The Electable Gov Howard Dean, MD

There is a considerable hubbub going on about Dr Dean lately.  An anonymous group has aired an ad associating Osama Bin Laden and Dean.  Democratic candidates and pundits of all sorts claim "he's not ready for prime time" (Sam Donaldson on the Chris Mathews Show),  that he is a radical leftist, that he is not an adult, that he is a liar and deceiver,  and, in short,  that he cannot be elected President of the United States.

This essay is about electing Dr Dean President.  I mean to show you that he is indeed worthy of election.  There's lots of arguments,  but before considering any other,  I would have you consider recently "unelectable" bozos who somehow managed to worm their way into the Oval Office:  Jimmie Carter, Ronald Reagan,  George HW Bush, Bill Clinton and George W Bush.  Yep, folks, we've had a lot of unelectable Presidents,  and you know who they are.

What is Unelectable?

That's our Jeopardy question of the day.  Unfortunately,  there is no pecuniary reward for figuring out the answer.  In fact,  that's why no one is volunteering to tell us what this means: all of the reward is in electing someone (clue: else).

The answer is,  in case you haven't already guessed it, "unelectable" is a label you stick on someone else so your guy gets in.  If your guy makes it,  you get rewarded.  If "unelectable" becomes "electable," you get nothing;  ZERO.  We all know what ZERO is worth.

"Unelectable" is a highly subjective term.  Your electable someone is my never,  not over my dead body.  But,  if you can convince enough people my guy is unelectable,  then it is so.  It's all in the votes, especially who votes.  My guy is unelectable if no one, or not enough voters, will vote that way,  or my supporters are too young, too old or otherwise ineligible.  If you discourage my voters with negative advertising,  or the double psych-out (my guy's sure to win, so don't worry about poll closing: drink another beer, eat another hot dog),  whilst whipping your voters and dragging them to the polls,  my guy may become unelectable.  My guy is unelectable if he never gets on the ballot,  but just as unelectable if potential supporters are convinced the bum cannot win.

Consider what's happening to pasta and sauce makers,  now that the Atkins Diet is the rage.  I use pasta sauce in other, non-pasta things,  and lately it has been selling for half-price.  What a crash!  Of course, the Mad Cows might cause withdrawal symptoms,  as who wants to take a bite out of a big, juicy Prion-protein-rich steak?  It's scary when eating a piece of meat turns you into a vegetable some years later.  Of course, the same thing can happen for other reasons,  so you're never sure why ...

The point is,  beef became "unelectable" overnight.  Even the beefy Bush beaters cannot get the Japanese, Taiwanese, Mexican, South Koreans, and herds of others back on the ranch.  Texas steers are going to stay in Texas for the duration,  even if the dollar is falling and the price much cheaper.

If Dr Dean can perform a simple castration on George Bush, Georgie will become another Texas steer, and have to stay home, too.  That's what happens when you are "unelectable:"  you lose your cajones.  Vice versa happens, too,  which is why White Republican men are really worried about gay marriage.  "Castration" in this context could mean the real thing, or an equivalent.  For example,  George Bush tried to avoid this fate with the famous "Mission Accomplished" ad.  Instead, he lost half of it,  and Karl Rove has been busy performing restorative surgery since.

It's not easy to give a simple answer to our question,  what is "unelectable?"  A word or two simply doesn't describe it.  What I hope you do see is, it's mostly in your mind and a lot of other people's minds.  When it's not in your mind,  then it's just a pain in the ass or close-by parts.

The Electors

US elections are not a matter of counting votes;  if they were,  a very electable  President Gore would be running in 2004.  Instead, we've been stuck with an electoral college since the beginning,  and not enough gumption to amend the Constitution to get rid of it.  That's why that George Bush fellow was appointed to sit in Al's seat.

The electoral college is the creature of the anti-democrats.  The Founding Fathers were incredibly foresighted,  but still not democrats as we now know them.   They distrusted the masses,  and felt a need to restrain the people.  Thus, from the beginning,  we had the poll tax to prevent paupers from voting and prohibition of women's rights.  We had the Senate to prevent the people's House from making radical changes.  We had the "checks and balances" primarily to insure the SLOW (and maybe steady) progress of the law.  Like Aristotle,  the Founding Fathers believed in 'everything in moderation,' and set up a system to guarantee it.

There is another reason the electoral college cannot be abolished: it has guaranteed unearned power to the Southern States and their rural Mountain State sympathizers.  Most of them were the George Bush "Red" States in the 2000 election.  Since they have over 200 electoral votes, and tend to vote as a bloc,  it is very hard to beat them.

Gary Wills, the historian,  gave a talk shown on C-SPAN last weekend.  Wills explained how and why the Constitutional provisions have empowered the South from the beginning.  At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, New York and many Southern States were reluctant to sign on to the new Constitution.  The Southerners preferred the Confederation (and they have wailed States' Rights ever since).  The infamous provisions concerning slavery,  allowing a non-voting slave to be counted as 3/5 of a vote, gave more seats in Congress to the South than it deserved.  The provision of two Senators from State,  originally selected by the State legislature,  reduced the power of populous States,  originally Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania.  Despite compromises on slavery and representation,  and many other favors,  the South only reluctantly signed onto the Constitution,  Georgia being last.

Because the allocation of the vote favored the South,  and the Electoral College is based on Congressional representation,  the South has had a near-lock on the College from the beginning.  Before the Civil War, the South dominated the Congress much of the time.  Being resentful and unsure of the Union from the start,  South Carolina seceded on, and because of,  the election of Abraham Lincoln.   The rest of the South soon joined South Carolina and formed the Confederacy.  Despite being militarily defeated by the North,  and "Reconstructed," the South still supports the Cause.  For rebels, 'the South will rise again."

