Why So Sure About Dean?
By Tom Geraghty, Nov 14, 2003
From: Tom Geraghty [mailto:t-geraghty@unc.edu]
To: editors@mikehersh.com
Subject: Why So
Sure About Dean?
Hello,
You write:
"Dean hopes to re-unite middle class and working families against the greedy elites into a new New Deal Coalition. . . . bringing us into the 21st Century with universal health care, access to high quality education for all Americans, investment in our people, millions of good new jobs, strong protections for the environment, workers and consumers, with equality, fairness and justice for women, minorities, GLBT people -- all of us. . . ."
I agree that most Americans want these things, and as a liberal I certainly do want them. I also agree that Dean has been innovative in terms of message and in terms of political organizing. I'm not so convinced that he has the program or a real commitment to do these things.
I mean, Bill Clinton probably favors all of those things too, but he did precious little on health care, education, strengthening labor unions, assuring fair trade, or reducing economic and social inequalities.
Given that Dean spent much of his governorship bashing so-called "big liberals," and given that his major domestic policy proposal is balancing the budget (and that, even if elected, he will probably face a hard-right Republican congress), what makes you think that Dean can or will pull off this "new New Deal"?
I hope you guys are right about him, but I'm not yet convinced . . .
-- Tom Geraghty
Carrboro, NC
The editors reply.
You're obviously well-informed and caring, and we're very glad you wrote to us. We hope to help convince you, but we expect you're skeptical and won't just take our word for anything. So we ask you to do your own research, and trust you to keep watching, listening and thinking with an open mind.
Although we don't accept your premise that "Dean spent much of his governorship bashing so-called 'big liberals' [or] that his major domestic policy proposal is balancing the budget...." still, you ask a very important question: How can we be sure about Dean?
Leaving aside that the Clinton years look pretty damn good contrasted against Bush, and while you're correct Clinton didn't do enough on some issues, he sure as hell accomplished a lot for health care and closing economic and social gaps, including Family Medical Leave, CHIPs, lowered unemployment, record high wages and home ownership and much more.
But all that doesn't answer your question which is more about Dean than Clinton. We will list a few highlights from the Clinton years at the end of this article, but for now let's focus on Dean and answer you directly.
First, why do we think Dean can do even better than Clinton? Because it's not just about Dean, it's about the tenor and tone of the times. We see the center-left coming together more than they have in a generation or more. As always, we hear many voices in a rough and ragged chorus, but coming close enough to harmony on the main verses.
New national players like George Soros and Peter Lewis - two billionaires who have donated $millions to oust Bush from power - join with veterans like People for the American Way, the NAACP, the unions and many more. But it's not just big groups and a few people with deep pockets.
Mass on-line and real-life movements like MoveOn, MeetUp, and ANSWER take to the net and the streets regularly, rallying support and coming together with strong purpose. Howard Dean alone among national political figures "gets it." This is important, because like FDR Dean will have to mobilize support and lead decisively. Dean can do this. We don't think the other candidates can.
You credit Dean correctly for his "innovative ... message and ... political organizing," but we think you underestimate the quality of Dean's program and his "real commitment" to achieving it. We may disagree as to details, but the big picture is important and with all due respect we think you got that flat wrong.
We agree with you and it's pretty obvious that Dean believes sound fiscal policy is the only way to a sound economy. He argues that social programs go on the chopping block first when budget axe falls. He says that happens after orgies of unwise overspending deplete the treasury, and signal to most voters that they can't trust the far-left or the far-right with their money.
Dean invested the people's money wisely in Vermont and when that paid huge dividends year after year, the Vermont voters kept re-electing Dean. History indicates Dean's views would translate nationwide. We don't think we can deny that sensible budgetary policy fosters economic vitality that produces good jobs and can fund the social programs we need.
To protect key programs, Dean had to defy some on the left, although the failure of single-payer indicates they probably lacked the muscle to push through their full wish list anyway. Dean didn't indulge the reckless spending some on the pseudo-left demanded, and because of his vision Vermont avoided the draconian service cuts and chaos plaguing almost every other state.
