It doesn't represent a turn to the left: Mr. Dean is squarely in the center of his party on issues like health care and national defense.I generally agree with Krugman's assessment, but I'm not sure Dean's motivation was so steeped in personal courage as Krugman implies.
Instead, Mr. Dean's political rejuvenation reflects the new ascendancy within the party of fighting moderates ... It was always absurd to call Mr. Dean a left-winger. Just ask the real left-wingers. During his presidential campaign, an article in the muckraking newsletter CounterPunch denounced him as a "Clintonesque Republicrat," someone who, as governor, tried "to balance the budget, even though Vermont is a state in which a balanced budget is not required."
Even on Iraq, many moderates, including moderate Republicans, quietly shared Mr. Dean's misgivings -- which have been fully vindicated -- about the march to war.
But Mr. Dean, of course, wasn't quiet. He frankly questioned the Bush administration's motives and honesty at a time when most Democrats believed that the prudent thing was to play along with the war party.
When Dean first began taking shots at the Bush administration over the Iraq invasion, his poll numbers were anemic. Dean's decision to speak out on Iraq was one part courage and one part political positioning. (If that sounds like a potshot at Dean, it isn't meant to be -- I contributed to his campaign even as I suspected that this was probably part of Dean's political calculus.)
The former Vermont governor had everything to gain and very little to lose. It was an easy way to distinguish himself from the rest of the Democratic primary field. Dean's decision to stake out this position was largely responsible for moving him to the front of the pack (at least until Iowa).
Had Kerry, Edwards or Gephardt voted against the president's war resolution, the dynamics would have changed dramatically.
0 comments in Krugman on Howard Dean
Post a Comment