August 27, 2003

opinion

LET'S TAKE HOWARD Dean at his word: "I was a triangulator before Clinton was a triangulator. In my soul, I'm a moderate."

Plenty of evidence backs up that comment by the former Vermont governor to the New York Times Magazine a few months ago. The comparison with Bill Clinton is apt. "During his five two-year terms as governor," the magazine noted, "Dean was proud to be known as a pragmatic New Democrat, in the Clinton mold, boasting that neither the far right nor the far left had much use for him."

In the battle for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, Dean clearly finds grassroots progressives to be quite useful for his purposes. But is he truly useful for ours?

This summer many news stories have identified Dean with the left. But Dean's actual record verifies this assessment from University of Vermont political science professor Garrison Nelson: "He's really a classic Rockefeller Republican – a fiscal conservative and social liberal." After his seven years as governor, the Associated Press described Dean as "a clear conservative on fiscal issues" and added, "This is, after all, the governor who has at times tried to cut benefits for the aged, blind and disabled, whose No. 1 priority is a balanced budget."

Economic justice has been a much lower priority. During the early 1990s, Dean spearheaded a new "workfare" state law requiring labor from welfare recipients. The Vermont program later won praise as a more humane "welfare reform" than what occurred in most other states. But in the summer of 1996, Dean put his weight behind the final push for President Clinton's national welfare reform law – a draconian measure, slashing at an already shabby safety net while forcing impoverished mothers to work low-wage jobs.

Gov. Dean got along better with the corporate sector. "Conservative Vermont business leaders praise Dean's record and his unceasing efforts to balance the budget, even though Vermont is the only state where a balanced budget is not constitutionally required," Business Week reported in its Aug. 11 edition. The magazine added, "Business leaders were especially impressed with the way Dean went to bat for them if they got snarled in the state's stringent environmental regulations."

According to Business Week, "those who know him best believe Dean is moving to the left to boost his chances of winning the nomination." Howard Dean does deserve some credit as a foe of the war. Yet it would be a mistake to view him as an opponent of militarism. During an Aug. 23 interview with the Washington Post, he said, "I don't even consider myself a dove."

Actually, Dean has gone out of his way to distance himself from a straightforward, cut-the-military-budget position that should be integral to any progressive candidacy. At a forum this summer, another presidential candidate, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, said, "The only way we're really going to close the [digital] divide in this country is to start cutting the Pentagon budget and put that money into education." Dean's response was notable: "I don't agree with Dennis about cutting the Pentagon budget when we're in the middle of a difficulty with terror attacks."

Dean activists like to say their man has the best chance of beating Bush next year. But supporters of almost every Democratic presidential hopeful say the same thing – and, like Dean's partisans, have scant basis for making the claim. In fact, it's mere conjecture that Dean would be the nominee most likely to defeat Bush.

I admire the creativity and commitment that many activists have brought to their work for Dean. Yet his campaign for the nomination offers few benefits and major pitfalls. If Dean becomes the Democratic presidential candidate next year, at that point there would be many good reasons to see him as a practical tool for defeating Bush. But in the meantime, progressive energies and support should go elsewhere.