Weather for oberlin.oh provided by weatherroom.com.

Search recent issues


Recent issues
October 31
October 10
October 3
Older issues ...

Review info
About us
Subscriptions
Advertising

<< Front page Commentary November 7, 2003
 
Student makes case in defense of Howard Dean

To The Editors:

In last week’s issue of the Review, Dave Leahy wrote a letter entitled “Student Takes Dean to Task on Qualifications.” This letter viciously attacked Howard Dean for both his record and his style. Leahy’s page-long mess of factual errors and wrong-headed conclusions inspired me to write a response.

Firstly, Leahy is misguided in his assertion that Dean, “never amassed the policy depth or thoughtful approach of Wellstone, who worked tirelessly to steer thoughtful and significant policy to the floors of Congress. Wellstone fought like hell for everyone who needed it.” In actuality, Dean is committed to helping those in need with specific policy proposals. Throughout this campaign Dean has put out detailed policy proposals on healthcare (expanding the FEHBP to all Americans who need it), economic stimulus (a $100 billion Fund to Restore America — a jobs creation program), education (restoring the power of community school boards) and many other issues. Dean, unlike the other candidates running, is honest about what it will take to pay for it all; he would have to repeal all of the Bush tax cut.

Here Dean stands in contrast to Kerry, who also has healthcare and economic stimulus proposals but would not be able to pay for them without running up deficits, because he wishes to keep parts of the Bush tax cut.

Leahy’s defamation, however, does not stop there. He attacks Dean’s healthcare record by saying, “[Dean] claims that he made sure that virtually every child in Vermont has health insurance, thanks to his administration. What he neglects to mention is that a major percentage had health insurance before he took office.”

This negation of Dean’s healthcare record is severely misleading. Dean’s administration introduced a program called “Dr. Dynosaur.” This program insures 58,903 children who are 18 and under and below 300 percent of the poverty line.

Dean also expanded prescription drug benefits for seniors and signed a bill that gave parity in health care to patients with mental illnesses. In fact, Dean has done more for health care in this country than any other candidate running.

Leahy then moves on to attack Dean’s views on the Iraq war. Leahy’s argument is that most Americans support the war effort and therefore would not vote for Dean. This is false for three reasons.

The first reason, which recent electoral politics seems to have confirmed is that personality matters more than policies. If Americans see a man who will make unpopular decisions occasionally (civil unions, Iraq war), they see it as a plus, even if they disagree.

Another reason is that, while he was against the war, Dean realizes that we have now made a commitment to the Iraqi people to help them rebuild — in other words, Dean is not an irrational “pull ’em out now” liberal.

The third and final reason is that many of Dean’s other policies appeal to the more conservative segment of America. He is a “balance the budget liberal” who believes that no new national gun controls should be passed. While these two issues may make liberals queasy, they have led to numerous conservatives lending their support to Dean (Conservatives for Dean, Republicans for Dean, Libertarians for Dean). Dean is so popular with conservative America that he was invited to speak at the conservative Cato Institute.

This does not mean that Dean is not progressive, nor does it mean that he is weak on the issues that traditionally belong to Democrats. He is fervently pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-national healthcare and pro-environment. Dean simply has the advantage of being a candidate who has gotten both an “A” rating from the NRA and an endorsement from Jesse Jackson Jr. Finally, Leahy suggests that Dean would make a bad president because “Dean has no experience with foreign policy, urban issues, or minority issues.”

The reason that Dean has no experience with foreign policy issues is because he, like four of our last five presidents, was a governor. The one president with “foreign policy experience “that we have elected recently was George Bush Sr., a one-term president.

Dean has taken progressive stances on minority issues like affirmative action and the fact that he hasn’t officially cast Senate votes on these issues is irrelevant. Because he was a governor, Dean was in a situation much closer to that of the president than a senator would be. Like the presidency, the governorship is an executive position; he makes decisions and gets praise or blame depending on how things turn out.

During his 11 years as governor of Vermont, Dean never had the benefit of a body of hundreds of members to hide behind when times were tough. Through this experience, Dean has learned how to make tough decisions; this is a lesson that would serve some of the other candidates well.

I’d like to end this letter with the fact that as a campaigner, Dean has been the most effective of any Democrat. His innovative brand of populism has struck a chord with the nation, catapulting him from the governor of a small New England state to the front-runner to challenge George W. Bush for the presidency of the United States.

His campaign is a triumph of true democracy and a testament to the power of the individual in American politics.

–Charlie Sohne
College first-year