Unity

With the ascension of Howard Dean to the chairmanship of the DNC, the Democratic Party is at a crossroads. The anti-Dean establishment is outraged, and their shrill complaints are losing coherence. They’re taking swipes at the liberals in the party by throwing Dean’s centrist views in their face. Before he was elected, the anti-Deans were shouting their protests against a “Northeastern liberal” candidate. Howard Dean is a Washington outsider, yet he breaks bread with insiders and wealthy donors. Howard Dean will not have as much influence over the Party as Senate minority leader Harry Ried. These acolytes of the old regime know only how to attack, and their attacks never end.

I debunked a lot of the Howard Dean criticism in this column well before the DNC voted to make him their leader. I feel that I must recap.

We all knew that Howard Dean was a moderate. He never fit the profile of a liberal. The anti-Deans believe that Howard Dean’s victory is fueled by the “liberal” wing of the party, so they hope to deflate his support by separating Dean from the liberals. They miss the point. There were many moderates who supported Howard Dean, so spotlighting Dean’s centrist positions is encouraging rather than discouraging. It is also completely irrelevant. Dean does not represent Liberal vs. Moderate. He represents strong vs. weak. It’s not centrism that Dean’s supporters want to overthrow; it is the wishy-washy culture of defeatism that has dominated the Democratic leadership. There is a core of Democrats who know what it means to be a Democrat, but the rest of the country has no idea what we believe. Too many demographics have been given up as lost to the Republicans. We are not shy about what we believe, and we understand that the hostility against Democrats is due more to the perception of weakness than to our actual positions. So we have a leader who has a spine. So much the better.

Howard Dean represents a new flow of money from small donors who believe in the cause of the Democratic Party. Howard Dean is a Washington outsider. So why does Dean still court the old establishment and the old money? The anti-Deans try to use this as a weapon to make Dean’s supporters feel that they’ve been duped. “Dean is the establishment!” they say. Again, they miss the point. Howard Dean wants to rebuild the Democratic Party, not tear it down. He represents new money, not the end of the old money. As the new organizational network is created, we know that the old players must continue to play a part. But we also know that we need more than the same old failed solutions.

Democratic legislators will have more power than Howard Dean. Great! That’s the way it’s supposed to be. The DNC chair is not a policy position. His function is to be a fund raiser and an organizer. We decide policy. He helps us elect Democrats who will carry out that policy. So desperate are the anti-Deans to divide the pro-Dean faction that they’re willing to tear the party apart in the process. In doing so, they’re only hurting themselves and making Howard Dean more powerful.

Unity is the order of the day. Before we can regain power, we must unify. In the old days, the tactics used against Howard Dean and his supporters would have been acceptable. Gaining political power by attacking opponents and playing them off of each other is good old fashioned political strategy. But that was the Old Testament. The consultants and old establishment have strategized themselves right out of power. So astute were their political skills that they lost the presidency twice, and handed all three branches of government over to the enemy. When the going got tough, they circled the wagons and fired inward.

This is the New Testament. Democratic leaders who use the old divisive tactics will quickly find themselves without an audience. In Oklahoma, our party chair was attacked by the old establishment for his support of Howard Dean. This was a mistake. If they are not feeling the heat yet, they soon will be. Dividing the Party is no longer acceptable—no matter what the cause.

It sounds like a semantic riddle, doesn’t it? I’m criticizing the dividers in the Party, but it sounds like I’m trying to divide the Party between the dividers and the uniters. Before it gets too confusing, let me clarify. I do not want Brad Henry on Debbe Leftwich thrown out of the Democratic Party. When I read a nasty comment that one Democrat writes about another, I do not think “let’s get rid of him.” I want to be completely clear: I still want the old establishment to remain in the Party! I do not, however, want them in positions of power. They haven’t figured out the new unity yet, and until they do they could derail the new momentum we have created. We will fight in the upcoming elections, and we will win, and after that maybe they will get it. I will continually extend my hand in friendship to any person or group who will leave divisive tactics behind. I don’t want to cut these people out; I want to bring them in.

What does the “new unity” mean? It means that we no longer settle disputes between Democrats in public. Disagreement is normal and healthy. We’re not going to agree on everything, nor should we. Too much energy, however, is wasted on attacking our own side. Within the new Democratic network, we need a method of privately communicating between each other and resolving disputes. Until we are better organized, a Democrat who has a disagreement with another Democrat should talk to that person directly. It is not a discussion for the newspapers.

It also means that we expect our leaders to lead. Leaders don’t try to divide the team. I know that Howard Dean doesn’t agree with everything I believe. I also know that he will sometimes use tactics that I would not prefer. But we elected him to lead, and I expect him to do so. I expect Governor Brad Henry to lead, not to attack the ODP chairman. I expect Senator Harry Reid to lead in the Senate, and Congresswoman Pelosi to lead in the House of Representatives. Sometimes we think that we don’t like politicians to pander, until the politician fails to pander to our group. If they must pander, pander this (pun intended): we want leaders with backbone. We want leaders who are proud to be Democrats, and who will make us proud, too. After we regain power, we can quibble over which group is owed what.

On to victory.

© 2005 Bryan Lower

Feedback: