The Demise of the “Blair Democrats,” As Howard Dean Raises His Profile on Iraq. Is Dean Using His DNC Chairmanship to Run for President Again?

When Howard Dean was gaining steam for the Democratic nomination, the party’s establishment panicked — and rightly so. Dean would have been demolished. One prominent Democrat even penned an effective anti-Dean piece in the Washington Post in April 2003 under the headline, “The Blair Democrats: Ready for Battle.” He wrote:

After all, four of the leading Democratic presidential contenders — Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sens. Joseph Lieberman, John Kerry and John Edwards — not only voted to support the war but also joined British Prime Minister Tony Blair in demanding that Bush challenge the United Nations to live up to its responsibilities to disarm Iraq…. Just as the swift liberation of Iraq has strengthened the Blair Democrats, it has weakened the party’s antiwar contingent, whose worst fears failed to materialize. The outcome deals a near-fatal blow to the presidential prospects of Howard Dean, whose staunch opposition to the war thrilled Iowa’s left-leaning activists but is out of step with rank-and-file Democrats, about two-thirds of whom approve of the war…. Recognizing that U.S. global leadership requires strong military forces and the will to use them, they reject the left’s attempts to cast Democrats as a reflexively antiwar party. Indeed, the Iraq debate revealed a party that is moving away from McGovernism and back to its internationalist roots.

But where have these Blair Democrats gone with Chairman Dean once again leading the anti-war charge? Aside from Sen. Lieberman (and to a lesser extent Gov. Mark Warner, at least for now), who’s relentlessly attacked by left-wing blogs, the Democrats have been kowtowing to their anti-war base. Kerry and Edwards, for example, have long since abandoned their initial positions on the war — arrived at when they were planning presidential runs — and despite the media spin that Hillary stuck to her guns on Iraq in her “letter to constituents,” the senator basically said she was duped on the war and the other week supported a Levin-sponsored amendment on withdrawal timetables. Warner has said that he opposes withdrawal timetables but won’t say how he would have voted on the congressional war resolution — he’ll presumably see how things are going a few months from now before letting us know. While they may dress their rhetoric up a bit to sound less Howard Dean-like, most of the “Blair Democrats” are fast becoming “Dean Democrats,” putting an exit strategy ahead of a victory strategy. Dean understands this and now feels free to pop off with hardly a peep of opposition from the presidential wannabes. He may even be rethinking his presidential ambitions. Why not? The same Democratic establishment that helped torpedo his ’04 bid has now adopted his core position on Iraq. The base is with him, and Dean is far more charismatic than Sen. Feingold, the only other potential candidate who opposed the war from the start. Kerry’s star has dimmed and Edwards has performed a complete flip-flop on the war. Hillary Clinton and Warner are trying to have both ways but that act may be hard to sustain over the long run and will likely invite a strong challenge from the left because Iraq isn’t going away. Candidate Dean, anyone?

Related Content