In the comments to my post from earlier today Ananna asked me, in not quite the same words, what my beef was with Howard Dean and the Deaniacs and why I’ve taken a few swipes at them in the last couple weeks. It’s a fair question, so I thought I’d take some time to answer it. I should note that my views are just mine and that Amp and bean could have entirely different opinions of Dean and his followers, so don’t smear Alas as a whole because of my views. (Incidentally, with apologies to Dave Barry, Howard Dean and the Deaniacs would be a great name for a band.)
Part One: My Problem with Dean
First of all, I should make it clear that Dean would never have been my favorite candidate unless his platform were significantly different, but neither would he have been my last pick. On a policy level Dean is too conservative for my tastes, but he’s not significantly more or less conservative than any of his major rivals in the primary. This lack of attachment on an ideological level means that, to me, the only difference between the major Democratic candidates is their personality and presentation. It’s on this level, the personal, that my problem with Dean originates.
I’ve watched or listened to many, but not all, of the primary debates and I’ve listened to some of Dean’s speeches and watched some of Dean’s interviews and my impression has always been the same: that he’s arrogant and tactless, neither of which is a trait that I think is a good thing for a world leader to have. I feel that I need to make it clear that I don’t think that Dean is “too angry” or the dreaded U-word, “unelectable,” but that he displays traits that I don’t think it’s in the nation’s best interests for the President to have especially at a time when the United States is going to have to work very hard at rebuilding international relationships. To be frank, we already have an arrogant, tactless President and this has not gone well. And no, to state another disclaimer, I don’t think that Dean is Bush-lite or a closet Republican just because I made a comparison between his demeanor and Bush’s demeanor.
So why do I think he’s arrogant and tactless? One, he routinely talks down to members of the press when being interviewed (at least on television, I haven’t noticed this propensity in print). I have the same amount of distaste for the press corps as a lot of people do, but when Dean treats the press poorly it shows he either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care a.) how to deal with people he doesn’t like, or b.) that people are actively developing their relationship to him based on how they see him treating other people, the press being the most common “other people” that the populace will see him interacting with. Since I don’t think that Dean is an idiot (in fact I think he’s quite the opposite) I can’t help but think that he doesn’t care what people think of him, this being the definition of arrogance. Again, this isn’t the attitude I want the President to have when trying to repair the international relations damage that Bush has wrought.
Another way in which I feel that Dean’s arrogance manifests itself is in his speaking style. When giving a speech Dean doesn’t frame his positions or himself in a way that would appeal to someone who doesn’t already agree with him. He gives a laundry list of assertions, apparently assuming that anyone listening agrees with him and already thinks that he should be the President. This plays well to people who see this sort of thing as being confidence, but to others, like myself, it looks as though Dean can’t be bothered to say why his particular take on a policy is better than one of his rivals, or why people who find him too conservative should pick him instead of Clark, Edwards, or Kerry.
One could argue that he accomplishes the task of saying why he’s better than other candidates by way of his attacks on those candidates, but that’s where his tactlessness trips him up. Regardless of how Dean issues an attack (although the rhetorical bludgeon appears to be his weapon of choice), he doesn’t respond well to them, at least not in a debate or interview setting. He tends to sputter, say the equivalent of “Yeah, well…”, and bring back out the bludgeon. He hits back hard, but he does this gracelessly, establishing for himself no moral position from which to critique. If he were able to respond to their attacks with more tact, by which I mean answering the accusation while pointing out his rival’s flaws, he would appear to be making a reasoned stance instead of merely slinging mud because he wants the nomination.
Also, he has a boring name and looks German. (For those of you playing the home game: that was a lame joke.)
Part Two: My Problem with Deaniacs
Ananna wanted to know why I and others had singled out Deaniacs for the object of my ire rather than spreading the dislike to include Clarkies, Kucinicheads, Moseley-Braunites, Sharptonians, and Kerry Kids. I can’t speak for everyone, but for me it comes down to two things: volume, and signal-to-noise ratios. There are a lot of Deaniacs in the blogsphere talking a lot of crap at a very high volume. You don’t see very many Sharpton supporters in the comment threads of message boards saying that anyone who doesn’t support their candidate in the primaries is either a Republican or an idiot. By contrast, I see a lot of Dean supporters (this is not a bad thing) who are saying that people who vote for Kerry or Edwards are simply too stupid to see that by doing so they’re leading this country into a hell of gulags and one minute hates (this is a bad thing). To make it clear, though: a Sharpton supporter or Kucinich supporter or Kerry supporter or Edwards supporter who says the same thing gets me just as irritated as a Dean supporter who says it. Actually, that’s why I stopped reading the comment threads at the Daily Kos; I got tired of the endless “the General can piss further than your Doctor” and “the Doctor eats your candidate for lunch” and “the [General/Doctor] is more electable than your loser” crap that took the place over when Clark announced.
