Read other letters about this article

• Sunday, December 2, 2007 11:46 PM

  Paul 2008 v. Dean/Clark 2004

  I see some parallels between Paul's current candidacy and those of Dean and Clark in 2004.

  I did volunteer work in '04 for Clark traveling a few hundred miles to New Hampshire to advocate for his nomination. First time I had really actively participated in any political campaign at any level (a common experience with other volunteers). I also had friends who were Dean enthusiasts -- who gave time and energy to Dean's nomination effort -- so I recognize some of the energy behind these campaigns. Edwards had some of this support as well in 2004.

  I think there's a natural human tendency to trust people who we identify with. And for a Paul supporter they probably identify very strongly with Paul's genuine outsider status (not unlike the Dean and Clark candidacies). He shares their idealism in a more "real" way than a more polished and jaded political candidate does. Voters do indeed crave "authenticity" -- especially when they feel that the political status quo is not working for them. This is certainly part of the bond between the candidate and supporters.

  Long-term a key difference that I see between Paul and Dean is that the Democratic party was able to channel this idealistic energy in a constructive manner after the primary. Dean was brought on as DNC Chair after the 2004 election (something that the GOP will never do on Paul's behalf). That energy was given an outlet in several House and Senate races in 2006 as the national party gave party activists, former Dean and Clark supporters, a voice in the selection process (thinking in particular of Jon Tester, Jim Webb, Joe Sestak, and Patrick Murphy. Paul Hackett was another prospective candidate who had strong grass roots/netroots support who did not receive the same kind of party support in 2006 -- so there was some give and take).

  I don't think the GOP will be able to constructively capitalize on this energy any time soon. I just don't see how this will happen. The strongly centralized nature of the GOP's national political structure seems at odds with this possibility. Too much top-down control. Too many irreconcilable differences between the mainstream GOP and Paul supporters. Not much overlap at all in terms of agendas and national priorities. Stranger things have happened, but I think fragmentation, rather than renewal is the more likely outcome for the GOP right now. The GOP front-runners in particular seem to have completely lost their capacity for articulating a positive vision for America. Mostly it's just pandering and demagoguery.

  —JHRS07 Read JHRS07's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel