Running scared

This is the latest in a series of attacks on Howard Dean coming from the Republican Party. Now, I know that Dean is perceived by many as an outsider and a liberal and that this is most dangerous to conservative and centrist Democrats who are afraid that having the entire party tagged "liberal" will be their downfall. Thus, I would expect such reactions from them (and they're out there).

But so far it mostly seems to be conservatives lashing out. Here, Newt Gingrich says, "I think if (Democrats) have a true death wish, he'd be the perfect guy to go with." Here's a story from Newsmax (via The Conservative Voice) that talks about a Democratic "Civil War" brewing between Clintonite moderates and Kennedy/Deaniac freaks. (Ironically, I suspect I could find stories denouncing "Hillarycare" as socialism on those sites if I tried.) Here's a story about conservative students at Dartmouth mourning the death of the Democrats after they selected Dean.

What's that I smell? Is it... could it be... fear? After the vitriol from many considerably conservative politicians and pundits following this past election, it seemed they felt their marginal gains (albeit on every level of the federal government) was some sort of tectonic shift in the course of the country, a slap on the back for them to keep doing what they're doing and as much of it as they can. They seemed to forget that the politicians with the most widespread appeal -- Schwartzenegger, Giuliani, and McCain for example -- are moderate on a lot of issues. (Hell, McCain's so liberal on campaign finance he puts most Democrats to shame.)

Though I believe otherwise, it could turn out to be true that backing a perceived liberal -- and a guy so passionate about politics that he once *gasp!* yelled with joy in public -- will somehow drive the Democrats into obscurity. It might just be that this country is becoming more conservative, though I doubt it, and that liberal Democrats are making a last stand of sorts.

If so, then why isn't the conservative nation just smiling while the watch the left burn itself alive? Certainly there's an air of smugness in their comments, but more telling is their volume. It strikes me that underneath the facade of "concern" over the fate of the opposition party lies a concern about their own. Nobody knows how a guy who enthusiastically disagreed over starting the Iraq war would have fared head-to-head with Bush compared to the relatively moderate guy who got tagged a liberal anyway, and a flip-flopper, and still almost won the presidency.

But if I were a Democrat -- and I may be again someday -- and I were thinking purely in terms of strategy, I'd be curious to try regrasping the party's liberal roots was the way to regain power now. Democrats are still faring well on the local level. The most vocal Democratic antiwar legislators -- Kucinich and Feingold come to mind -- won in states that went for Bush by large margins. Starting with the 1998 Congressional elections, Republican victories have been populist in appeal, attaching their message to a common American morality predating (but picking up speed with) the Clinton impeachment. The Democratic response has by and large been capitulation. In recent years, the overwhelming war resolution support, overwhelming Patriot Act (and its Clinton precursor) support, watering down of Medicare prescription benefits, and overwhelming support of Bush judicial nominations lead one to believe that Democrats are not digging in on very important national issues.

So what's left? Moving to the center isn't working. Staying put isn't working. Is it time yet to try moving a tad to the left on a couple of issues? I have no great love for Dean, but he's probably the smart move for Democrats and more to the point, he probably better represents their moral compass right now than either Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and any other so-called leaders the Democrats selected based on what they guessed the rest of the country would accept.