Telling other people that they’re scum because they don’t share your convictions about a candidate is shitty. People disagree. People can honestly make an intelligent judgment based on the evidence available to them that disagrees with judgments you yourself have made. The Deaniacs who understand this are okay with me, and I’m happy to discuss candidates and issues with them. The Deaniacs who don’t understand this, and so posit that Kerry’s only winning because of a Republican/Diebold scheme to re-elect Bush, have none of my respect. I don’t like blind partisanship and there seems to be a highly partisan Dean party within the larger Democratic party in a way that there isn’t a Kerry party or an Edwards party. Those were the people I was commenting on in the post that Ananna responded to.
A recap and a few points…
I don’t like Dean because I feel that he has presented himself as a type of person that I feel is not suited for the Presidency. I don’t like some Deaniacs because they seem to have forgotten that people can disagree with them and that non-Dean Democrats are on their side (or were prior to being called fools). I don’t think that these partisan Deaniacs are representative of everyone who supports Howard Dean.
Also, and this bears making clear, I think that Dean was an invaluable part of this primary season, and I think that his campaign has been an impressive indication of the way that things really could be. Dean has done more to shape the agenda and presentation of the Democratic party than any other single person in the country (with the notable exception of George W. Bush) and for that, for his arrogance and tactlessness, the primary and the party is better off. Because of the innovations that Dean’s campaign introduced, elections are better off. I think that Dean is a great candidate for the primary, I just don’t think he’s a great candidate for the general election. I suspect, though, that he’s just about worn out his usefulness and has certainly worn out his welcome.
To clear a few things up, just in case: I don’t really like any of the candidates and don’t know who I’ll be pulling the lever for when the Colorado primary hits in April. I’d be happiest with an Edwards or a Kerry nomination, but only because I find them less distasteful than others (although Kerry is losing my sympathies). It is my sincere belief, though, that any of the candidates could clean Bush’s clock in the general election.
And yes, if Dean is nominated I’ll happily vote for him. I may not think he’d make a great President, but he’d be better than what we have now..
(totally not sarcasm) Aw, shucks, Ms. DreamPoppies you didn’t have to waste all your precious time responding to my incredibly poor analysis of your posts. I am truly humbled. (/totally not sarcasm)
(continuing with the non-sarcastic)I, of course, disagree with some of your points, but as you say, people disagree, and that’s okay. One of the things we don’t disagree on is maybe because I know so many doctors and maybe I am immune to the Doctor Personality, which I find so prevalent among them. Dr. Dean really just comes off as another doctor to me, and I think that accounts for a lot of his personality. Which is why so many people find him abrasive. When I first started spending a lot of time around doctors, even the kindest gentlest souls (my personal care: internal medicine, two phds, one in internal medicine, one in philosophy) he’s a gay man with a prince albert and so totally not what you would think as a doctor, but even sometimes that personality shines through from him and it bugged me to no end. But I’ve known him for more than ten years, and I don’t even notice it anymore, and the same goes for the rest of the doctors. Which isn’t to say that other health care professionals who aren’t doctors don’t suffer from the same problems, but we’re talking doctors here, and that is probably why I am not seeing what you are seeing in Dean.
As for the supporters, I don’t hang around with them, and I stopped reading comments in blogs long ago. In truth, there are two blogs I read comments on: this one and Body and Soul, because I find the people don’t get into petty arguments in these two places, there are no “First Posts!”, conspiracy theories don’t get bandied about, etc. I am probably the most abrasive poster on both of the blogs, and I don’t think of myself as particularly abrasive, but more needy and high-maintenance (as I seem to have proven again, which I can never apologize enough for leading you to write such an overwhelming rationalization for your feelings on Dean and the other candidates and their respective camp-followers). I am sorry that I somehow made you feel you needed to respond to me, because I’m so far out of the mainstream, I am on the beach.
I’m sure you are totally correct in all of your statements, and I am not going to argue with you about them, because I really don’t know all that much, and even if I did, I wouldn’t be able to state it well, so why bother? In truth, I really didn’t understand a good portion of what you wrote, because it was over my head.
