I don’t always agree with Stephen Bainbridge, but he has a point about Paul Krugman’s latest missive:
Mr. Dean is squarely in the center of his party on issues like health care and national defense. (Link)
Which is precisely the Democrats’ problem. In their party, being what the Economist’s Lexington called “a moderate governor of one of the most left-wing states in the union,” qualifies you as a centrist. There’s a big difference between being a centrist in Vermont (or Manhattan or LA) and being a centrist in, say, Missouri.
Of course, that cuts both ways; a Republican at the center of his or her party (Thad Cochran? Bob Taft?) is going to be well to the right of the centrist voter in many states, and certainly would not be the same thing the media would label a “moderate” Republican (someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain, or Christie Todd Whitman). Howard Dean may well be at the center of his party (or at least the “Democratic wing” of it, as he would put it), but that doesn’t make him a political moderate like fellow Democrats Martin Frost, John Tanner, and Joe Lieberman.
1 comment:
Actually, Dean is a pretty conservative democrat fiscally. And he appears to me to be pretty moderate, especially compared to the Kerrys and Edwardses of the party, on things like health care. Heck, he proposed a system to cover the uninsured (a voucher for a specified amount, for each member of the family) that is strikingly similar to one that Tom McClintontock, as very conservative Republican in California, proposed when he was running for governor out here. He just gets painted as left wing because the Republican power needs to stir up as much hate against him as it can, so his message never gets heard.
I’m not saying Dean is perfect (he likes far too many nanny state ideas for my tastes). I’m just saying he’s not the left wing idealogue that he is painted as…His left wing status comes primarily from his opposition to Iraq.