My theory about the Dean phenomenon...

[republicansareevil]

Dean has undergone an interesting transformation. Before his campaign really got started, he was seen as a moderate. As he gained more exposure, he started being identified as a liberal. Why did this happen? There are some who claim that Dean "misrepresented" himself in order to win support from liberal Democrats. But I'm not so sure that's the case.

I think Dean's supporters include a lot of people who are deeply dissatisfied with the way things in this country are going. These people are frustrated and angry, and they feel betrayed by their party. Kerry's "crying in our teacups" comment is the sort of attitude that turned off a lot of these people. (I don't want to get into a debate over what Kerry meant or whether the advice was sound -- I'm only pointing out the effect I think it had on a lot of Democrats.)

Dean didn't create the movement behind him; he simply seized it and "rode the wave." These people were waiting for someone, anyone, to take them seriously, to listen to what they had to say, to mirror their feelings over a string of outrages we've had to endure, to show some fighting spirit. And Dean was the candidate who did that. I don't think it mattered that Dean was a moderate.

I don't even necessarily think that most Dean supporters are extremely liberal themselves. I think that is the way the media has chosen to portray them, but I'm not so sure it's a reflection of reality. It goes along with the current media fad of "Bush-haters," and of course anyone who feel so strongly about Bush must be some sort of radical left-winger, they theorize. But I think Dean's support comes from a lot of middle-class, middle-aged, middle-everything Americans.

I think the media, after creating a fictional image of Dean's supporters, then projected that image onto Dean himself. No matter how much the image doesn't work, they won't give up trying to apply it to Dean. If Dean's supporters are angry, that means Dean is angry. And instead of a meaningful anger about where this country is going, it's simply a character defect in Dean's temperament -- he has a short fuse, they like to claim.

It also explains why there's not as much overlap between the Dean and Kucinich camps as some people think there is. I see a distinct difference between the two groups in terms of where they fall on the political spectrum and also in terms of idealism vs. realism. In fact, I think there's probably more similarity between the Dean and Clark camps than between the Dean and Kucinich camps, and I still believe it was a big mistake for Dean and Clark not to team up from the beginning.

I'd like to hear what others think of this theory.

[w4rma]

1. We want a fighter. Dean stood up and fought when the other guys were

acting like wimps. I am a progressive Democrat, but I would rather have an openly moderate fighter than a closeted liberal wimp any day.

Now that it is "cool" to be a Democratic fighter. The other guys are acting the part, too.

Voters have short memories and Dean is not the only fighter in the Democratic primary any more.

That is my take.

[papau]

2. Agree - a truth teller was missing until Dean - gave the party a spine

:-)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. Dean was never the only fighter

but he certainly had all the press.

[w4rma]

6. At that point, Kucinich was the only other fighter, IMHO.

But he is a poor campaigner. Good and honorable guy, but he's no Howard Dean or Bill Clinton in that respect.

[BL_Zebub]

13. Who else was fighting then?

As a long term observer of mortal politics, I didn't see much resistance from your party in the last three years to the Bush agenda. And that includes Kerry & Edwards as well as the now departed Gephardt & Lieberman. It's almost as if your party machine now wishes to reward these guys for NOT doing their job for the last three years. And if it's that obvious to me all the way down here in Hell, then I'm puzzled as to why more of you cannot see it.

[sybylla]

15. Welcome, BL!

And nice point. It's something that has had me puzzled as well. Makes me wonder when we have spent the last three years bitching in these forums about the DLC influence in the party, the swing to the center, the spinelessness of Dems if anyone has been paying attention.

[Merlin]

16. You're right, of course. But there's a good reason: ELECTABILITY.

Howard is a damn good man. But he's neither sufficiently bland nor enough of a demagogue to have national appeal.

[EXE619K]

4. Good analysis.

I think Dean attracts a lot of Independents and the "disenfranchised wing" of not just the Democrats and Republicans, but the "disenfranchised wing" of the general society.

That might explain his strong support from the Greens and other Indys like meself, who's sick of the two-party "same old" message.

Socially liberal, Fiscally conservative pragmatism is something that drew me to his campaign(not to mention a fresh face in politics).

For example in 2000, I worked for Bradley and McCain camps and whenever I attend Dean meet-ups and campaign meetings, I get that same feel because the people in the campaign are very different from the others.

I loved McCain and his ability to stand up to his own party and their misguided ways.

In my opinion, Dean is like McCain 2.0 for me because he is drastically more liberal in social issues than McCain...therefore, a perfect choice for president.

But, that's just my preference and of course...my opinion.

[chocolateeater]

5. That about sizes it up for me too.

Thank you for posting that.

[Armstead]

7. I agree with you

Dean is not the flaming wild-eyed liberal he is portrayed as....And I don't see him as having changed his stripes to capitalize on that image either.