We're sure some on the far or pseudo left resented his defiance and bluntness, but that hardly means "Dean spent much of his governorship bashing so-called 'big liberals'...." Dean spent his governorship making tough choices and winning a record five times in a row. We don't think Vermont voters are stupid or foolish. We believe this proves Dean is a strong, worthy leader.
We also believe it's not "given that his major domestic policy proposal is balancing the budget." To Dean, a balanced budget is a means to an end, not an end unto itself. In fact, Dean's main domestic objective as a candidate for President - as it was in Vermont - has remained health care. Check the record.
As governor, Dean pushed for "single payer" health coverage, but the "big liberals" in the legislature couldn't muster the votes needed to pass Dean's proposal. Dean pragmatically shifted gears and secured as close to universal health coverage as he could get through the legislature. Like all good leaders, Dean delivered the best outcome possible under the circumstances. Dean didn't fail the "big liberals."
It's not "Given Dean spent much of his governorship bashing so-called 'big liberals'...." We've seen that charge repeatedly from some on the pseudo-left anti-Democratic fringe - the counterproductive CounterPunch most of all. We consider that an egregious exaggeration at best, and scurrilous in the main. The facts just don't support it.
On his centerpiece proposal, "big liberals" failed Dean. So please excuse us if we think "big liberals" blaming Dean for their failure is unfair and inaccurate. Still, watching Dean, We understand how this became so heated. In Vermont, Dean used to say "You've got your nuts on the left, your nuts on the right, and you've got me." Of course some people took umbrage at that, and at first we wondered about it. Was it too harsh?
We understood Dean wasn't "bashing" after reading hysterical, dishonest attacks against him from cranks like Michael Colby - a self-styled liberal who called Paul Wellstone a corporate shill and sell-out, and who wrote publicly that George W. Bush would be better for the planet than a President Al Gore. To us, that's just crazy talk. Dean upset unrealistic, extreme people on the far right and pseudo-left and when they bashed him he laughed them off as "nuts." That's vintage Dean: blunt but apt.
Still, this is more than just Howard Dean. He is not writing the concerto, but he listens to what the people want and then he waves a mean baton. We have no illusions about Dean or any single woman or man as a messiah or panacea. However, we think he can win and clean house. Clinton made a big mistake letting Reagan/Bush era people stick around. People like Tripp and Freeh who brought us Waco and allowed Hansen to continue selling secrets while unleashing the Monica "scandal" and other Fakegates.
We think Clinton's tragic flaw - that he wants everyone to love him - prevented him from taking on the right wing directly and undertaking the tough but necessary Senate and House cleaning. He didn't even do a good job of White House cleaning. We need to clean up Bush's mess and cast the extreme right wingers out of power.
Bush set the precedent for even a fake president leading a partisan attacks from coast to coast. Bush unleashed his right wing wrath against moderate and conservative Democrats like Max Cleland despite their support for most of Bush's agenda.
In complete departure from honor and dignity into disgusting dirty-tricks politics, the Republicans and Bush attacked this Vietnam hero who lost three limbs as unpatriotic - even likening him to Saddam and Osama. This because he differed on details about the Homeland Security Act Bush himself had adamantly opposed mere months before. Other Democrats who supported Bush in Congress suffered similar fates.
This is more of the same trend established in the McCarthy era during the 1950s. The Republican National Committee under Bush's father aided and abetted Nixon's racist "Southern Strategy" and illegal dirty tricks in the 1960s and 1970s. This perfidy persisted as Republicans under Reagan and Bush used race as a "wedge issue" to divide poor and working Americans and engaged in clearly illegal and possibly treasonous secret dealings with drug dealers, terrorists and other national enemies throughout the 1980s.
In the 1990s, the Republicans openly waged unrelenting partisan war against duly elected President Clinton and then rang in the new millennium ruthlessly exploited racism and right wing power from the Florida state government to the US Supreme Court shamelessly, illegally cheating their way into the White House.
Democrats and independents should never sink to these sewer-slime depths in which right wingers thrive, but we cannot remain unilaterally disarmed in this partisan showdown. This half-century of unconscionable right wing abuses require a powerful response. We need a tough Democrat in the mold of FDR to take aim at the extremists in Congress and the corporate world. We need to confront, not indulge, the "nuts on the right."
