Speech Impediment
This commentary from The New Republic was written by Clay Risen.
There's no one more deserving of public pity right now than Howard Dean's speechwriters. After all, they probably spent weeks crafting his foreign policy coming-out speech, which was carefully designed to initiate a steady tack toward the center, only to have it overshadowed by the capture of Saddam Hussein one day before. Worse still, they must have realized immediately that Dean's image as the "antiwar" candidate and his reaction to Hussein's capture would overshadow anything substantive he might have to say. Thus, despite a speech that called for increased military spending and a get-tough attitude toward Saudi Arabia, the Associated Press deemed it more important to note that "Dean did not back away from his opposition to the war" than to note the "many ways" he sought "to ease concerns about his thin foreign policy credentials."
But perhaps the important thing about the speech wasn't what it says about Dean vis-à-vis President Bush, but what it says about Dean's relationship with his own supporters, many of whom embraced Dean as the only antiwar candidate in the early days of the campaign. True, Dean vociferously opposed the war, but the details of his foreign policy views -- his support for previous military action, his support for increased military spending -- were lost in the roar of antiwar, progressive groups like MoveOn.org and International ANSWER. All of which raises the question: If Dean is now trying to shed his dovish image, will he end up shedding those supporters as well?
The short answer, if immediate post-speech message-board posts are any indication, is no. "YES! He's outflanking Bush to the right on Saudi Arabia!" wrote one pro-Dean poster on Blog for America, the Dean campaign's official weblog. "Each of the policies outlined by the Governor can put to rest the meme that Gov. Dean is a blanket anti-war 70s liberal. The speech reflected a nuanced and proactive approach to the current situation in the world," wrote another. Indeed, what comes out most in the posts, and more generally in comments by Dean's core supporters on all manner of topics as of late, is that they're even more ideologically flexible than he is. Having judged the former governor and found him pure, they're willing to accept things like a more hawkish foreign policy. "Sorry for those that didn't know but Dean is a centrist," wrote one poster. "I'm not crazy about people that believe that war is an option, but our doctor here will not and would not send troops to a war without looking at all the FACTS and EVIDENCE and deliberately taking TIME to decide."
Which is not to say that Dean will retain all of his progressive supporters; those whose only interest in Dean was his antiwar position may depart for more dovish campaigns -- either that of Dennis Kucinich or, perhaps, another run by far-left favorite Ralph Nader. Dean has proven, of course, to be much savvier than his critics initially gave him credit for. And one of his more clever insights was to see early on that his support from the fringe left was neither especially beneficial nor likely to endure. "There are two groups of people who support me because of the war," Dean said. "One are the people who always oppose every war, and in the end I think I probably won't get all of those people." After Dean's speech, it's hard to see him continuing to draw the support of members of International ANSWER, who had this to say about Hussein's capture: "The seizure and public display of Saddam Hussein may be a propaganda victory for imperialism ... But intensifying Iraqi resistance to the illegal and colonial war and occupation has not been primarily based -- according even to the more knowledgeable corporate media journalists in Iraq -- on loyalty to any particular individual." But then, how many people listen to International ANSWER?
In a column last month, Robert Kagan claimed that Dean's supporters may be misreading him, that "they think he rejects the overall course of American foreign policy, just as they do." But Kagan seems to be misreading the bulk of Dean's supporters. They don't reject "the overall course of American foreign policy" either; they're just furious with Bush's international ineptitude. In fact, Dean's willingness to use his foreign policy speech to continue his centrist tack proves that he knows where his bread is buttered. Whatever their personal feelings about the speech's individual planks, his core supporters will not abandon him, because they have already decided that he is the near-mythical embodiment of all their anti-Bush anger. What he does or says on a daily basis, or even at the policy level, seems beside the point. Or, as one Dean supporter wrote shortly after the speech, "Ours isn't an anti-war campaign. It is a get Bush out of office because of his terrible policies campaign."
Clay Risen is an assistant editor at TNR.
By Clay Risen
©