I think he is what he is -- a moderate who is frustrated and angry (yes) at how distorted the system has become. And angry at how the Democrats have gone along with it. And forthright enough to actually say it out loud.

I would call him a moderate rather than a centrist, though. The difference is that I think he really has evolved by listening to the liberal and progresive "base" and recognizing that the DLC vanilla path is a road to oblivion for the Democratic Party. It is also destructive to the nation, by pushing things so far to the right.

I'd agree that Dean's supporters are less ideologicaly progressive than Kucinich's core supporters. But I believe a lot of them have a similar perspective that I do. I agree with Kucinich, but Dean is a step in the direction Kucinich is pointing to, and Dean is more of a "package" that mainstream voters could relate to.

I also think Dean's "implosion" is solely the result of media manipulation, mis-labeling by his opponents and the timid natire of politics today.

The fact that a responsile, mainstream straightforwatd moderate liberal like Dean has been labeled as a "crackpot leftist" is sorry proof that democracy really on the ropes in this nation.

[On the Road]

8. The "Take Back the Country" Theme

was in my mind just as important as Iraq. There is a whole segment of the base that felt abandoned by the national party and their representatives in DC.

I think the media, after creating a fictional image of Dean's supporters, then projected that image onto Dean himself. No matter how much the image doesn't work, they won't give up trying to apply it to Dean.

On this issue, I think it's a measure of how little most reporters understood the basis for the anger. Dean is an even-tempered person who was angry at Bush for some very specific things.

Most reporters must just accept the party line that everything's normal, nothing's out of the ordinary. So anyone who complains just has a bad temperament. At least that's the subtext that has to be preserved.

[BurtWorm]

9. I think your theory is right on the money.

What I was looking for in a candidate is someone who demonstrated he saw what I saw and is as outraged as I am. I was not looking for an idealist or ideologue, because I think ideology has been the left's weak point, politically, while being its strong point philosophically, since the 1960s. (I mean simply that leftist ideology tends not get Americans en masse into the voting booths.) I was actually looking for someone grounded in reality, who saw what was going on and who wasn't afraid of saying it. I think a lot of people who were outraged by the impeachment and "election" 2000 were looking for the same kind of candidate, and truth-telling Howard Dean fit the bill.

[sybylla]

10. I think you have a pretty decent understanding of the situation.

Though I would certainly be considered liberal enough to vote for Kucinich, I have other issues with him. But I whole-heartedly support Dr. Dean for exactly the reasons you mentioned.

I see one major problem with the political system we currently have; campaign financing and the power of corporations. And that doesn't just happen in a vacuum. Both parties play a major role in giving the corporations power to begin with.

I very much want to take my party back from the puppets in control. It has been in the hands of a powerful few who could care less what happens at the grassroots level for too long. I suppose that makes me sound like a Green but I'm not and won't be in the forseeable future. But a populist candidate is what we need to shake things up both in Washington and within the party itself. Even if Howard Dean doesn't win the nomination, the party will no longer be able to carelessly turn its back on the grassroots. We will have made a statement. Heck, even John Kerry realizes that or he wouldn't be stealing gems from the stump speeches of Dean and Clark.

[goodhue]

11. interesting theory

I continue to believe Dean with media complicity was consistently misrepresented as a liberal maverick last spring when building his "movement."

I think you are quite right to note that lack of Dean / Kucinich overlap. Some who paid close attention aligned with Kucinich early. Many Dean supporters and others bought into subsequent media image of Dean as maverick challenging establishment and as DK as a no-hoper. Many such folks continue to believe these media distortions even as they wring their hands over how their guy has subsequently been ignored or treated unfairly. Live by the media, die by the media.

[liberalmike27]

12. A lot

A lot of what you say is true, we, an impassioned group of people who've felt the Democrats have ignored the left, did find support in Dean. I don't know about the middle-everything part.

I do agree about the whole campaign being portrayed as some youthful folly by the media. It serves as another way of trashing Dean, like saying "Ah, there just abunch of kids on their computers, what do they know." In truth, my meet up group in Mobile, AL is composed of mostly people from 35-60, and we have very few young folks. For that matter, the youngsters we did have didn't show up this last week. Gone to Kerry? I don't know, but I suspect the old-folks everywhere are the ones who stuck by him, as the young have been more influenced by this one-sided media than any of us, who've had media-experience before the "fairness doctrine" was repealed by Reagan.

I don't think Dean is as liberal as Kucinich either, nor are his supporters. We realize it is his honesty about the issues that appeals to us, not this idea of him being liberal. That being said, Dennis's most similar candidate is Dean, and if he were to withdraw, most likely his voters would go straight to Dean. He should think about doing so, but I stand by his right to stay, and I like the fact that he brings the message of the truly left-most to the stage.

