Howard Dean & Ken Mehlman: A Study In Contrasts

There is a mile wide difference between the DNC and RNC party heads. Not only in style, but message as well. While RNC head Mehlman, comes across as cautious in his statements, he is essentially a spokesman for the Bush White House agenda, and hardly the party leader for a "big tent" vision of republicanism. And Mehlman acts as cheerleader for a shopping list of absurd positions on Social Security privatization, exporting more jobs to Central America under the new CAFTA treaty, limiting lawsuits under "Tort" reform, the continued carnage in Iraq, all seem like insurmountablely silly positions to defend. Yet, by contrast, so far the democratic strategy seems to volunteer little in new ideas, but rather to allow the republicans to over expose themselves on a number of unpopular positions. Not the best strategy in my opinion. If some views are intellectually bankrupt, you offer more credible alternatives to build public support and more democratic party registrations and party volunteers.

And while Mehlman is more soft spoken, Howard Dean sometimes voices loudly partisan with statements that may ignite his core base, but probably play far less well with many independent voters, swing voters, and republicans who tend to ticket split. It is just these sort of voters who elected LBJ, Carter and Clinton. It is also these voters that Clinton's moderate oriented Democratic Leadership Council hoped to woo, and successfully did in both 1992 and 1996. Yet to alienate any in these potential voter groups seems less than wise strategy. In the Sunday talk programs, whether from the more conservative FOX or the devil's advocate Meet The Press with Tim Russert, some of Dean's comments are not only discussion, but becoming his most public perceptions. This has to tone down very quickly. It alienates moderate voters, and does little to attract new democrats or help the party rebuild it's battered position among the electorate. To ignite a strong base of support is vital to the democrats. But care should be done not to follow the failed McGovern or Goldwater efforts of the past. In both cases, these figures ignited a base of followers, but neither garnered more than 39% of vote in the general election. To McGovernize the party rather than follow the successful formula of Bill Clinton would be a gross strategic error.

Another huge area of difference is in fund raising ability. In the same recent time period, while Dean has helped to attract 20,000 democratic donors for a little more than $14 million dollars, Melhman's far better organization has attracted 68,000 donors for more than $32 million dollars. Yet the ability to harness the Internet was supposed to be the main strength of Howard Dean. In all fairness, Dean has only been on the job for a little more than 100 days, yet the huge organizational disadvantage of the democrats is very clear. To bring his party to parity in national elections, Dean must improve the number of democratic donors as well as promote members of his party to start to articulate some populist positions that start to build a wide coalition of support if the democrats will ever again compete in a true two party system in American elections. Otherwise democrats will be able to elect some state leaders in local elections, but fail to gain the White House, Senate, Congresss or more say in judicial selections for some time. Finances are the "mother's milk" of campaigns, and Mr. Dean must quickly learn how to nearly match the republican's huge advantage in recruiting new members, party workers and very importantly, cash donations to fund the party.

The democrats cannot continue to lose their base in geographic areas such as the South and expect to win national elections. The last three successful democrats, LBJ, Carter and Clinton all had a Southern power base, and won at least some Southern states as well as Ohio. Hillary Clinton, although a former republican when younger, is attempting to appear more centrist in her views to appeal to a larger share of voters than her base of power in more liberal New York. Yet it is unlikely at this point that she could carry even one Southern state. In order to win in the electoral college this is absolutely vital. Florida, Arkansas and Louisiana are the democrat's best bets. But only Florida is even remotely possible among these states. A large voter population of voters concerned about the Bush plans to alter Social Security could be brought back to the democratic fold with some real democratic party effort. These democrats largely supported Al Gore, but abandoned John Kerry. Kerry did better among younger voters, largely due to concerns over Iraq, yet the importance of bringing older voters who have a deep concern over Social Security issues is vital to a winning coalition in Florida, the democrat's only real best bet in the South. The democrats need to rebuild their Florida network of elected officials as well as Southern political organizations between now and 2008. If in 2006, unless more democratic governors and senators can be elected in the South, then the ability for a democratic win for president in 2008 are greatly weakened. And generally if a democrat can win at least some Southern states, then Ohio often pulls along as a critical Northern prize. The same appeal to win in the South for a democrat also appeals in Ohio as well. The democrats must work hard to rebuild a strong organization in this state as well. Ohio is the kingmaker. No democrat or republican can hardly win without this state. It is absolutely vital to both parties. All efforts for democrats to build an organization to win this state are vital. There has to be a large base of disatisfied former factory workers as well as others in this deteriorating manufacturing state. Democrats need plans to make this state competitive with a renewed manufacturing base and a core of loyal union and factory workers.

And in some close loss states such as Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, better democratic organization is greatly needed to bring these states back into the fold in 2008. But republicans are not totally without concerns in some swing states like this. Unless they elect a popular moderate conservative, some swing states may also drift from their fold. The problem is that a moderate conservative like John McCain probably cannot get elected in the current makeup of the republican party. He can start strong with primary wins in New England, such as New Hampshire, but will probably hit a wall when Southern states like South Carolina begin to vote. This is why Bill Frist is working hard to build an organization with the Christian right. These voters did in John McCain in South Carolina, and his campaign never recovered. This right wing will probably never allow John McCain or another moderate conservative to capture the republican party nomination. But on the other hand, so much of the voting public is either conservative or very conservative, that more hard right candidates such as Reagan and the current younger Bush are elected rather than rejected like past hard right conservatives like Barry Goldwater. The right controls the republican party. Democrats need to hold the liberal and the progressive base, but draw back a lion's share of moderate voters to gain any chance of becoming a viable party in future national elections.

A dpressing statisical problem , is that John Kerry did worse than Al Gore in every state except Oregon. John Kerry's improved win in Oregon, was bouyed by a fierce campaign and the nation's 2nd worst unemployment creating an antiBush reaction vote. A keen ear to respond to such local concerns needs to be undertaken in all 50 states, to erode the republican majority, and elect more democrats, even in red states. At one time South Dakota had a solid liberal democratic organization in the days of George McGovern, but this has completely evaporated. And now even Minnesota is getting closer, as republicans chip away there as well. The democrats cannot give away so much strenghth in the MidWest. Wisconsin is now very close, and Iowa was lost in 2004.

Not doubt the draining war in Iraq as well as unpopular views on Social Security will harm republicans more and more as time goes on. Vietnam undid LBJ in the same manner. But some serious rebuilding of their battered party to become nationally competitive once again should be a vital mission of Howard Dean. He can easily become a "George McGovern", a figure popular with a base following, but largely dismissed by most voters unless he succeeds in appearing a moderate and a responsible populist to most voters, not just ignite his activist base. It's very easy for a candidate to ignite a small core base like a McGovern or a Goldwater to ignite strong feelings in their core of voters, but to totally fail with most other voters. The republicans certainly hold many current advantages at this point, although unpopular and absurd issues will poke some holes in their coalition of voters. Whether Dean can bring democrats back from the brink, or they continue down the path that led to the demise of the Whig Party is a huge question.