Wishing for Wellstone

« Items worth reading on Labor and Dem establishment | Main | Grover's Back »

01/23/2004

Wishing for Wellstone

The saturation coverage of Howard Dean's manic post-caucus speech has made me think of the sad end to the 2002 Senate race in Minnesota, when a little bit of the lively partisanship that characterized Paul Wellstone's life snuck into his funeral, which then itself became an "issue" that poisoned the last four days of Walter Mondale's nine-day return to electoral politics.

The Wellstone funeral was one of those completely contrived issues that show just how cynically brilliant the Republicans can be. I assume they could foresee -- as who could not -- that there would be some anti-Bush enthusiasm at Wellstone's funeral, and that they had the press release denouncing it ready to go that afternoon. Dean's speech, on the other hand, is actually just a trivial thing -- a tired man attempting to rouse a frustrated crowd, or vice versa -- but he has the misfortune that it will create a strong first impression among many voters, and it reinforces what they've been told about him. It's really just bizarre that one little thing could have such an impact.

Ironically, for a week or two before the Iowa caucuses, when it still seemed likely that Dean would be the nominee, I'd been thinking about Wellstone, and wishing that Dean had a little more Wellstone in him. Wellstone was an unbelievable speaker for political rallies, often treating the Senate floor as if it were one. I remember once seeing him speak about campaign finance reform in a cheap hotel in Raleigh, North Carolina, in a meeting room with about 50 people and at most an eight-foot ceiling. I told someone at the time that it reminded me of a contest in the early days of MTV, where the prize was "Motley Crue will play a concert in YOUR living room!" He never modulated the volume, but he almost always got the tone just right.

It was a tone of passionate outrage, but combined with a real sense of the possibilities of change, and a sense that those possibilities were embodied in the people he was speaking to. It was a plain-spoken Midwestern passion, rather like I imagine Hubert Humphrey's was, pre-Vietnam. Wellstone didn't have to talk about connecting to people who weren't like him; it came naturally to him. When speaking in the Senate, he always seemed to be speaking directly to the 51 or 60 or 90 Senators who didn't agree with him, as if he could persuade them, rather than performing for C-SPAN. It took a while, but eventually that heartfelt tone helped him connect to his colleagues, and form alliances like his pairing with conservative New Mexico senator Pete Domenici on behalf of coverage for mental health. And it helped that he was, by experience and temperament, a community organizer. He'd been accustomed to organizing movements that didn't center around him, and it's no accident that his field organization delivered vote turnouts for him that were 6-10 points ahead of the polls. Dean, on the other hand, was and is a fairly traditional politician who found himself in the role of organizing a movement.

I don't mean to dis Dean here, partly because I've done so enough already, but really because saying that he's no Paul Wellstone should be no insult. There was only one Wellstone. But I do think part of what happened to Dean was that he stepped into a role -- the rally speaker, the community organizer -- for which he was not all that well suited. And although Wellstone was unlikely to have run for president, one can't help but feel that the role Dean has played in the campaign was really the Wellstone role. I find it easy to imagine Wellstone on that stage with Dean on Monday, speaking before him, setting the tone, and whispering to him to cool it. I didn't agree with Wellstone on everything; I'm considerably more moderate. But I can't help wishing he were part of this.

Posted by Mark Schmitt on 01/23/2004 at 12:49 AM in 2004 elections, Decembrist archives | Permalink

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Great point. I've always thought that the role Dean set out to play in the campaign was more of a Bruce Babbitt one, but the one he ended up being thrust into was Ross Perot.

Now, neither Babbitt nor Perot became President. But which way would you rather lose?

Posted by: Chris | 01/23/2004 at 09:53 AM

Thanks Mark,

I think talking about Wellstone also puts a lot of this crap in more perspective. I also appreciate that you're not gratuitously piling on Dean like the vultures out there.

Wellstone's speech before the first Gulf War was one of the finest I've seen.

"But I do think part of what happened to Dean was that he stepped into a role -- the rally speaker, the community organizer -- for which he was not all that well suited."

As Dean said last night on primetime live, what he meant by not being himself was playing the part of the rockstar that night. I think that's the funny thing about this...I think he feels bad because he knows he wasn't being himself in trying to hype up the crowd. It is a shame, though, that one moment can be blown so out of proportion.

