HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
Howard
Dean: the Progressive Anti-War Candidate?
Perspectives
from Vermont
by
Donna Bister, Marc Estrin and Ron Jacobs
(The
Editorial Collective of the Old North End RAG)
September
6, 2003
Howard
Dean the liberal, anti-war candidate? The laughter rings most loudly in
Vermont.
As
Dean's candidacy caught fire over the summer, a number of articles have
appeared on the net examining his history and current stance on important
national and international issues. They all point to a Clintonesque Republicrat
whose stances are not far from that of the current administration.
Although
he publicly opposed attacking Iraq -- a smart political move setting him apart
from the other Democratic candidates -- Dean recently declared in a Washington
Post interview that he is now opposed to a pullout of US troops from Iraq.
According to the interview, he now feels we must stay as a matter of national
security, and not allow another anti-American regime to develop. Of course,
events on the ground seem to indicate that the occupation itself is what is
creating anti-Americanism in Iraq, but most politicians wont acknowledge that.
Dean’s basic objection to the war was to the Bush administrations unilateral
approach, without UN approval. But what about Washington-driven wars that are
not unilateral? What if the Security Council were arm-twisted into support?
What about multilateral wars like the war on Iraq in 1991, or the ones on
Yugoslavia and Afghanistan? Plain and simple--Dean supported them.
Although
he would likely be more sparing in its application, Dean has endorsed the Bush
doctrine of preventive war, saying that he would not rule out using military
force to disarm either North Korea or Iran. Dean has never voiced an objection
to the notion that it is Washington's prerogative to decide which countries may
have nuclear weapons, or its right to forcefully disarm those who do not do so
voluntarily. In addition, Dean does not support cutting the defense budget,
either for routine military expenditures, now at over one billion dollars/day,
nor the extra supplementary appropriations to support the Iraq occupation,
currently at four billion dollars/month.
Dean's
notion about the causes of anti-US belligerence echoes that of the current
administration. He has gone on record saying as much: "I think our freedom
is what they find so threatening, our freedom and the power that I think
results from that freedom." This analysis can not honestly address the real
issues behind the antagonism the United States currently incurs, and will
consequently require ever greater military funding to handle the global
consequences. Sounding very much like Bush, Dean has charged that Iran (along
with Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Libya) are "funding Palestinian terrorists
and fueling terrorism throughout the world." Do we need four more years of
this?
When
it comes to Israel and Palestine, Dean thinks the US should become more
involved, but beyond that have no fundamental objections to the Bush
administration policies in the region. He calls for an end to Palestinian
violence against Israeli civilians, but not for a cessation of Israeli violence
against Palestinian, nor an end to the Israeli occupation. He ignores Israeli
defiance of UN Security Council resolutions and the Geneva Accords, and has
been silent concerning withdrawal from Israel's illegal settlements in the
occupied territories or even concerning a freeze on the new construction. His
appointment of Steven Grossman, a former head of the pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC
and ex-chairman of the DNC, to a top campaign fundraising post reflects his
Zionist stance.
Dean
the Democrat continued to pursue much of the economic agenda established by his
Republican predecessor, Richard Snelling In short, this meant a tepid
pro-business policy under the guise of fiscal conservatism, often at the
expense of social programs serving disadvantaged populations. "One of my
most persistent activities during the early 1990s was trying to fend off the
more liberal wing of the Democratic Party," said Glenn Gershaneck, Dean's
press secretary for nearly four years and Snelling's spokesman for seven months
before that.
Conservative
Vermont business leaders praised Dean's record and his constant effort to
balance the budget, even though Vermont is a state in which a balanced budget
is not required. While other Democrats fought against Clinton's welfare reform,
Dean gave it ardent support. His commitment to a balanced budget would spare
the Pentagon from any cuts. So how would he reduce the deficit? During his
Vermont tenure, he tried to cut benefits for the aged, blind and disabled, spearheaded
a new workfare state law requiring labor from welfare recipients, and has
talked about moving the retirement age upwards -- some indication on whose
backs his budgets would be balanced.
Dean
has recently vocalized what seems to be politically motivated support of the
death penalty. He told the press after the vents of September 11, 2001:
"As governor, I came to believe that the death penalty would be a just
punishment for certain, especially heinous crimes.... The events of September
11 convinced me that terrorists also deserve the ultimate punishment." In
subsequent statements he even borrowed the phrasing from George Bush:
"When someone gets put to death for a heinous crime, I don't feel the
least bit conflicted about that."
