COLUMNISTS Barton Cox Durband Erickson Keller Knaperek Lawrence L

ANTON ORLICH

On Dean's Demise

Gov. Howard Dean’s explosive rise to the top of the Democrat field has been outpaced only by his dramatic fall. This spectacular turn of events prompts one to ask, first, what caused Dean’s serious setback and, second, can he recover?

Hearing Dean’s rude exchange with an Iowa senior citizen and watching his tirade on caucus night reminded me of a prediction I had heard many months ago. At a political science conference in April 2003, when Dean was still considered a long shot, Dr. Garrison Nelson, a professor at the University of Vermont, advised, “Watch his [Dean’s] temper.”

A short fuse is by no means rare, but it can be a career stopper for a politician. Indeed, those politicians famous for their temper are also renowned for masterfully concealing it.

Greek tragedy tells us that, “He whom the gods would destroy they first make mad,” and it’s not hard to make Dean furious. Making matters worse, his temper comes with a nasty streak. As Dean soared in the polls, built a formidable financial war chest, and gathered endorsements, I suspect that many who participated or attended the elections panel that day failed, much as I had, to give adequate weight to Dr. Nelson’s well-informed observation.

The most powerful motivator among core Democrat voters is anti-Bush sentiment. Dean’s successes can be traced to his willingness to attack President Bush and his policies vehemently. As other candidates failed to capture the anti-Bush passions of the Democrat base, Dean built up a formidable lead on them and cast himself as the Bush alternative.

But Dean’s latent problem was that his message is more anti-Bush than pro-Dean. If other candidates proved able to calibrate their messages and get the base’s attention, Dean faced the prospect of losing his large lead in the overall nomination process. Both conditions have materialized, and Dean is in trouble.

Moreover, the anti-Bush sentiment is so strong that, as the Iowa caucuses demonstrated, Democrat voters are increasingly concerned with fielding the candidate most likely to defeat Bush, even to the point of supporting someone formerly dismissed as a dry or flip-flopping politician. As Dean’s serious character flaws became apparent in the closing days of campaigning in Iowa, voters developed negative feelings toward him and started to question his electability. Dean lost momentum and, therefore, his strongest argument for why Democrat voters should choose him over his rivals. Meanwhile, voters became more open to considering Senator Kerry’s military experience and Senator Edwards’ Southern background, helpful characteristics in defeating Bush.

Momentum’s role in politics makes Dean’s character flaws the significant reason behind his demise. By the time Kerry and Edwards sufficiently changed their message to tap anti-Bush sentiment, Dean had built himself a formidable lead that suffocated Kerry’s and Edwards’ campaigns. Kerry and Edwards had found strong messages and images, but most voters and kingmakers in the Democrat party were too focused on Dean’s money and endorsements to listen to the alternatives. It was only in the wake of Dean’s public outbursts in the last weeks of campaigning in Iowa that concerned voters began to reconsider Dean and their earlier dismissals of Kerry and Edwards. What looked like a close race in Iowa with a slight edge for Dean just a month before caucus night turned into a disastrous and distant third-place finish for the ranter from Vermont, who reinforced his character flaws with a post-caucus tantrum that demonstrated an astounding lack of self-discipline. In short, Dean destroyed his own dominance, as only he could by that point in the election season.

Now momentum is working against Dean, although it is not working as hard for Kerry and Edwards as it was for Dean a mere month ago. But with just a week between Iowa and New Hampshire, Dean probably does not have time to correct his image of nastiness and reverse Kerry’s momentum in New Hampshire, however limited it is. The single most prominent memory New Hampshire’s swing voters likely will have of Dean on primary day is his rant on national television as the nation looked to see the outcome in Iowa. Dean has two conflicting tasks to accomplish in less than a week, either one of which would be difficult to achieve quickly. The former frontrunner must persuade voters he is not venomous while at the same time convince them he is the superior choice to Kerry, a task that probably requires attacks that Dean cannot afford to make in light of his first goal. And that is without mentioning Dean’s further problems with counteracting the efforts of the southerners, General Clark and Edwards, hoping to make their marks in the Northeast and to take advantage of their geographical identity in upcoming primaries.

With the dynamics such as they are, Dean is much less likely to win the nomination, but he still has the resources and temperament to scar the eventual nominee. If Dean does do such damage, there will be plenty of regretful Democrats who will have wished they had scrutinized Dean’s character before strengthening his candidacy.

An Arizona native, Anton Orlich teaches political science at Arizona State University-Main Campus, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy and is a candidate for the Arizona Senate, District 20 (Ahwatukee Foothills, Chandler and Tempe).