Why I support Howard Dean, and why you should, too
Part IV: A vision for a future America at home and abroad
(Note: a number of things, including a trip out of town for a funeral and this post by Kevin Drum over at CalPundit, necessitate that I post this a little early. Maybe later I’ll bump the date.)

There’s plenty I couldn’t cover yesterday: Howard Dean’s labor-positive attitude despite being from a union-poor state; Dean’s appreciation for and dedication to the environment; his adamant pro-choice stance; I could go on. But today’s installment—our last, as I’m sure you’re relieved to hear—is going to focus on national security and foreign policy issues, and why I think that particular area of Dean’s platform shows Dean where Dean is strongest.

Joe Trippi, Dean’s campaign manager, likes to say, “Let Dean be Dean.” I think that Dean’s Dean-ness is his strongest suit: He is passionate, he is furious about the current state of affairs in this country, his is mightily miffed at others who sat by and let it happen, but—most importantly—he is a pragmatist who, after reflection and consideration, takes the right, if not always expedient, path. It is in Dean’s foreign policy that this is most clear.

Yesterday I went back to my college reading habits. Today, I go back a while before that. Peter Parker’s Uncle Ben told him, channeling Winston Churchill, that “with great power comes great responsibility.” Howard Dean believes that the United States, as the world’s only superpower, has a great responsibility to the world. And a big part of the responsibility is to be, to an extent, a role model.

The Indonesian government invoked the Whopper’s war in Iraq as it invaded Ace recently. That’s not the kind of image we want to present around the world, and Dean has spoken repeatedly against it. I think I need to quote at length:

Our actions are important in themselves, but also as a model for what we may expect--and demand--of other nations. As a result, no country has a bigger stake than we in establishing and enforcing the highest possible norms of international behavior on issues ranging from the release of greenhouse gases to the prosecution of war criminals to the creation of fair worker standards. The Bush Administration does not seem to understand that true leadership requires creating global institutions and arrangements that help lift people's lives, improve prospects for peace, and enhance respect for the rule of law.

Secondly, Dean believes that the president’s actions in Iraq did not show the kind of careful consideration of the situation that something as grave as military intervention involves. I’m sorry, but I do not feel that a president, like the Whopper, who can flippantly declare, “F--- Saddam Hussein. We’re taking him out” is the kind of man whose finger should be on the button. Dean, on the other hand, approaches things from a scientific, research-oriented model. He says, “As a doctor, I was trained to treat illness, and to examine a variety of options before deciding which to prescribe. I worried about side effects and took the time to see what else might work before proceeding to high-risk measures.” On the administration’s run up to the war, he commented, “I was impressed not by the vastness of evidence presented by [Powell to the U.N.], but rather by its sketchiness.” He couldn’t imagine treating a patient with so little useful information.

Third, Dean is not the utter pacifist his unkind or uninformed opponents make him out to be. He has, in fact, called for increases in defense spending, notably to pay for the Homeland Security department that the Whopper opposed, then favored, then underfunded. Dean also recognizes that there is a time and a palce for military conflict: “America may have to go to war with Iraq, but we should not rush into war - especially without broad international support. [. . .] I am not among those who say that America should never use its armed forces unilaterally. In some circumstances, we have no choice. In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred. However,” he said, and I think, especially with hindsight and MIA WMDs, that we can all agree, “that case has not been made, and I believe we should continue the hard work of diplomacy and inspection.” In other words, it was “the wrong war at the wrong time.” Plus, Dean, like many of the rest of us, knows that the Whopper has probably done far more harm than good to our long-term national security interests by acting in violation of world opinion.

Fourth, Dean has expressed what many of us know implicitly, that a strong national security means protecting all of our interests, going far beyond just “defense” spending. Again, I need to quote at length:

The current Administration has defined the concept of national security too narrowly. For example, our failure to develop alternative sources of energy and fuel creates an over-dependence on petroleum imported from the Middle East. As a result, we send billions of dollars every year to countries that are financing radical educational systems that teach young people to hate Christians, Jews and Americans. We learned on September 11 that these schools are prime recruiting grounds for terrorists. America needs an energy policy that stresses conservation and renewable fuels, including ethanol, solar, wind and biomass. Alternative energy sources are practical, economically viable and good for our environment; they are smart national security policy, as well.

More points of fact: Howard Dean is the only candidate (including the Whopper) who put forth a convincing plan for post-war Iraq; he is the only candidate to point out, repeatedly, that North Korea has gone nuclear on this president’s watch; he is the candidate most consistently calling for renewed and re-focused attempts to diffuse al Qaeda.

So, yes, Dean’s lack of experience in federal government puts him at a disadvantage over, say, a Kerry or a Graham. But what other candidate is so passionately and with so much gravity articulating clear and reasoned policies? If we can’t have peace, I at least want to know that the man in the White House will not wage war without giving the question the weight it truly deserves.

Which brings us to the pretty blue bow I promised yesterday to wrap this puppy up with. The biggest question on a lot of people’s minds is not whether they like Dean—most at least don’t hate him—but whether the governor’s “electable.” I say he is, for four reasons:

For starters, his stances on the issues are, without a doubt, not far from mainstream America's. It’s a testament to just how far to the right this administration has skewed (and many congressional Democrats have followed) when by comparison Dean is a raving leftist. (I like raving leftists, by the way—it’s just that they’re the ones who are unelectable!) Dean is a pragmatist, a social progressive, and a believer in fiscal restraint. Who can argue with that?

In addition, Dean is inspiring legions of ground troops right now that no other candidate has. Despite a putative lack of name recognition, Dean is the only candidate with what amounts to a campaign staff in over 400 cities in this country right now. I know; I’m a part of one. Dean’s momentum is growing, and he is proving not to be a mere flash-in-the-pan. With a campaign infrastructure like that, even without DLC or DNC money, he is very well positioned to take on the other candidates and rout Bush in 2004.

Plus, there’s that approach-things-like-a-scientist model. He is not some trigger-happy flight-deck phony, and I like to believe that the American people are smart enough to see that the Whopper’s “common man” approach is really just stupidity.

Finally, his passion comes from his pragmatism, his frustration with others’ complacency, and his firm belief that he has the best vision of a future America. What’s more, that passion translates; he comes off not as “politicky” but as honest, forthright. I don’t think you’ll find him riding around in the Straighttalk Express, but he has that same McCain-esque speaking-his-mind quality. In 2000, McCain was destined to lose, because the machine behind the Whopper was too powerful. Right now, there’s no machine (the DLC is trying) in the race, and anyone has a shot.

I think Dean’s the real thing. You may not, I don’t know, but I hope I at least got you thinking. Let me know. And I apologize for the length of this magnum opus; the four parts still clock in at under 5000 words, though!

[View/Post Comments]