Howard Dean believes the Democrats should campaign in all 50 states, and that belief perhaps cost him the Iowa caucuses, the New Hampshire primary, and the Democratic nomination in 2004 because he did not devote enough time and resources in these vital places to win them and drive other candidates out of the race.
But his 2004 campaign was an unprecedented form of insurgency. His the only campaign of which I can recall that attacked the Democrats for not being partisan enough. His was the only campaign that started from the outside, picked up substantial backing on the Democratic National Committee, led in fundraising and volunteer recruitment, and still lost the nomination anyway.
His belief in a 50 state strategy was vital to his election as Democratic National Chairman, as the grassroots were fed up with being marginalized by multimillionaire political consultants who told them they could not possibly win grassroots campaigns so they were wasting all their money. All their money should go to a relatively small number of targeted races with heavy TV advertising, they said.
Dean's 50 state strategy idea had to brave attacks from people around Senate Democratic Campaign Committee Chairman Chuck Schumer and Democratic House Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emmanuel. It had to brave attacks from big-money givers wedded to the status quo. It had to brave attacks from the consultants themselves--whose high but stressful lifestyle was based on commissions from multimillion dollar media buys.
The results are not all in yet, obviously, but the opponents of the 50 state strategy are being mightly quiet lately. At both state and national levels, more and more races are being considered to be in play.
The Republican Party, rather than targeting a small number of races with confidence that others can be safely ignored, is now facing a confusing political landscape where nothing is certain. Republican incumbents, traditionally large donors to marginal seat contests, are more likely this year to be hoarding their money to fight their surprisingly feisty challengers.
In places where Republican incumbents stave off Democratic attacks and win, they will be faced with new political realities. They will be looking to make common cause with some of the Democrats who voted against them. They will be far more likely co-sponsor Democratic bills, defend Democratic ideas in public forums, and vote with the Democrats in committee and on the House and Senate floors.
And, back at the grassroots, a lot of people are getting valuable experience in putting campaigns together and advocating Democratic ideals. Democratic ideals are not being seen as boutique items fit only for overwhelmingly Democratic constituencies such as mine. They are being seen as true American goals, which have resonance around the nation if expressed in a manner relevant to local concerns.
Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman dominated national politics for a generation because they and their supporters believed that they spoke for the nation, and many voters ratified that belief.
John Kennedy joked that his father told him "Don't buy a single vote more than necessary. I'll be damned if I am going to pay for a landslide." But he campaigned around the nation and lost his life because he never fully accepted the degree of hatred he aroused from those offended and threatened by his policies. Kennedy believed he was the spokesman for believers in great and vitally important national purposes.
The same was true for Lyndon Johnson. He spoke with passion as to how America can be changed for the better, and delivered on the amibitious domestic reform program in American history, which was made possible by heavy Democratic majorities around the country.
Johnson had mixed feelings about the long-term political impact of what he was doing, and he gave different messages to different people. To Southern opponents of civil rights he said, "We're killing the Democratic Party in the South for a generation."
But to liberal politicians and campaign aides, he talked of his joy in giving "real Democratic speeches" in the South. "They've never heard them before," he said. All they have heard he said, and here I paraphrase to avoid giving offense, are speeches full of racial innuendos and racial slurs.
The administrations of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were constructed on the belief that a more modest expression of Democratic ideals was a more effective expression of Democratic ideals. But, over time, far too much ground was surrendered. And with the surrendering of goals and purposes went the surrendering of constituencies and the search for new constituencies.
To be a Democratic leader over the past generation has all too frequently been to be under internal pressure to compromise with the Republicans, to trim one's sails, to agree that achieving 10% or 15% of one's goals is certainly better than achieving nothing.
The Democratic Party has made far too many compromises, and surrendered far too much. Our political weaknesses led to policy weaknesses which produced more political weaknesses and kept us going in an endless downward spiral. Too many people have given up because the sacrifices politics requires did not seem to be justified by the scaled down objectives of what was being sought.
Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy is essentially a long-range attempt to change the direction of the Democratic Party. That is highly likely to achieve beneficial results the first year that it is being tried is a wonderful bonus.
This year, more than 60 years after the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt, it looks like there really is a Democratic majority in our country.