Hitler. He kills babies. Why are you staring at my nose ring?”

  9. dave Avatar

    Thanks for the analysis. Dean has compounded his current problem by planning to spend Sunday in GA, on the eve of the IA caucus. Is attending Sunday school with Jimmy Carter going to enhance his performance in IA? Carter’s faux endorsement invokes horrible memories of his administration’s many shortcomings and ignoble defeat at the hands of a cheerful Reagan. Do Democrats want Carter II?

  10. Tim Avatar

    “Dean has compounded his current problem by planning to spend Sunday in GA, on the eve of the IA caucus.”
    Pride goes before the fall. Or so they say. Dean’s existence does nothing to disprove this.

  11. Kathianne Avatar
    Kathianne

    I have to agree with your assessment, but add some blame to the GOP partisans that basically responded to the Deaniacs, “Yeah, bring him on!” I knew that was a mistake.

  12. Charlie T. Avatar
    Charlie T.

    So let me get this straight: in order not to be derided as “Dr. No”, the Democratic nominee must be someone who agrees that George W. Bush has been by and large a good president?

  13. MattS Avatar

    So let me get this straight: in order not to be derided as “Dr. No”, the Democratic nominee must be someone who agrees that George W. Bush has been by and large a good president?
    No, the point is, Chris, that Bush has been a good President, objectively speaking. Yeah, he has his faults, he spends too much even though in his heart he doesn’t want to, he cuts taxes for the rich and boosts corporations a bit too much, he’s probably not strong enough on the environment, he put America into Iraq unprepared for what would happen there, we’re bursting with red ink and a long-term fiscally untenable situation, so yeah, there are problems. But really, I don’t like this no no no all the time. It’s so disagreeable.

  14. MattS Avatar

    And you’ve got to admit, though he didn’t find Osama bin Laden or destroy Al Qaeda, he really tried hard.

  15. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    Yep, everything is going swimmingly, isn’t it? Too bad that Dean is so… pessimistic.
    Of course, if he changes that attitude next week, he’ll be “reinventing himself.” Probably in “earth tones.”

  16. EB Avatar

    Well the Pickering recess appointment is a little, well, imperialistic, isn’t it? And maybe it is Machiavelian, too.

  17. EB Avatar

    And isn’t the primary season SUPPOSED to be when you duke it out with your opponents? Rallying round the nominee isn’t unitl JUNE, it is January. Everyone wants to short-circuit the procress… let them rumble, may the strongest man win.

  18. finnesota Avatar
    finnesota

    But really, I don’t like this no no no all the time. It’s so disagreeable.
    Oh god. If this is not the height of hypocrisy. Try wearing the other shoe for a second. If your party wasn’t in power you’d be shouting “no-no-no” to the streets. So in your perfect no-less world, the Dems have to take the high road then. I see. They should just wink and nod at everything Bush says and hope for the best. That’s how Bush got elected. He pretty much thought that Clinton/Gore was a solid administration, and he let the world know it through his campaign.

  19. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    finnesota: He was being sarcastic, I think.

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Don’t know who you are, just got this link to you from Slate. But, I like Dean because he will go after Bush and gut him. I think any democratic candidate who does not gut Bush, which is to say destroy the myth of his integrity, will lose the race to Bush.

  21. Ged of Earthsea Avatar
    Ged of Earthsea

    “That’s how Bush got elected. He pretty much thought that Clinton/Gore was a solid administration, and he let the world know it through his campaign.”
    Actually, that’s a pretty good summary of his strategy. Solid administration, too many blow jobs in the Oval Office. Not terribly complicated.
    You can disagree with this if you want, but a good chunk of the electorate was there, so that’s where Bush went. That same chunk is about where Matt S is above – we’re available for Democrats to win over, but you’ve got to show some modicum of sanity…

  22. chris b Avatar

    I have to agree with the analysis that Dean started moving to the center too soon. And I think the reason he has resisted the release of his Vermont papers is that a thorough review of them would reveal a record that is at odds with his currently well-cultivated image as a Bush-hater. This strategy has taken him from being regarded as only slightly more plausible a contender than Kucinich 10 months ago to being a real threat to the Democratic establishment today. Trying to respond substantively to what The New Republic calls his “religion problem” makes sense after the nomination is won, but for now the response should be “the establishment hates me because I’m a threat to their power–and they don’t mind losing general elections as long as they maintain their power in the party and with the aligned interest groups.” This is basically how the Goldwater people finally won in ’64.
    All that said, a Bush-hating message can still capture the nomination. In 1998, Geoffrey Feiger ran against a traditional labor Democrat and a “New” Democrat for Michigan Governor. He won the primary with a message that was one part traditional Democratic rhetoric and three parts “I hate John Engler” (saying things like John Engler is the product of miscegenation between people and barnyard animals).
    I know all the examples I’ve cited of winning the primary also produced general election disasters, but for people who are deemed to have no chance within their party sometimes it’s better to get the nomination any way you can and hope some lightning strike lucky break in your favor occurs before the election.