Basically, I feel like the world I currently live in is trying to kill me and I don’t have the energy or ability to stop it, and I am crying out for something to change. I read that the Democratic party is going to “hit back” just as hard as the Republican party is during this election, fight just as dirty, do whatever it takes. That they have whole teams of character assassins working day and night. I can’t live in that world, and I fear that when whichever Democratic candidate makes it into the white house is going to be just as scuzzy as the current group. Not to say that they are Republican-lite’s either, but that their hearts will be hardened. They’ll have made promises to be tough on crime, tough on the poor, tough on those who don’t pull their weight. Clinton did so much damage to the poor, to QTBLG people, and we are basically looking for another Clinton. A Clinton will cut back on services for the poor and disabled just as quickly as a Bush will, as was proven over the last ten and more years.
I don’t even know what I’m talking about anymore, I’m just so sad and I fear for humanity that we have lost our compassion. I don’t see how the cycle of human disaster is ever going to end. I haven’t heard any campaign promises except that they are going to make things better for the children. Makes me wish I were a child again, to be pandered to so much. Nobody panders to the disabled or the homeless. Nobody cares. We are the unsolvable problems. Even when they build low-income housing, they build it so the working-poor can afford it, but not the disabled or the homeless.
For instance, the low-income housing group here where I live has apartments that start at $400 a month. Which is great. Totally affordable for someone on a low income. However, I get a check from the state for $339 every month, from which I am supposed to pay for housing, utilities, basically anything that isn’t food, and I get $140 for food every month. That’s a little over $30 a week for food. Which is enough to buy some bread and a few other items. I’m disabled, so I can’t just drive down to Wal-Mart and buy the industrial barrel of rice and beans, and even if I could, I can’t prepare it myself. Toast is hard enough to prepare.
I really do believe that whoever the Dem president is will make live better for the middle class, no doubt about it. And maybe for the working poor, but Dems don’t have a great record on helping the working poor (see Bowling for Columbine). Dems will likely revoke as many of the corporate and wealthy person giveaways as they are able to, and that’s a good thing. If they manage to implement health care for everyone, that’d be great. One of the best things I get is Medicaid which is the greatest thing in the entire world. I spend thousands of dollars a month, a large portion of that on medications, but also on doctor visits (I have like five different doctors with the promise of more on the way) and they don’t get paid full rate when they accept a Medicaid patient, they have to eat the rest of the costs themselves, so there are a lot of places that don’t take Medicaid, or if they do, they take a limited number, or have special days that they reserve for Medicaid people and the rest of the days for people who actually make them money.
I totally want other people to get what they need, and if I have to suffer so someone else can get what they need, I am willing to suffer. Other than Medicaid, I don’t feel like I am being a huge burden on society. I was hugely productive while I wasn’t physically disabled, even while I was mentally unstable — in fact, it was probably my mental instability that allowed me to work so hard. The results of my work are still alive today, making people who read them happy, making money for my friends and ex-business partners, so I feel like I’ve contributed to society. But even if I hadn’t, I don’t feel that it is ethically, morally, spiritually (whatever is your driving inner-force) good for people to let the under-underclass rot away. I don’t see any of the current crop of politicians of any stripe coming to my and our aid.
But, as important as that is to me, even if Bush announced and paid for (cause he has this habit of announcing things and then not paying for them) all disabled people to live in a beautiful home or condo with a view of the mountains, lobster dinners every night, visitors every day who would come to read to us and be our friends and not abandon us, the best medical care available, super-high tech stuff, and I could call today and have a limousine come pick me up and bring me to the appointment the very next day. I *still* wouldn’t vote for that murdering, lying, war-profiteering bastard. Cause my life isn’t worth 20,000 or so Iraqi lives, and the possibility of an upcoming civil war which will take many more lives, or even just the inhumane way we treat the people there. It’s not worth it. And believe me when I tell you that it would be a very very tempting offer.
So, we may not agree on words, but we agree in principle in a general way about human rights and how important that is, and that pretty much trumps all the rest of the garbage which is nothing more than a side show compared to what is really important.
Thank you, PinkDreamPoppies, for taking me seriously. Something which only a handful of people have ever done in my life. You have given me a gift that is rare and very precious.
I just wanted to add that I do not try to be a bad person when I post and don’t ever want to hurt anyone’s feelings, not the person I’m replying to, nor any persons reading the post. I very much sincerely apologize to anyone whom I have hurt their feelings.
