Dr. Dean to the rescue

Spectrum/William Rusher

The Democratic National Committee appears set to elect former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean as its chairman on Feb. 12. That date is, of course, the birthday of Abraham Lincoln, the patron saint of the Republican Party, and one's first impulse is to wonder whether the Democrats, in a burst of inter-party amity, intend his election as a sort of birthday present to the GOP. Certainly the Republicans regard it as one, intended or otherwise.

We can be pretty sure the Democrats have less cordial purposes in mind. It's striking, nevertheless, that any Democrat discussing Dr. Dean (he is, among his other talents, a physician) has to spend the first five minutes insisting that he isn't as liberal as is generally believed; that indeed he is by temperament a centrist; and that his record as Vermont's governor demonstrates this. He balanced the state's budget (as required by law), and is even on record as pro-gun.

Be that as it may, Dean came to national prominence by assuming an early lead in the race for the 2004 presidential nomination, and did so by establishing himself as the leftmost serious candidate for the honor. Alone among the major contenders, he frankly condemned the invasion of Iraq, and burnished his partisan credentials by declaring proudly that he belonged to "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." His performance proved pure catnip to the Democratic rank-and-file, who flooded his Web site with small contributions — a new experience for the party, which had long relied on big money from labor unions, Hollywood stars and liberal billionaires like George Soros.

Eventually, Dean's reputation as a frothing-mouthed leftist (deserved or not) became counterproductive, even among Democrats, and he attempted to correct matters by saying a few kind words about Southerners in pick-up trucks, and his party's need to woo them. But then came his astonishing pep talk to his followers after his defeat in the Iowa caucuses. The primal scream with which it ended simply confirmed, for many, the conclusion of one of his former union backers: "He's nuts."

Once John Kerry was nominated, however, Dean fell loyally into line, and recouped a portion of his reputation by campaigning hard for Kerry and other Democratic candidates. And after Bush's stunning re-election, Dean slowly emerged as the leading candidate for the party chairmanship.

It isn't really difficult to see why. He was by far the best-known; as an ex-governor he was the highest-ranking; he had earned credit by his loyalty and efforts during the campaign; and — perhaps above all — his earlier passionate liberalism had not been forgotten and was exactly in tune with the private sentiments of most rank-and-file Democratic workers.

Indeed, it is in tune with the overall strategy that seems to have been adopted by most major Democratic politicians since the election: to battle the Republicans without quarter. Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-Calif.) savaging of Condoleezza Rice in her confirmation hearings; the brutal hazing of Alberto Gonzalez by the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee; Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-Mass.) blazing attack on the Iraq war, just three days before the national election there — all of these suggest that the Democrats intend to leave Washington knee-deep in gore, rather than yield an inch to the GOP.

To a party in such a mood, Howard Dean may look like a positive godsend. Perhaps his remark, in a recent speech, that "I hate Republicans" was a little over the top, but a bit of excess enthusiasm can be forgiven. Far better too much than too little.

No doubt an effort will be made to keep Dr. Dean's passionate nature under wraps for the immediate future. But it cannot be suppressed forever, nor would the Democrats want it suppressed forever. The man and the party have found each other, at last.

(William Rusher is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy.)