There
was a small, but telling, incident back in 1996, when anti-death penalty
protestors who were in town opposing (the Pennsylvania governor) Tom Ridge’s
approval of Mumia Abu Jamal’s execution sprayed FREE MUMIA graffiti at the
Ethan Allen Homestead. The judge ruled, over the prosecutor's objection, that
the defendants could use a "necessity defense", i.e. to speak of
their motivations and analysis of Mumia's situation, rather than just admit to
spraying paint. Dean was disappointed with that decision. "These guys are
a bunch of hoods running around our streets," Dean commented. "I
don't think this has anything to do with the necessity offense --imported hoods
I might add. People who spray paint and deface public property are hoodlums not
protesters with some higher purpose. I have no patience for that."
Reporter Peter Freyne, now one of Dean's great supporters, asked his readers at
the time to "Remember [Dean's] the guy who once said 95 percent of people
charged with crimes are guilty anyway so why should the state spend money on
providing them with lawyers?"
As
Governor, Howard Dean endorsed the National Governors Association policy
opposing the Kyoto Protocol unless it included mandatory emissions cuts for
developing countries, and recommending that the United States "not sign or
ratify any agreement that would result in serious harm to the U.S.
economy." For environmentalists, EP, under Dean's leadership, came to mean
"Expedite Permits", rather than Environmental Protection. Business
leaders were especially impressed with the way Dean went to bat for them
against Vermont's stringent environmental regulations. For more, read Michael Colby's excellent
review of Dean's environmental misbehavior.
*
* *
But
these are stories Dissident Voice readers are likely to know. In addition, we'd
like to share with you some details of Howard Dean's eleven-year governorship
more familiar to Vermonters.
Under
Dean’s leadership, Vermont started welfare reform two years before the
mandatory federal program was put in place. Beginning in 1994, one-third of
Vermont applicants for cash assistance were subject to work requirements
similar to those eventually adopted nationally. (Another third received
financial incentives for getting a paying job, and the rest received standard
benefits without incentives or penalties). Was the plan a success? Well, most
welfare recipients (87%) got jobs on their own during the six years of the
Vermont welfare reform experiment. Cash assistance payments went down, and more
people were working in the robust economy of the mid 1990s. But according to
the official evaluation of the project (published by the Manpower Development
Research Corporation in September 2000), total family incomes did not change --
but families worked more hours for a total earnings and cash assistance package
averaging less that $12,000 annually.
Howard
Dean thinks that's success -- and it fits his arrogant and ultimately unfair
view of welfare recipients. What is that opinion? Well, in 1993, when defending
his welfare reform proposals during a weekly press conference, Dean said:
"Those recipients don't have any self-esteem. If they did, they'd be
working." While he later apologized for these callous remarks, his
policies remained firmly in the "they won't work unless they have to"
vein. Dean also used his position as chair of the National Governor's
Association to promote "flexibility" in welfare reform at the
national level--a code word for removing then current federal minimum standards
and protections for recipients of public assistance. In other words, states
could be as mean as they wanted to be towards those out of work and without
income.
Howard
Dean gives passionate speeches about universal health care as a moral
imperative, not just a policy initiative. Maybe, somewhere deep in his heart,
he really believes that people have a right to good health care. But we sure
aren't going to get there following the path he took in Vermont: tiny
increments -- adding insurance coverage for kids in moderate income families
one year, cutting back their benefits and increasing their co-pays and premiums
the next. Adding a prescription drug benefit for low-income seniors, then
cutting many of the most commonly used new drugs out of the formulary and
forcing seniors back onto older medications with more side effects. His
national proposal is similar--not really universal: it would extend Medicaid to
people under 25, add a little prescription drug coverage to Medicare, tinker
with this, adjust that, don't do anything to upset the insurance companies or
big Pharmaceuticals. Then, when the bill gets big, he would make the cutbacks
in the same incremental fashion. For example, began by defunding eyeglasses for
kids here, dentures for seniors there. You know, just a few cuts; after all,
everyone has to do his share.
Howard
Dean does not like drugs. He had a bout with alcohol during his college years that
seems to have left him with the impression that since he couldn't control his
consumption of mood-modifying substances, then neither could anyone else.