Despite the limited time he still might be able to pull a decent showing in NH. I think given another week I have no doubt that Dean could turn this around...at his core his plain speaking, fiscal conservative message would resonate strongly in NH.

He also said that his family was more important than being President...I wonder if anyone who really lives like that can actually become President.

Posted by: lerxst | 01/23/2004 at 10:14 AM

I tend to fall in line with many, if not all, Wellstone/Dean political beliefs. But I must disagree with your post on both these examples.

I watched both of the seminal events you refer to live on TV, the Wellstone memorial and the Dean speech. My visceral reaction to both was extreme embarrassment for the participants and their obvious lack of good judgement.

I remember the Wellstone son, face twisted, screaming at the top of his lungs, "We will win! WE WILL WIN!!!"

That, my friends, was not a loving phrase in memoriam of a departed father and statesman; it was in fact a politically partisan statement specifically referring to the upcoming election. In short, the GOP in this instance was correct.

The Dean speech in and of itself wasn't that bad, BUT it showed horrendously poor judgement for one who wants to be president. He should have moderated his behavior knowing the TV cameras were on him; he didn't.

Lack of judgement is the reason Dean's speech was so fatal to his campaign and the reason Mondale lost to Coleman.

Posted by: Jim J | 01/23/2004 at 11:19 AM

Dean may have stepped into a role for which he was not all that well suited, but he played that role fairly well, it seems to me, and to good effect with the audience. It would be a shame if he now reneged in favor of the more cerebral brand of politicking that his own campaign and his Democratic rivals are pushing him into -- but that seems to be exactly what's happening. The Republicans pick up a lot of voters by going for the gut rather than for the brain. Dean looked to be going for both organs, which was refreshing.

...Wellstone gets a mention in Marc Singer's profile of Dean in the 12 January New Yorker, in which he points out that in a speech before the DNC last February, Dean lifted a line from Wellstone: "I'm Howard Dean and I'm here to represent the *Democratic* wing of the Democratic party."

Sounds good to me.

Posted by: Mark Wallace | 01/23/2004 at 11:19 AM

Mark,
I think you might be underestimating the difficulties of translating the skills that Wellstone had -- admittedly, greater than Dean's -- into a national campaign. In fact, when I went to see Dean speak in Minnesota last spring, he showed the same ability to strike the right tone and connect with people that Wellstone had. Again, no one can match Wellstone's ability - and in fact I think that had he not had health problems, he would have seriously considered running for president. But I think Dean's running commentary on his own campaign -- talking about connecting with people and so on -- was directed almost entirely at the media. It was a perhaps lame effort to shape the stories written about him; it was not a substitute for actually connecting with people, and I don't think it came naturally to him.

Jim J.,
I agree with you that both (some of) the participants in the Wellstone memorial and Dean the other night showed a real lack of good judgment. But you buy into the cliche expectations of what the memorial was supposed to be, and what appropriate expressions of grief are, when you pejoratively describe Wellstone's son's appearance and criticize what he said. The GOP of course exploited those cliche expectations to the hilt. But are you really in a better position to decide what an appropriate way of honoring Wellstone was than his son? Again, the right tone was not struck that night -- after all, Wellstone's son is neither a politician, nor an accustomed public speaker. But as far as I could tell, politics were woven deeply into Wellstone's life, as well as his family's, and that was reflected in his son's tribute to his father. Your preference for "a loving phrase in memoriam of a departed father and statesman" sounds like a bunch of purple, phony prose completely at odds with who Wellstone was.

Posted by: Jeff L. | 01/23/2004 at 02:21 PM

in re, "[l]ack of judgement is the reason.. Mondale lost to Coleman," practitioners here in Minnesota disagree. they'll tell you that the memorial was generally well-received by actual voters despite the editorials. tracking polls tacked a bit onto Mondale's numbers immediately afterwards. only when Jesse Ventura appointed a non-Democrat to Wellstone's vacant seat did the polls turn. the canonical interpretation is that enough Ventura supporters reacted to his vote-of-no-confidence to swing a close race Coleman's way.

Posted by: wcw | 01/23/2004 at 06:56 PM