Dean: The Outsider as Insider? No

The emerging conventional wisdom about Dean's fade seems to be that, as he began to collect big-name endorsements, he lost the appeal that drove his campaign in the first place, which was his outsider status.

Terry Neal made this point in the Washington Post this morning:

Dean was running a somewhat contradictory campaign, one based partly on inevitability and partly on insurgency. At campaign events, Dean spoke passionately about being an outsider, while being introduced by Hollywood millionaires like Martin Sheen and Rob Reiner, and by Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, a consummate Washington insider. To some extent, tonight's loss could be good news for Dean because it may make him reassess how he's run his campaign. It allows him to play the underdog role again, which is where he seems to be at his strongest.

Josh Marshall and Taegen Goddard of the Political Wire made similar points last night. Political Wire says "the 'outsider' campaign had trouble assimilating insiders."

I'm just going with my instincts here, and will defer to anyone who spent a lot of time talking to Iowa voters or dissecting the exit polls to reach this conclusion, but I don't buy it. I think that the basic trajectory of the Dean campaign, which was to build up some enthusiasm around his voice and his issues, and then consolidate it by picking up credible support from established (tho not necessarily "establishment") figures was very smart, and could have sent both the messages that the campaign wants to send: first, that Dean is passionate about fixing what's gone wrong in this country, and second, that he's not nutty or marginal, but is a serious, respected guy. It is impressive that these were endorsements that he earned, through hard work and an impressive campaign, not the normal pro forma endorsements such as some Kerry's very early backing.

The problem with the theory is that the whole insider/outsider distinction as it applies within the Democratic party is kind of contrived, and is almost certainly the farthest thing from the minds of most voters. Right now, we're all outsiders to the power structure of the United States. What makes Tom Harkin a "consumate insider" right now? He's as powerless as me. (Not really, but hey, my endorsement doesn't matter either.) What makes Martin Sheen an insider, besides the fact that he plays one, sort of, on TV? Are Bradley and Gore insiders? If so, isn't the six-term moderate governor of Vermont, former vice-chair of the National Governors Association and cautious supporter of welfare reform, equally an insider? And why does it matter?

I think one of Dean's mistakes -- though not his biggest -- was in trying to draw some insider/outsider distinction within the Democratic Party itself, exemplified by his attack on Clinton. I sort of understand the two camps within the Democratic Party, although I've lost interest in it, but that's because I've spent a lot of my life thinking about it, and sometimes even get paid to think about it. But the average voter -- by which I mean simply the voter who's got a life, and doesn't really have time to focus on who he or she is going to vote for until a week or two before the event -- doesn't think about this distinction at all, ever, and doesn't want to have to choose sides.

Again, this is pure speculation, but I think the only thing that happened to Dean was that the intense, almost obsessive nature of his campaign was kind of a turnoff to those later voters. Thirty-five hundred identically dressed kids from places like Evergreen State College filled with messianic certainty can be cool, or it can be a nightmare in a state like Iowa. The thing that always turned me off about the Dean campaign was its self-absorbtion, the idea that the campaign itself somehow transcended ordinary politics. Joe Trippi often says that Dean is unique in that he doesn't talk about himself, doesn't say, "vote for me, and I'll do the following..." Instead, he talks about the people. It's People-Powered Howard.

That's sort of true. But it kind of reminds me of Senator Dale Bumpers, in his great defense of Bill Clinton in the impeachment trial, when he said, "When they tell you it's not about sex, it's about sex." When they tell you it's not about Me, but about The People, it's usually about Me. By talking about his campaign as if he were merely the corporeal representative of some mystical communal force, Dean neglected to do the more basic work of politics, which is to talk about himself, what kind of president he would be, and what he would do. It's been about process. It's been about talking about reaching voters instead of just speaking to them.

In noting that late-deciding voters overwhelmingly went to Kerry and Edwards, most analysts have assumed that this meant that Dean had a bad last few weeks, suggesting that perhaps those late endorsements such as Harkin's hurt him. I don't think that's the case at all. Dean could have had a terrific last few weeks, and still failed to get the late-deciders. That's because late-deciders are fundamentally different people than people who decided early on. They are less deeply engaged with politics, they dislike Bush but can probably go days without thinking about him (wish I could do that), and they want to participate just as citizens, picking a candidate that appeals to them, voting, and going home. The Dean campaign probably seemed like too much of a big commitment -- you have to either join the orange hats or not. And Americans don't generally want to join anyone's orange-hatted Perfect Storm. (Who wears orange unless they're hunting?) Obviously, the voters that a Democrat will have to reach in November are even more like that.

If the Outsider-as-Insider analysis is right, then Dean's task isn't that hard. He just sheds the insider trappings and goes back to the outsider role, which is what I think he'll try to do. (Although I heard last night that he's taken the opposite tack in New Hampshire, running an ad that portrays him as the moderate governor of a neighboring state.) If I'm right, I'm not sure what his best move is.

But I've learned over the years to beware candidates that seem to Transcend the Rules of Politics. Just as in the economy, the normal rules have a way of roaring back, and transcendent politics will break your heart.