  23. ordi Avatar

    I think the Democratic strategy was to have ALL 9 Dem candidates go after Bush and not each other. They all agreed because they wanted to lower Bushes poll numbers. Just think back at all the debates! They were all about bashing Bush. It worked for awhile, the capture of Saddam was something they did not figure on. They are now going after each other which is what they should have done from the start. They were fighting as if it was the General election not the nominating process. I wonder who came up with this strategy? The DNC leadership?

  24. Ben Avatar

    Your post is a campaign sticker for Edwards. Positive, charming, southern, a real-life guy who made it from nothing, he has enough brilliance that he doesn’t need all that much experience to win. Of all the candidates, he has been the most positive by far. I can see Kennedy in him, and I think he’ll be our next president.

  25. F. X. Avatar

    A lot of our former Governor talks about in his stump speech is positive, and most of the time in the debates he’s putting forth legitimate policy alternatives that should be very attractive to the great American middle. What is so striking about him, though, is that he is willing to put down the policies and behaviors of the sitting President, and that isn’t what Dem leadership was doing before Howie got rolling. So the punditry can go on all day about negativity and hate, but in the end they will be waxing poetically about St. Howard. Just watch.

  26. Bill Peschel Avatar
    Bill Peschel

    Here’s a factor that’s missing from all these analyses: Before 9/11, Bush went from misstep to misstep that made him vulnerable. Keeping his father’s papers secret, Cheney’s secret meetings with Enron, the parts of the tax cuts that favored the rich, shoot, even Bush v. Gore left a seriously bad taste.
    After 9/11, a lot of people recognized that we were very, very vulnerable, and Bush responded decisively in a way that Reagan, Bush and Clinton did not. A lot of people realized that beyond our borders, a lot of countries did not like the United States. There were countries selling nuclear technology to the highest bidder (Pakistan), countries ruled by paranoiac dictators (North Korea), countries actively working against us while acting like they’re our friends (Germany and France), Arab countries rich in oil wealth and impoverished in freedom that used Israel as a target to keep their leaders in power.
    Bush took them on, revealed the threat, and showed us how much in danger we were.
    In many ways, I’m a democrat and a liberal, and while I clearly understand the effect our decisions affect the economies of other countries, how tariffs on the imports of textiles can hurt manufacturers in Pakistan, and how sending manufacturing offshore to Mexico, China and Southeast Asia can help and hurt the people there, I have to put the security of my country first, and everything else second.
    If a Democratic candidate for president said he would prosecute the war against terror with the same dedication as Bush, but pursue the rest of his party’s agenda, I would vote for him happily, joyously.
    The Democrats attack Bush for his response to 9/11, but they don’t realize that the majority of this country are siding with him, and when they attack him, they’re attacking the majority of this country who believe him, and that’s why the Democrats will lose come November.

  27. chris b Avatar

    Agreed. If Bush is vulnerable, it would come from asking questions like “Why aren’t we being tougher on the Saudis?” or “How about siding more with India as a means of getting Pakistan to really crack down on their Intelligence Service?” Instead, the Dems call Iraq a distraction from the war on terror without ever saying what they’d do to prosecute the war other than to try to get the Brussels crowd to like us more. Except for an occasional jab from Lieberman, getting tougher on the Saudis won’t get debated in depth until the ’08 Republican Presidential primaries because it implicitly puts us on the side of Israel. And that doesn’t go over very well in the faculty lounge.

  28. ronbo Avatar

    Perhaps you should consider yourself fortunate that Clark showed himself to be a Bush-hater this early in the process; i.e., before you decided that he was your guy.
    Kaus calls him a Bush-hating centrist, but how do we even know that he’s a centrist? He seems to take positions so opportunistically as to make Kerry a model of consistency. And he is ludicrously inexperienced.
    I read your posts about what’s wrong with Bush and I agree with much of what you say. But I’d rather have an alternative Bush – less spending, less pandering to the hard right, etc. while strong on terrorism, immigration reform and free trade – than an alternative to him. But I can’t see trusting either our national security or our economy to any of the Democrats (except possibly for the unelectable Lieberman).
    I wish you luck in finding the right Democrat. A strong Democratic alternative makes the country – and the Republicans – better and stronger.