We need a leader willing and able to battle and beat the extremists who consistently put partisanship and elite special interests over the national interest. We need a new direction as a nation, a return to fundamental sense and ethics. That means we need leadership more concerned with progress than with press clipping. We need people who are strong enough to fight for policies America needs, no matter what the elite special interests want.
Dean is willing and able to do what needs to be done to get us back on track without worrying about the media and GOP hypocritical screaming about it. His power base is uniquely populist - 100,000s of small-time contributors who want their country back. He can't do it alone, but he alone among the Democratic contenders has promised to take the fight to all regions of the country, to shine a light on the right wingers who claim the flag belongs only to them, and send Tom DeLay and his radical right wing Republican bullies scurrying away like cockroaches.
Tough? Yes. Over the top? Maybe. But also what looks to us like our only hope for better health care and education, stronger labor unions, fair trade and reducing economic and social inequalities. Dean did that in Vermont and the SEIU / AFSCME endorsements show these mighty unions think he can do it for America.
Are We 100% sure Dean will live up to all these admittedly lofty expectations? No. We can't promise success. No one can. So why are we so sure about Dean? Because we're sure he has the talent and drive to succeed. We're 100% sure he'll try harder than anyone else to do the tough job ahead and shake off criticism. We want to give him a chance.
President Clinton's Record of Accomplishment
Eight Great Years Closing Social and Economic Equity Gaps
15 million working families enjoyed tax relief under President Clinton's expanded Earned Income Tax Credit. Thanks to Clinton, the EITC lifted 4.3 million people out of poverty in 1998 alone.
1.5 million children benefited when Clinton more than doubled federal funding for child care.
President Clinton signed a bad "welfare reform" bill in 1996, but Clinton vetoed worse bill twice, winning concessions each time including - increased child care funding (by $4 billion), worker retraining, extensions for benefits, exceptions for "hard cases" and more.
Clinton increased funding for the Head Start program by 90 percent in FY 2000 so 880,000 children had a better chance to learn and grow.
Clinton forced the minimum wage up from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour and demanded an increase to $6.15.
Clinton's Workforce Investment Act reformed the nation's employment and training system.
Clinton's AmeriCorps gave 150,000 young the opportunity to serve in their communities while earning money for college or skills training.
President Clinton's One America initiatives challenged us to respect others' differences and embrace the common values that unite us. "[T]o close the opportunity gaps that exist for minorities and the underserved in this country."
The poverty rate fell from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 1998. That's the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1965-1970).
The African-American poverty rate dropped from 33.1 percent in 1993 to 26.1 percent in 1998 -- the lowest level ever recorded and the largest five-year drop in African-American poverty in more than a quarter century (1967-1972).
The poverty rate for Hispanics fell to the lowest level since 1979, and dropped to 25.6 percent in 1998.
African-American unemployment fell from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in March 2000 -- the lowest rate on record.
The unemployment rate for Hispanics fell from 11.6 percent in 1992 to 6.3 percent in March 2000 -- and in the last year has been at the lowest rate on record.
For women the unemployment rate was 4.3 percent in March 2000, nearly the lowest since 1953 [when few women sought employment outside the home].
In 1999, the homeownership rate was 66.8 percent -- the highest ever recorded. Minority homeownership rates were also the highest ever recorded.
Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, child poverty declined from 22.7 percent in 1993 to 18.9 percent in 1998 -- the biggest five-year drop in nearly 30 years.
The poverty rate for African-American children fell from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 36.7 percent in 1998 -- the lowest level in 20 years and the biggest five-year drop on record.
The rate also fell for Hispanic children, from 36.8 percent to 34.4 percent - and is now 6.5 percentage points lower than it was in 1993.
If elected, Howard Dean can build on these Clinton accomplishments, many achieved over strong right wing opposition in Congress. If Dean can sweep into office with just a few more Democrats in the House and Senate, he can do even better.
Sources for Clinton's record:
Never send a Bush to do a President's job
Shame On You, President Clinton!
© Copyright 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 by MikeHersh.com and identified authors. MikeHersh.com invites you to broadcast any material at this site, provided you identify the source as MikeHersh.com. All print, Internet, email and other summaries, excerpts or other written reproductions must include this blurb and a link to http://www.MikeHersh.com.