Pragmatism or Idealism: the Democrats' Dilemma

I would not blame you if you have not been watching the televised debates of the nine Democratic candidates.

For one thing, the format of the debates makes them slow and boring. No one candidate really stands out, and the few interesting exchanges of ideas lack substance. There are no Clintons in this pack either. Most of them seem like good candidates, and they have a few decent ideas, but not a single one of them is truly charismatic.

As of now, Howard Dean is unquestionably the frontrunner of the pack. And there is a simple reason behind his current success. His early anti-war, anti-tax cut stance earned him the support of a core of liberal Democrats who think Bush is nothing more than a cross between Satan and the Three Stooges.

By claiming to be part of the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party," Dean distanced himself from more moderate Democrats who looked like sad, watered-down Republicans. He capitalized on the ardent anti-Bush sentiment by siding with the most liberal wing of the Democratic Party. This was a smart move which allowed an otherwise relatively unknown and inexperienced Vermont governor to become a serious contender.

The support of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party may be enough for him to win the nomination, but will it be enough to beat Bush? It is hard to tell now, but to me it seems unlikely for several reasons. First, the Bush administration has pushed this country to the right end of the political spectrum, while enjoying considerable support from the population. This means that attempting to pull the country back to the center would be far easier than trying to pull it all the way to the left end of the political spectrum. It would take enormous public support for Dean to be able to sell such a dramatic political reversal in the coming election.

Dean's opposition to the war resonates among liberal Democrats, but its appeal is not much wider than that. We must remember that polls indicate that most Americans supported the war against Iraq. So running against Bush on an anti-war platform is not going to consolidate the support he needs to unseat him.

Finally, Democrats need to understand that national security will be one of the main issues of the campaign. American voters will look for someone who can protect the U.S. against terrorist attacks. People see Bush as a forceful leader committed to defending the homeland. Howard Dean on the other hand has zero experience in foreign policy and security matters. If Bush is able to effectively portray Dean as weak on terrorism, forget about it. The election will be a landslide.

If the Democrats want to win back the White House, they need to be pragmatic. They need to point out the abuses and errors of the Bush administration -- including lack of post-war planning in Iraq -- but they should not get too hung up on the war itself. They need to criticize Bush's relationship with the international community, but they also need to appear as a strong alternative in security matters. They need to please the core liberal Democratic voters, but they need to be attractive to moderate Republicans.

It is hard to have all of these characteristics at the same time. But unless the economy sinks even lower and jobs continue to be lost left and right, it is the only formula that will work for the Democrats in 2004. Howard Dean does not have that formula. His message is limited in its appeal and will only get him the Democratic nomination.

So, is there any Democratic candidate who stands a chance against Bush? Let's see. Carol Moseley Braun, Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich have no chance of winning the nomination, so let's not even bother with them. Wesley Clark has a bright resume, but he has no political skills and he does not even know what his stance on Iraq is (plus, he wore a ridiculous outfit to the last debate). Gephardt has support among Democrats, but I do not think we are about to see the first anti-free trade president anytime soon. Lieberman is so conservative that he might as well be a Republican. That leaves us with John Kerry and John Edwards.

In my opinion, Kerry has an important edge over Edwards: his experience in foreign policy and his participation in Vietnam. He has all the qualities that would make him an attractive option for moderate voters. In fact, many polls show that, in a head to head contest against Bush, Kerry does considerably better than any of his Democratic rivals. However, Kerry is trailing behind Dean in polls in New Hampshire and Iowa. Kerry has the right message, but he is delivering it to the wrong audience.

Perhaps Howard Dean might be able to pull off a victory against Bush. And perhaps John Kerry's campaign might get its act together and conduct a successful attack on Dean. Both of these scenarios could happen. What would really be tragic for the Democrats' aspirations, however, is for the best Democratic option against Bush to lose because of a shortsighted anti-Bush impulse.

Rodrigo de Haro is a senior majoring in International Relations. He can be reached at deharo@tuftsdaily.com.