I've thought for some time that Clark entering the race, and totally adopting Dean's message to the "T" was a ploy of sorts to split the anti-war vote. It worked, another small portion of votes sipped away from Dean. On the upside there, he took a lot of Lieberman's votes too, which I could never quite figure out. If Clark had just bided his time, and waited for the VP slot, that would have been just another small impediment out of Dean's way. Of course, the media would still be attacking him with unfair fury.

It is a myth that Dean is angry, or that he was angry in that supposed scream speech. Once again, the media understanding the sheeple nature of our country's population, and how easily they can take it from empassioned, to angry, wild-man on the nuclear-button. We all owe it to our country to realize the corporate media doesn't just report the news, but they are trying to influence the minds of America to the candidate they will find most malleable.

Our ministry of propaganda would put Hitler's to shame. One has only to watch the media from Europe, or Canada to find many issues discussed that don't find the light of day on the America's corporate mouthpieces, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, FOX, and any I might have missed.

[Ripley]

14. I would have to agree with that as well as the Dean/Clark ticket.

Too bad we'll never have a chance to see if that would work...DLC along with their unwitting cohorts in the corporate media have made sure of that.

I think Americans will get exactly what they deserve in 2004. No matter how much anger they have the system is broken and Kerry will not be able to win votes in the south (insulted them), the Gore supporters (crying in their teacups), Dean supporters, Greens, the huge anti-war movement (altho he thinks he can because after all he threw his ribbons on the fence...blah blah blah...ancient history pal) and god knows a million other reasons, not least of which is the fact that the man is the most boring candidate outside of Bob Dole.

I'll probably write in Dean, but I'm in the deep south where it never matters anyway.

[vi5]

17. I'll try as a non-Dean supporter to tread lightly here....

But in the interest of attempted civil debate, here are where my issues came in.

I think Dean is a moderate and has a moderate record. But when he started using the "democratic wing of the democratic party" line, that to me was just as much of a code for "liberal" as anything could possibly be. I'm sorry but if you use Paul Wellstone's line to identify yourself, that means you are trying to say you are liberal. Which is fine. I am a liberal too. However, you can't complain when the media and other Democrats then paint you as liberal.

Also, I noticed and made mention of my concerne way before the media took hold of Dean, that he seemed to me to be very angry and focusing in on that anger. The response from most of the Dean supporters wasn't "He's not angry!!" it was "Of course he's angry! He has a right to be angry. We are all angry". Again, that's great but then when other democrats and the media describe him as angry, you can't complain about it when it was this anger that you were touting in a positive way previously.

I have no doubt that the media has an impact and that it can in fact magnify things. But we know this. We all know this and therefore need to keep ourselves aware of it.

So while the media plays their part, to make it out like they just pulled this stuff out of thin air with no basis in fact is more than a bit disingenuous stuff and seeing people who less than a year ago were touting the very things that they are now complaining about the media focusing on gets very little sympathy from me.

[republicansareevil]

19. you may have a point about that one line..

...but as far as the "anger" thing goes, my complaint is that the media took a "political" anger and portrayed it as "personal" anger and a character flaw -- insinuating that Dean was unstable or short-fused. That's a very different thing from outrage about the direction of the country.

[dansolo]

20. That is because you misunderstand Paul Wellstone's line

Paul Wellstone was *NOT* talking about being progressive when he stated that he was from the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party". I am getting sick of people repeating that lie. Paul Wellstone was specifically referring to the influence of money in the political process, which has been the cornerstone of Dean's campaign from day one.

[vi5]

21. Be that as it may......

Then he should have been more clear on it. I had heard Wellstone use that line and he never added the caveat "financially" or "but I'm only talking about big money". And Dean didn't either any time I heard him use it.

Again, I'm just giving you one man's impression and clearly that impression carried over to a lot more people than just me. And it had nothing to do with the media. I have heard Wellstone use that line. I heard Dean use that line. Whatever their underlying context or deconstruction, I'm sorry but the message was rather clear to me.

[Merlin]

18. This is an excellent thread. Many terrific comments.

Thanks to everybody, and a special thanks to republicansareevil for a very perceptive analysis.

In my view, Howard was portrayed actually fairly accurately by the media heavies, not as angry so much as naive. I love the guy, and his message. But there was always a sense that he was telling way too much truth to be broadly accepted. And that turned out to be accurate.

I don't think anybody sabotaged Howard. He had a built-in flaw from the beginning of incorporating unpresidential shouting into every one of his speeches ("YOU HAVE THE POWER! YOU HAVE THE POWER! YOU HAVE THE POWER!"). He was always over the top with this.

But there are some important redeeming factors:
-- He will still be around in '08 and '12, and will be forgiven by then.
-- He is a great man who has played an historic role in reawakening not simply his party, but the conscience of a nation.