Consequently, his governorship was a campaign against reasonable approaches to
substance abuse. Like much of the US political establishment, liberal and
otherwise, Dean does not seem to believe that humans are capable of the
discerning use of intoxicating substances. Because he does not believe in such
a scenario, the only other option in his bag of tricks is tougher penalties. He
has endorsed fully the National Governors Association's policy, which calls for
increased involvement of law enforcement and disavows any form of legalization
not only as a policy but also as a philosophy. In short, Dean not only believes
in the war on drug users, but also would like to see it intensified.
Despite
his background in medicine, Dean has consistently opposed the use of marijuana
for medicinal purposes. Instead, he cites medical studies set up specifically
with the purpose of denying any medicinal properties to marijuana. In addition,
while heroin use has increased in Vermont, Dean did every thing he could to
oppose the introduction of methadone treatment to the state. While there are
certainly major flaws in this type of treatment, Dean's opposition to
instituting any type of treatment plan into Vermont while law enforcement and
the citizenry were growing ever more alarmed at the growing heroin problem
illustrates an insensitivity to the very real sociological reasons why people
end up on these types of drugs.
While
Dean vocalized his opposition to methadone treatment clinics and decried any
efforts to reduce the penalties on marijuana use -- even labeling the latter as
a gateway drug (a statistically questionable claim at best) -- the population
of Vermont's prisons increased to potentially dangerous levels. There is a
correlation between these two phenomena. The more police go after individuals
who use drugs, and the more judges are instructed to put them in jail, the more
prisoners there are. Of course, Vermont is not alone in the increase in
incarceration. Indeed, it still ranks among the lowest in incarceration rates
per100, 000 inhabitants. However, according to the DEA, the number of drug
arrests in Vermont increased under Dean's watch, peaking in the year 2001, with
the imprisonment of women increasing by over 140%.
Dean's
approach to criminal justice is regressive and draconian. Dean the governor was
no friend of the public's right to legal defense. According to various
attorneys in public defender's offices around the state, Dean under-funded
public defense, pouring monies into state's attorneys, police, and corrections
instead. According to the Rutland, Vermont daily, The Rutland Herald, this
meant that state's attorneys were able to round up ever-increasing numbers of
criminal defendants, but public defenders were not given comparable resources
to respond. This, too, helped to fill the prisons. Its not that crime
increased, but that police had more laws that they could arrest people for (and
more resources with which to do so). As an illustration of his opposition to a
fair defense for all, Dean once stated at a meeting of criminal defense lawyers
that he believed his job as governor was to make the defense attorneys' job as
tough as possible. He also tried to block a $150,000 federal grant aimed at
assisting defendants with mental disabilities.
Why
would someone want to do that unless he had doubts about the validity of the
6th amendment to the US constitution? Is he motivated by a need to appear tough
on crime? As Governor he claimed the legal system unfairly benefited criminals
over prosecutors. According to his own words, he wanted to "quickly
convict guilty criminals,"(so much for the presumption of innocence), and
opined that the US needs a "re-evaluation of the importance of some of our
specific civil liberties." John Ashcroft, perhaps there'd be a job for you
in a Dean administration.
All
Vermont schoolchildren learn about Vermonts first people, the Abenakis, in
their lessons about the history of Vermont. Despite this acknowledgement of the
Abenakis special status, the Dean administration, released a 200-page document
in 2002 that was prepared by out-of-state consultants, and without a request
from the Bureau of Indian Affairs or anyone else, concerning "The State of
Vermont's Response to the Petition for Federal Acknowledgment of the Abenaki
Nation of Vermont." This legal opinion asserted that the tribe does not
meet the criteria for recognition. The document has been criticized by local
experts -- Vermont historians and anthropologists -- as being "highly
biased and wildly out of date." Because the legal opinion would have
raised a ruckus among many progressive Vermonters, it was released quietly in
the final days of his governorship.
Contemporary
Abenakis are currently petitioning the federal government for official
recognition as a tribe -- which would give them legal minority status with
access to relevant civil rights laws, help them with grant-writing for schools,
scholarships and health care, and make available cultural grants to help
preserve the language and oral traditions. As the aforementioned report
indicates, Dean is opposed to this petition. This type of vehemence towards
Native Peoples rights does not bode well for other First Nations within US
borders. Even Vermonters are mostly unaware of this gratuitous and
mean-spirited attack.
Given
all the above we feel that -- except for criticizing Bush's path into war --
Howard Dean departs little, if at all, from the corporate-sponsored bipartisan
doctrines that now misrepresent our lives. To see him as a potential savior
from Bush & Co. is to delude ourselves, and, furthermore, those on whom
many of our states residents urge him.
