William Safire is suggesting that if Dean doesn't get the Democratic nomination, he'll split off and go for a third-party run, which will hand Bush a Nixon/Reagan-sized landslide and lead to arrogance and tyranny from the Republican majority.
Where, oh where to begin?
First, the Democrats are not the party that splinters off third-party movements. Those usually occur when there is an ideological split in the party, and no one has ever accused the Democrats of being ideologically unified about anything, so what would they have to split from? The Republicans, however, have done it several times, going back to 1912 with Teddy Roosevelt and his progressive Bull Moose party. Restless in his retirement and disgusted with the corporate cronyism in his old party, TR ran against his hand-picked successor, William Howard Taft. Democrat Woodrow Wilson, who was nominated only after a bitter fight within his own party, swept the country. In more recent times, Pat Buchanan, representing the medieval wing of the Republicans, bolted to run as the Reform Party candidate in 2000. And then there was New Hampshire Senator Bob Smith who also ran as an independent after dissing the Republicans for a month or so because they weren't conservative
enough. (In true Republican opportunistic fashion, he returned to the Republicans following the death of Senator John Chaffee because he wanted Chaffee's committee appointments. Smith lost his re-election bid when the RNC backed John Sununu, Jr. in the primary.) The Democrats have had only one notable split-off, which was Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats in 1948. Ol' Strom revolted against the civil rights plank in the Democratic platform. Truman won anyway. In 1968, Alabama governor George Wallace, a DINO (Democrat In Name Only), started the American Independent Party, a rehash of the Dixiecrats, and ran on a platform of xenophobia and states' rights. (The movement became the Reagan Democrats in 1980. Good riddance.) The Republicans are the party that has to struggle with the big-tent concept; they're torn between the right wing-nuttery of Phyllis Schlafly and the
schultzstaffen of the Christian Coalition, and the moderates of the Olympia Snow / Lincoln Chaffee / Log Cabin wing. I expect there will be such a divide in 2008, regardless of whether or not Bush is re-elected in 2004, which can only be good news for the Democrats, whether or not they win the White House in 2004.
The likelihood that Howard Dean would ever run as an independent is so remote that you really have to wonder what they've been slipping into the eggnog at the New York Times Christmas party. Such a thing would require an alignment of so many cosmic elements that there is a better chance that Charles DeGaulle will show up in my living room and play the
Waltz of the Flowers on my baby grand piano. First, Dean is re-directing the Democratic party in a dynamic grass-roots fashion, re-energizing the party the same way Bill Clinton did in 1992 with the DLC. That caused much gnashing of teeth among the old die-hard liberal wing until they realized he was on the right track. While party unity has never been a hallmark of the Democrats, they know when they have a winner and they can close ranks with some semblance of order ("Okay, cats! Forward march!"). Also, Howard Dean's temperament is not that of a divider - he has worked all of his political life as a negotiator with his opposition (far more than Bush ever did in Texas) - and while Safire may pray that Dean's "prickliness" will lead to a split, the truth is that Dean is holding the winning hand and it will more likely be that some other candidate will split off from the Democrats than he will (Al Sharpton? Dennis Kucinich? Wil Wheaton?).
He doesn't come right out and say it, but Safire is still nursing the idea that somehow, some way, Hillary Clinton will run. He has invested so many pixels and paranoia in this obsession that he cannot conceive that he's wrong. He's pushing Wesley Clark, "egged on by his Clinton handlers," as the thorn in Dean's side. Safire envisions that the general will provoke the governor into an on-camera meltdown that takes them both out of the running (you can hear Safire cackling over the "he said / he said" veep flap) so that She Who Must Be Obeyed will then materialize on the stage of the Democratic convention in a cloud of green smoke. Oh, acme of delight for the once-vanquished Safire!
As for the idea that a split in the Democratic party will hand Bush a huge victory - "Landslides lead to tyrannous majorities and big trouble" - check your Blackberry, Bill. It's too late. Tom DeLay has your number.
[Update: Bill at StoutDemBlog reminded me of another Republican split-off: John Anderson in 1980, running against Reagan and Carter. How could I forget? I voted for him!]
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!