The most disturbing and unfortunate effect of the stranglehold Howard Dean had on the Democratic Party this past year (up until a couple of weeks ago, that is) is that he forced otherwise reasonable candidates to fall all over themselves in an effort to prove to the so-called “Democratic wing of the Democratic party” that they, too, are “anti-war.” Roger L. Simon puts it like this:
…what Dean has done by feeding the antiwar (really anti-Bush) frenzy of the leftwing of the party is far worse than demonstrating that he’s a hothead. He has essentially intimidated the others (except Lieberman, obviously, and Kucinich, in a different way–both fringe candidates) into a limited and conventional response to a complex situation for fear of losing the nomination. The potential of the Democratic Party has been stymied. There is no dialogue on foreign policy. Who knows what Kerry and Edwards really think about confronting Islamic fascism? Who knows if they know what [they] really think anymore?
In its most concrete encapsulation, this produced a raft of congressman and senators who voted for the war, then after the war was a done deal, voted against the $87 billion appropriation needed to fund the troops already there. Kerry and Edwards were two such men, the shameful opportunism of which is a big reason why I’m so hesitant to support them now.
My hope is that with Dean seemingly ready to collapse into a singularity and pull Wes “The Stepford Candidate” Clark in with him, Kerry and Edwards will be able to reassert themselves regarding foreign policy, without feeling the need to pander to an anti-war segment of the population that, if Iowa is any indication, is simply not an integral component of political success. No, it doesn’t bode well that these guys changed their points of view on as serious an issue as the war in Iraq simply out of political expediency. But my support of George W. Bush over the past few years should prove that I’m the forgiving sort, if the situation warrants.