My note to Deanaics who wanna bolt the Democrats is simple: unlike Ralph Nader, he ain’t the real deal.
I speak as a person who yeilds to no one in my disgust at the Dem/Reps role as representing the “good cop/bad cop” factions of the American ruling asses. I understand perfectly your deep-seated anger and outrage at BAU (business as usual) by the 2-party duopoly as exibited by Gray Davis, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Liberman and others.
But this is WAY different from 4 years past. The Nader Uprising was something wonderful—a glorious, REAL act of rebellion against the electoral Jim Crow known as the 2-party system in the good ol’ U.S, of A. It was the Rosa Parks Moment of what I hope will be a revolution that’ll be the 21st century equivilent of the civil rights movement of the last century: ELECTION DIVERSITY—the end of the 2-party duopoly, a process of TRULY free and fair elections for the first time in America!
Alas, the duoply is now CO-OPTING the rage that fueled that Uprising as a pre-emptive strike against this revolution a-borning. The republican part of this bipartisan conspiricy was the Califorina Recall last October, which led to the ascendency od Arnold (the Gropenfurher) Scharzanegger to the Governor’s office in Sacramento. The Democratic portion is Howard Dean’s bid for the White House.
Quite simply, Deaniacs, he ain’t worth it—no more than Ah-nold was.
What’s the alternative? Here’s mine—a constitutional convention—the purpose of which would be to discuss alternativies to our current electorial system.
This will not be easy, but it wasan’t easy for Rosa Parks. Or for the Freedom Riders. Or for the demonstrators at Selma, AL.
REAL revolution ain’t a walk in the park…..
Fight the power—and we REALLY shall overcome.
Wow. I’ve missed a lot by cutting back on my blog reading/posting these last few months. That’s probably a Good Thing. I’m so out of it that I never even heard the word “Deaniacs” until today. At any rate, the Dean supporters I’ve had exchanges with actually seem to be nice, reasonable people. That doesn’t make me any fonder of Dean, however. Despite PDM’s customary gallon drum of spleen, there is some truth down at the bottom. Dean has definitely co-opted a lot of the emotion behind both Nader’s candidacy in 2000 and the anti-war movement;But I don’t see this as anything but cynical manipulation on his part.
I have never understood this Dean v. Everbody else nonsense. For every Deaniac you can point to spouting “your too dumb”, can show you posts form earlier in the summer saying “deaniacs aren=t dems – they are too white and too male and too techy”, never mind that even then it wasn’t true.
I am NOT trying to single you you PD; I don’t know if you ever engange din those kinds of rants, and I highly doubt it. All I am saying soi that somewhere along the line, people decided that the other camp weren’t real democrats, becasue they weren’t exactly like the first camp. Its been destructive and wrong since the day it started, btu I don’t think you can lay it at the feet of the Deaniacs entirely.
Frankly, if I was voting based on supporters, the only person who would get my vote would be Mosely-Braun – cause those are the only ones that haven’t engaged in that kind of trash talking. And that might just be because there weren’t that many of them to begin with. :)
Ananna, I found your comments moving. I copied part of that to my blog at http://vark.blogspot.com, and added alas a blog to the links there.
I don’t have to agree with your politics to relate to your experience. I think looking to the government for compassion is misplaced; it would make no less sense to look to the mafia. If there’s compassion to be found, it’s at places like this one, where people come together by free choice to form community. We are in transition to a post-scarcity economy. You and I might be poor by the materialist standards, but there’s a wealth of information and interaction here online.
How can we help each other?
I second the aardvark (boy, that’s just a fun thing to say, regardless the context!). PDP, thanks for a great read that helped give me some coherency to thoughts I’ve had for a while now. Ananna – wonderful response. What is amazing to me is that I’ve never associated the word ‘sad’ in it’s truest sense of the word with politics, or at the very least, not verbalized it. And just about a month and a half ago I did. And then I read Ananna saying the same thing, and it leaves me feeling both validated and also even more sad. Go figure.
Here’s to hoping that something gives.
Oh, I am so going to regret saying this.
I firmly believe that the government is the people. That the people are the government. That if ever that becomes not true, we have a problem. I believe that looking to the government for solutions to my problems is the same as looking to the people for solutions.
If we can’t trust the government, what does that say about the government? Why shouldn’t we be able to trust the government? If we can’t trust government, then we need to make a government we can trust.
