A letter to Joshua Marshall

By Aziz P. -
Josh Marshall takes issue with Dean's factual statement that we supporters are not robots whose loytalties will be transferable upon command:

The price of admission to the Democratic primary race is a pledge of committed support to whomever wins the nomination, period. (The sense of entitlement to other Democrats' support comes after you win the nomination, not before.) If Dean can't sign on that dotted-line, he has no business asking for the party's nomination.


In response, I emailed Josh Marshall the following:

Josh,

I'm sure you recall that during the 2000 election, Gore was consistently held to a higher standard than Bush by the media and the punditocracy.

I think you're somewhat guilty of the same thing here - note that Dean is the ONLY candidate who has said he would explicitly endorse the Democratic nominee, whoever that may be.

Contrast that explicit statement with the fact that none of the other candidates have agreed that they will endorse Dean if he wins. Worse, when asked if they thought Dean was "electable", none raised their hands at the last debate.

Kerry's entire campaign platform is "Dean is bad for the country." Don't you find such Anybody-But-Dean rhetoric disquieting, and egregiously hypocritical when the basic complaint against Dean's remarks is that it isn't sufficiently dedicated to Anybody-But-Bush? Will you or other political analysts hold Kerry accountable for his statements, which are pound for pound far worse and far more damaging to the prospects of electing a Democrat in 2004?

Dean's statement was factual. He will endorse the nominee, but don't expect Dean's supporters to follow. The whole point of supporting Dean is that we choose to do so - we are not automatons like Bush's support base who can be instructed from central command.

Understand that we support Dean because he offers - in our view - the best chance for victory in line with liberal principles. What use is a Democrat who kowtows to Republicans in the general election? Will Kerry or Gephardt stand up for us against Bush the way Dean has, or will they seek to out-Bush Bush? The vote to support the war on Iraq is a true bellweather of their commitment to doing what is right versus what is politically expedient, and there is real doubt that any of the others have the will to fight the election battle on terms that we believe are essential to victory.


(Note that I won't post his reply unless he gives me permission). Also see Atrios's thoughts on this.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A fair solution to Jerusalem

By Aziz P. -
I remember reading one of the books by Tom Clancy in which Jack Ryan was credited with coming up with a solution for Middle East peace which was pointedly never actually detailed in the novel. It was just a way to give his character some foreign policy cred, but ended up like that mysterious suitcase in Pulp Fiction. I couldn't help but be reminded of that, though, when I read former New York mayor Ed Koch's innovative solution to resolving the status of Jerusalem . Instead of putting the hot-button issue of Jerusalem last on the agenda, the issue should be addressed first. If the Jerusalem question is solved, everything else should fall into place more easily. I believe there is a way to keep Jerusalem unified. I am talking not only of the old walled city, which is a very small part of the city of Jerusalem, but the whole city, east, west, north and south. [...] My suggestion is to situate the new Palestinian capital in that part of East Jerusalem that is occupied overwhelming...
Read more

Conservatism's shari'a, liberalism's ijtihad

By Aziz P. -
An interesting meta-debate by intellectual conservatives over conservatism's future is playing out. It started with David Frum's Waterloo essay, which led to his political excommunication. Julian Sanchez observed that this represented an epistemic closing of the conservative mind , a thesis that was validated by the retribution visited upon Jim Manzi for daring to suggest that conservatives will achieve more persuasion by using honest, strong arguments instead of weak, emotional ones. All of this has led John Quiggin at Crooked Timber to argue most wisely that as conservatism implodes, liberalism needs to find its own rationale that is more than just "not conservatism". Quiggin has a list of priorities for the liberal movement to address, and closes with the general plea, ...the left has to stand for something more than keeping the existing order afloat with incremental improvements. We need to offer the hope of a better world as an alternative to the angry tribali...
Read more