I've spent the last hour trying to write about Matt Bai's most recent piece for the New York Times, but there are simply too many nuggets of wrongness to fit into a single blog post. In the piece, Bai tries to analogize the current Republican presidential contest with Democratic nomination battles in 1992 and 2004. In the piece, contrasts Bill Clinton's Third Way centrism with Howard Dean's vocal opposition to George W. Bush. His lesson? Moderation always wins:
Mr. Dean grabbed an oar and steered furiously into the current. “I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party!” he told the California Democratic convention in March 2003, bringing the crowd to its feet.Within months, Mr. Dean had so surpassed his rivals in money and glamour that ABC’s Ted Koppel, moderating a Democratic debate, felt moved to ask the other candidates if they thought Mr. Dean could beat Mr. Bush. He needn’t have wondered; as it turned out, Mr. Dean ended up winning only two primaries, in his home state and the District of Columbia.
The truth? Howard Dean's loss had more to do with poor organization than it did with his views. Indeed, in terms of policy, Dean wasn't far off from his centrist rival Joe Lieberman. As governor of Vermont, Dean clashed frequently with progressive activists and environmental groups. Social service advocates attacked him for his fiscal conservatism, and he made an enemy out of Vermont's Progressive Party. His health care policies were good, but close to the mainstream of Democratic politics at the time: expansions of Medicare and Medicaid, and employer-based coverage. And on gun control, Dean was ambivalent on nationwide regulations, preferring a state-based approach. With the exception of Iraq, Dean was a run-of-the-mill, moderate Democrat, whose positions would be familiar to anyone working in the Clinton administration, or the DLC.
The difference between Clinton and Dean has less to do with ideological views, and more to do with organization. Clinton out-classed his rivals with a strong, nationwide campaign organization. By contrast, Dean was out-classed by the rest of the Democratic field, and was never able to capitalize on the excitement he generated.
Looking back at the last two decades of nomination contests, one fact stands out: the distance between each candidate is relatively small. In 2008, for example, the Democratic field was unified on most issues of consequence. In large part, Obama's early opposition to the Iraq War was only relevant because there were few other issues by which to differentiate the candidates. Likewise, there was broad policy agreement among the Democratic field in 2004 and 1992. By and large, the concerns that divide candidates are more symbolic than anything else.
How does this relate to the current GOP contest? First, candidates should ignore Bai's advice. Moving to the center doesn't guarantee a win, and taking a conservative line won't doom you. Moreover, with the conservative base nearly unified in its views, odds are good that the candidates will have similar lines on most issues. Right now, the most important thing a candidate can do is build organizational strength. After all, when push comes to shove, you'll want the firmest ground to stand on.