And
here the RAG collective dis-collects. We each have different plans for activity
in the 2004 election.
Ron:
I
have never voted for a presidential candidate. Indeed, the last one I even
wanted to see in the White House was George McGovern, but my 18th birthday came
after the 1972 election. The only candidate I have consistently supported for
the presidency is the candidate managed in his first several campaigns by Wavy
Gravy: NOBODY. Why? Because I honestly believe NOBODY really cares about the
poor and the young, especially when they don t vote. I also am truly convinced
that NOBODY will withdraw our forces from Iraq and Afghanistan unless they
think they will lose the election if they don't. And, last but not least,
NOBODY will legalize marijuana and cut the defense budget. Of course, as one my
friends in the Hog Farm used to remind me, if NOBODY wins then nobody loses,
especially the people.
Would
I vote for Howard Dean if he were running against George Bush? I honestly don t
know. If the election were held today, I think I would put a clothespin on my
nose and pull the lever for Mr. Dean. However, if he continues to head down the
path of imperial foreign policy and domestic repression, I would reserve my
vote once again for NOBODY. Even if I did grudgingly vote for Dean, it would be
because I believe it is essential that Rumsfeld and Ashcroft become unemployed
sooner rather than later. As a resident of Vermont who has seen Howard in
action ever since I moved here in 1992, I know he is not what he is claiming to
be. Nuff said.
Marc:
Those
of you who feel you must go Democratic, should probably work uphill for Kucinich
-- the guy who actually is what Dean is supposed to be. But I intend to work
toward the longer-range goal of establishing a national political party
independent of corporate control, one embracing not less-evil alternatives, but
values I truly believe in: I will be working to establish the Vermont Green
Party.
My
thoughts about the behavior of a Democratic or Dean presidency are speculative,
but I am not as convinced as Ron, that it would necessarily be an improvement
over that of the current maniacs -- especially after another 9/11-like attack.
Democrats have always to prove they are not soft on crime, defense, etc.: the
Gore campaign proposed even higher military expenditures than Bush's. It was a
Democrat that gave us welfare "reform", and suffocated habeas corpus,
and wagged many dogs worth of tonnage. I won't argue this here in detail. I
think the world must now get through a profound historical moment of
contraction -- of imperial reach, of economic coercion, of environmental
footprint -- and that the powerful of the American status quo will fight these
changes tooth and nail, be they Democrat or Republican. But the changes we are
experiencing -- in global consciousness, in planetary pathology -- are
ineluctable. Bush & Co. are providing the clearest possible teaching
moment, which, for all we know, may shorten the time needed for change. Another
Clinton-like Dem, cloaking his malignancies in liberal rhetoric, may slow these
changes down. Who knows? It's going to be bad, either way, for at least a
generation. But if the world gets through it, the US will need a politics that
speaks to a healthier future. Thus, I turn to the possibility of the Greens
becoming a strong public voice. See http://www.vermontgreens.org.
Donna:
I
know that a lot of you are going to vote for Dean -- he talks a good game; he
can be charismatic and charming. But I'm warning you. This man will tell you
what you want to hear, or at least tell you something that has some little
kernel of something that you can interpret as support for the things that are
important to you. But when the time comes to stand up and lead on the issue, to
take on the money interests and backsliders in his own party, that stiff little
spine will turn into a slinky.
If
you vote for him, it's your job to stand behind him with a poker and keep him
headed in the right direction. Don't give him any honeymoon period,
either--keep the pressure on from the second you drop that ballot in the box.
The minute you relax, he's going to turn right back into what he really is...a
privileged, arrogant, middle of the road republican. Put your political energy
into getting some truly progressive folks into the House and Senate, and into
State legislatures around the country so that there will be more pressure from
more directions. We need to get together our sophisticated progressive thinkers
to develop policy ideas in every area, so that we're ready with real,
well-thought out counter-proposals for the incremental changes a Dean
administration might put forth. If you feel you must, support Dean, do--but
then go do the work necessary to make real change.
Ron Jacobs, Donna Bister and Marc Estrin comprise the
OLD NORTH END RAG collective. The RAG is an agitational community newspaper
serving the Old North End of Burlington, Vermont. This neighborhood is a
primarily working class section of Vermont’s largest city that has a history of
political activism. They can be reached at: rjacobs@uvm.edu