Thus, like it or not,  to keep the peace and preserve the Union,  most of our Presidents have been Southerners,  or had pro-Southern attitudes.  Our most famous Presidents - Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson - were mostly Southern gentlemen. When we have elected Northerners,  they were mostly do-nothings or don't matters or sometimes crooks.  Presidents like Nixon, Coolidge and Buchanan.  The North has been lucky to elect a few good men - Wilson, FDR and JFK - who either did much or too much or nothing.

A correction to the conventional wisdom should be made here. Nixon's 1968 "Southern Strategy" was far from a new idea;  rather, it was the resurrection of a very old one.  Nixon may have re-discovered the strategy due to Lyndon Johnson's observation that Civil Rights Laws marked the beginning of the end of the Solid South.

Since LBJ,  much has changed,  and much has not.  There is a born-again Solid South,  now Republican, not Democrat.  The South still has a near-dominant influence on our government.  Because of George W Bush and the far-right, the South has , indeed, risen again.  Now,  it threatens to turn the rest of the United States into a Confederate colony.

The North,  with the aid of the West,  has traditionally resisted the South, especially when South runs rampant.  Now is such a time again.  The 2004 election is important because it is a retest of old antagonisms and settlements.  Conservatives,  mostly Southerners,  have recruited a good portion of the West,  and now propose forever to alter the Union.

Can a Northerner win without the South, and preserve the Union?  Those are questions this election will decide.  I do not think it is easy,  but it can be done.  Let's face it,  Democrats start with a deficit.  If the election were held today,  George W Bush would probably win big,  about 55-43.  But, the election is not today,  and much will change before November 2, 2004.

Let us once again review the electoral votes.

George W Bush almost certainly wins in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, North & South Dakota,  Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North & South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, New Hampshire and Maine. That's a total of 194 electoral votes.

In addition, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri and Ohio seem to favor Bush. Having 67 votes, they giving Bush a total of about 261 electors.

Dr Dean is very likely to win Hawaii, California, Washington, New Mexico, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Washington DC, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Vermont for a total of 232 electors.  In addition,  Oregon and Iowa are likely Democratic States,  so their 14 votes makes 246 electors.

What this means is that a few States will decide who is the next President.  Some of the "leaning" States will be contested,  such as Florida, Ohio, Oregon and Iowa.  That's 47 votes out of Bush's total,  reducing it to 214,  and 14 out of Dean's total,  leaving 232.  However you mark it up,  this election is a lot closer than most people believe.  This election is not at all like 1972 or 1984.  (Of course,  Republicans want you to believe that, so you will think Dr Dean unelectable.)

States which are up for grabs include Minnesota,  Arkansas, Arizona and Nevada,  having 31 electoral votes - ENOUGH TO PUT EITHER SIDE OVER THE TOP.

The election is likely to be fought out in the "Big River" States from Minnesota to Louisiana,  and the Western States undergoing cultural change,  Oregon, Nevada and Arizona.  In addition, both Ohio and West Virginia may be in play on account of Bush's steel tariff blunder.  Florida and Arizona may be in play on account of the Republican Medicare legislation.  The fact is,  George W Bush has more to lose in this election.  He's actually playing defense although so far he doesn't realize it, because Karl Rove is having dreams of glory (of destroying the Democratic party).

So,  on this markup,  is Dr Dean unelectable?  Scarcely!  In their saner moments,  Republican strategists admit this is a very close election.  Then, they say they want Dr Dean, and there's George W Bush,  who naively says, "Bring It On!"

The Candidate

I leave for last the personal questions about Dr Dean.

It's said he has a temper.  He refrains from preaching about Jesus.  He says things about conservative Democrats and Republicans they don't like.  He is outspoken about his beliefs.  He is saying things that have been written in  Democratic platforms for generations.

Now, for most of us Deanies (that's what they call us - I'm waiting for Deanie Beanie,  or Howdy Deany), we are well satisfied with all of that. Dr Dean has managed to acquire a huge following among Lefties,  and even Democrats,  because of those very claims against him.  I'm tired of the "Democrats" who brought us the Republican President, Congress and their agenda.  I have my agenda,  and Dr Dean represents a lot of that.

Once upon a time,  the Democratic platform was associated with "electable" candidates, because Democratic Presidents at least mouthed the words and signified their support.  We just haven't heard those words for a long time;  actually not forthrightly since LBJ, and sometimes from Jimmie Carter.

The rest of the complaints amount to nothing,  for most of our Presidents have had a temper, have been sometimes indiscreet, and made errors of judgement about matters large and small.  Some were religious,  some not.  Some hid in their offices,  while others were prone to yell from the bully pulpit.  Dr Dean is all these things,  and, so far as he is, he is as much qualified as any of our Presidents.

It comes to this:  you either like the guy, or you don't. You can work with him or not.  Since it's mostly Southerners who are raging on about Dr Dean,  I suspect they just don't like Yankees. In the final analysis,  noting that George W Bush is the scion of old Yankee aristocrats,  the anti-Dean folks will just have to decide who's the easier mark.

For myself,  that's the eminently electable Gov Howard Dean,  MD.  If you're like me,  and lots of other folks are, too, then the "unelectable" Dr Dean will soon be President Dean.  After all, it's all in your head.  That's all.

January 1, 2004

Last update: 11/13/2007

© Copyright California Expert Software 2007

All rights reserved.