• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

The Democratic Party is in trouble. Sen. John Kerry has collected more votes than Howard Dean in every primary so far, including his latest victories in Nevada and Washington, D.C. These two candidates reflect the two sides of the Democratic Party, with one on the side of strong, ideological beliefs and the other tending toward convenient practicality. With the likely nomination of Kerry, it looks like the people have made up their minds. They are willing to sacrifice ideology for electability.

Based on his record, Kerry reads more like a President Bush supporter than the great white Democratic hopeful. He is a typical politician. His distinguishing feature as a Vietnam war hero is overshadowed by the fact that he voted for the war in Iraq. If his credentials and Silver Stars still only match him about evenly in the polls with a president with a questionable National Guard record, how much is his experience really worth? He has also publicly denounced gay marriages, even as his state’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled for their constitutionality. Furthermore, he voted for the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind and other Bush initiatives.

Dean, on the other hand, has consistently rallied against Bush’s war. He was one of the few outspoken Democrats daring to vote against the war and maintained his position even when it was not popular.

Dean is the answer to the Democrats’ weak backbone, so why is he so far behind in the polls?

According to the Washington Times, while 70 percent of Dean supporters said they voted for him based on the issues, only 40 percent could say the same about Kerry. Fifty percent of his supporters voted for Kerry because he seemed like he could beat Bush. So while most Democrats would tend to support Dean, they voted for an ideologically inferior candidate. Democrats will not win this election because they are too afraid to vote with their convictions. Real Democrats have been replaced by centrists who would look at poll numbers before deciding where they stand on an issue.

But the situation was not always like this. Just a few months ago, the Democrats were strong. They were united behind Dean and his passionate defiance of Bush. As the anti-Bush he addressed the concerns of a growing number of Americans who felt Bush was a dangerous president.

Then came what has come to be known as the “crazy Dean” slip. Coming off of an unexpected loss in the Iowa caucus, Dean was seen by millions screaming at the top of his lungs. Image defeated the only candidate different enough from Bush to afford him a challenge. Late-night comics had their new clip, and Kerry became the candidate of choice.

Moreover, this incident reinforced support for a safe president. People did not want someone who might lose to Bush because he crossed the line. They wanted someone who the “general public” could find little fault in, at the same time ensuring he would not be a true Democratic candidate.

The most unfortunate part of the entire debacle was the fact that Dean himself backed down after the incident. His image was toned down, and he admitted to the terrible fault of “leading with his heart.” The watering down of Democratic politics had claimed another victim.

The way to defeat an incumbent president is not to give the people a watered-down version of him. As Dean himself said after Iowa, “I say what I believe. I think it’s time that somebody in this party stood up for what we believe in and wasn't so careful about what they were saying. If we’re willing to say anything we have to say to get elected, then we’re going to lose.”

If Dean wants to show his party why he would have made a good president, he will stay in the running until the very end. Either way, it looks to be a bleak November for the Democrats.

Moon is a second-year psychology student. E-mail him at jmoon@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.