Matt Bai’s piece on Howard Dean is harmfully cynical. He presents a false dilemna: the unelectable liberal voice of rage versus the electable wishy-washy Washington insider. This is a disservice to all candidates, but especially to Howard Dean. If I believed Dean was just another Brown or Kucinich, I would not support him. Dean combines the strenths of both, the liberal protest candidate and the practical centrist, and with none of the baggage.
Bai’s rhetoric must be stopped immediately. If this cynical “political analysis” takes root and becomes the conventional wisdom on Sunday talk shows and editorial pages, no Democrat will be able to win. The nominee will be presented as the “compromise choice,” and the “best they could come up with.” Underlying it all will be the premise the the nominee is not standing up for what he believes in, that he “tricked” his party into the nomination. There will be a suspicion that he has a secret (more liberal) agenda in his back pocket, And given that choice, voters will go with the devil they know.
Matt Bai must be called out. His piece is cynical, demeaning, and insulting–to Dean, to other candidates, to Democrats, and ultimately to all American voters. We will not be sheep led to the slaughter, especially not by someone parading their cynicism as in-depth analysis.
For the life of me, I can’t figure out this "electability" crap. The way the term is used, it seems a candidate’s electability is an a priori given. Dean isn’t perfect, but he’s exciting and–Dog forgive me for writing this–he’s got buzz. Yet despite all that, he is not electable, and this is a given. Nobody I can think of gives a shit about John Edwards and Joe Lieberman is revolting, but the DLC has deemed them electable–or rather has determined their inherent electability. WTF?
We need more on the candidates’ positions and analysis thereof, and less handicapping the race. In fact, I’m thinking of buying a gun, just so I can reach for it the next time someone raises concerns about electability absent any consideration of a candidate’s positions.
Oh, but Curtiss, don’t you know that their positions solely derive from their power-mad political machinations? You, sir, have not had your daily dose of pundit.
Egad, you’re right. That must account for my ideological irregularity. And here I thought I just needed more amoral fibre in my intellectual diet (saomeone told me Carl Schmitt might be philosophical equivalent of Metamucil…)
A pundit a day keeps the thought police away…
Dean and Electability
There’s a lot of smart commentary on John Judis’ Salon piece about Howard Dean in the Salon letters section. Two points were especially good. Javier Morillo-Alicea explains that many Dean supporters realize he’s not as far left as they are, but his pol…