Thank you for the support, though. It’s nice that we may disagree on things of such importance, but still recognize our humanness and the priceless value of life. And, yes, I can recognize that life is priceless and still be pro-choice.
“Bouncing baby girl,” that’s what the doctor said to my mother, though I don’t remember a word of it, I had to hear it second-hand. I have no idea why I was bouncing. If I’d have known then what I know now, I for sure would not have been bouncing. Maybe I was trying to wiggle loose and crack open my head on the floor.
I will still vote for Ambassador Mosley-Braun. A journey starts with a single step.
Okay, regret everything about voting for the Ambassador. She is too awesome to ever regret supporting.
“My note to Deanaics who wanna bolt the Democrats is simple: unlike Ralph Nader, he ain’t the real deal.”
For me at least, it isn’t entirely about him or his policies. I mean, I like Dean quite a bit, but he wasn’t the point. I’ll defend him, argue for him, and even support the things I don’t entirely agree with. He isn’t as liberal as I’d like, and even if he isn’t the same as the other candidates (as some newscasters would argue), he’s not worlds of difference away either.
But. He stood up when it was unpopular, and made it okay for everyone else. Also, and even better, he brought a lot of people into the dialogue. He showed some courage, and then allowed the people that attracted to take it and run. His campaign created an official public space for the type of dissent that felt terribly subversive only a year ago. It threw a wrench in the ‘Bowling Alone’ dynamic, and gave all of us a chance to enjoy each other’s company.
I know some Deaniacs have gotten kind of a shrill edge to them, but this has been a great experience. It’s been such good fun, in fact, that there’s not a small amount of grief involved in the thought that it might end. Not that I’m conceding the race here, but this isn’t our most shining hour.
Try to forgive us when we get on your nerves, because we have fallen in love. Not necessarily with Dean, but with all the things this campaign has come to represent to us. All the possibilities that this instant community building project made us see for our democracy. All the doors that seemed to beckon from the future we’ve worked to build together in Meetups, and all the people we’ve worked to build it with. And perhaps most of all, the sense of ourselves as powerful, capable, and influential beyond our usual confines. We fell in love with having a voice straight to the top, and doing work that felt important.
So try to forgive us, because we don’t want to give it up. Don’t want to be heartbroken. And are afraid to lose the connections we’ve been forming to each other.
Most of us feel that this campaign has always been about us. Maybe even about finding our better natures. Which sounds pretty sappy, I know, and I never thought I’d talk like this about a sodding political campaign. But it’s even been about letting ourselves be sappy without embarassment. And as I said, it’s a lot of fun.
I love the post and all the comments, but I’d just like to ask which type, exactly, does a President need to be in order to so nicely fix the international tensions you mentioned? Does that automatically mean unassuming older rich white guy, and what kinda political atmosphere would allow for someone like, say, a Big Lebowski?
I’m not trying to pull some race card or anything like that, but that kinda talk is like the core of what’s made politics so stale for so long – an assumption like that gets rid of all the interesting people!
On another note, go Freak Power!
Actually, Tim, I was a major supporter of Ambassador Moseley-Braun, who is neither white nor old nor male.
I ask that my candidates show some ability to restrain their tempers, respond diplomatically to attacks and to people they don’t like, and not show unnecessary hubris. This may make politics stale in your eyes, but I’d rather have stale politics than, say, war (as an extreme example).
Ralph Nader was “the real deal”?
I didn’t want to vote for Gore: I found his craven campaigning to be despicable. I wanted the Gore I’d seen in earlier years, and who re-emerged after 9/11.
So I considered Nader, but only for a short period, until I realized he was a complete nut-job, a wacko, a loon.
So I considered Nader, but only for a short period, until I realized he was a complete nut-job, a wacko, a loon.
Unlike, say, every person in politics?
Sorry, just saw “City of God” again, so my outlook toward authority is currently quite cynical.
Maybe Simon has Nader confused with Perot.
Helpful hints: Cheap suit = Nader. Big ears = Perot.
Another hint: The only time the supposed “real” Al Gore emerges is when he’s not up for election. Which begs the question: If he’s just going to keep his ear firmly to the ground on the campaign trail, what good is he there ?
It’s pinning your hopes on such a character that sounds to me more like the sign of a “nut-job.”
I went to Saturday’s caucus uncommited, and ended up as an alternate delegate to our district conventon for Dean. I want his positions to be heard at the convention, and Kerry (and every other congressional Democrat that voted for the Iraqi war and the PATRIOT Act) gives me a pain *right here*.