1/11/2004
HOWARD DEAN DROPS THE BALL
I hate to resurrect this dreadful mid-90s meme, but Howard Dean obviously just doesn’t get it:
Howard Dean rejected a voter’s request to be more neighborly and stop “mean mouthing” President Bush saying Sunday someone needs to stand up to the president.
Dale Ungerer, a retiree from Hawkeye, Iowa, lectured Dean for nearly three minutes near the end of a forum aimed at winning voters for Iowa’s Jan. 19 caucuses.
Ungerer accused Dean and other Democratic presidential hopefuls of dividing the country by bashing Bush instead of outlining their own plans and showing respect for authority.
“Please tone down the garbage, the mean mouthing, the tearing down of your neighbor and being so pompous,” Ungerer told the former Vermont governor and Democratic front-runner. “You should help your neighbor and not tear him down.”
“George Bush is not my neighbor,” Dean replied.
Sorry, Howie, but Jesus begs to differ.
Wasn’t it just last week that Dean said he was going to start talking more about Jesus in his campaign? Well, he certainly did in this sad exchange . . . just not quite in the way he intended.
Ungerer used Christian language without explicitly referencing Jesus Christ, and maybe that threw Dean for a loop. After a few months on the campaign trail, he’s probably used to hearing Christians being a little more forceful about their faith. But, if Dean was really serious about showing his own faith a little more, we’re faced with two possibilities: (a) he missed a great opportunity to explain his views on faith and politics, or (b) he honestly believes George Bush is not his neighbor, not even in the Biblical sense. The first is human frailty, but the second is simple ignorance.
Ordinarily I’d be inclined to give Dean the benefit of the doubt, if not for this:
“That is exactly the problem. Under the guise of ’support your neighbor’ we’re all expected not to criticize the president because it’s unpatriotic,” Dean said to enthusiastic applause. “I think it’s unpatriotic to do some of the things that this president has done to this country.”
I won’t comment on the patriotism of George Bush (and if you can’t criticize a sitting president, then the American Revolution obviously failed), but this quote clearly shows (at least to me) that Howard Dean really doesn’t think George Bush is his neighbor, not in any meaningful sense. While I’m in no position to judge his soul, he’d flunk Christianity 101 if I was his prof. Understanding care for the neighbor is one of the most basic things I (or any other pastor) would expect from a member of my flock. Jesus only mentioned it about a thousand times in his preaching, and the Old Testament is shot through with the idea as well. “Love your neighbor as yourself” is the sine qua non of Christianity–if you don’t understand this, and its importance, it’s doubtful that you know enough to be considered a Christian in good standing. Indeed, it’s likely that you wouldn’t know Jesus if he walked up and bit you on the arm.
So, either Howard Dean failed to recognize one of the most basic principles of the faith, or he has no interest in righteousness when there’s political points to be made.
As for me, I’ll stick with what Martin Luther had to say:
We must fear and love God, so that we will not deceive by lying, betraying, slandering or ruining our neighbor’s reputation, but will defend him, say good things about him, and see the best side of everything he does.
This makes for dull politics, but good neighbors. Then again, what’s wrong with that?
12 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Not to mention that Jesus extended the command beyond our neighbors. “Bless those who curse you and spitefully use you.” Dean is commanded to love his enemy. I am quite surprised at his lack of tact in this instance, especially knowing that there were reporters around.
Comment by bryan — 1/12/2004 @ 10:35 am
Supposedly Dean has a temper problem. I guess this was just his dark side coming out. It was an ill-advised action on his part. While northeast Iowa (where this exchange took place) is fairly pro-union and Democratic, I guaran-dang-tee that everybody in the audience understood what Ungerer meant by “neighbor.” I’m sure more than a few of them didn’t really care, but that’s beside the point.
Now it’ll be interesting to see what effect, if any, the Des Moines Register’s endorsement of Edwards has on the outcome . . . probably none, but it’s gotten Edwards some media attention, which is like crack to a politico.
Comment by Mark Hasty — 1/12/2004 @ 11:45 am
Edwards got the Register’s endorsement… How important is that? Not being an Iowan, I don’t know how much that’s supposed to help…
Comment by Kennedy — 1/12/2004 @ 5:14 pm
It falls in between “somewhat” and “not very.” The newspaper is considerably more liberal than the state as a whole, but Iowa is not exactly a conservative’s paradise. The DMR’s endorsement is probably more notable for the attention it gets from other media sources than for the degree to which it will influence Iowa voters. In other words, it’ll help Edwards more outside the state than in it.
Gotta say, though, the DMR is one of America’s great newspapers. I miss reading the Sunday Register . . . but I sure don’t miss delivering it.
Comment by Mark Hasty — 1/12/2004 @ 5:41 pm
So the rules are that candidates must have a certain percentage of caucusers to earn delegates, correct? Is there a so-called magic number?
Comment by Kennedy — 1/12/2004 @ 7:50 pm
The Iowa precinct caucuses are actually to select the delegates to attend the countywide party conventions. (There’s a caucus in every electoral precinct in the state.) The potential delegates all align themselves with a particular candidate, but they are not bound to vote for that particular candidate.
Consequently, the “results” of the caucuses are actually the percentage of delegates who have indicated that they will be voting to nominate a particular candidate. (Or, actually, to send a delegate to the state convention who will vote for that particular candidate.)
In other words, nobody at the Iowa caucuses actually casts a vote for any particular candidate for the presidency. And each individual precinct caucus is an all-or-nothing affair; they only elect one delegate from each precinct.
Comment by Mark Hasty — 1/12/2004 @ 8:30 pm
So it’s not who wins the most votes (or has the most caucasers), it’s who has the most precincts. Sounds like the 2000 election.
Comment by Kennedy — 1/12/2004 @ 8:32 pm
Yeah, but in Iowa, it’s like that every four years. Why anybody takes the Iowa caucuses seriously, I’ll never figure out. Its main purpose is to separate would-be presidents from as much of their money as possible, as early in their campaigns as possible.
Wait, maybe that’s a good thing . . .
Comment by Mark Hasty — 1/12/2004 @ 8:53 pm
Actually, newspaper endorsements don’t mean that much to *anybody*, not just the people in Iowa. There have been scientific studies to back this up (of which I can’t give one to you off the top of my head), but suffice to say that there are very few people who read the editorials, much less candidate endorsements.
It’s sort of like being the first name on the AB Honor Roll. the only people who care are you and your parents, or you (the candidate) and your parents (the people who put money into your campaign).
Comment by bryan — 1/12/2004 @ 10:26 pm
Bryan:
My usual preferred metaphor is, “It’s like being the best calf roper in Rhode Island.”
Comment by Mark Hasty — 1/12/2004 @ 10:36 pm
Regarding Edwards, here’s a Washington Post article on him & his Iowa campaign.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14476-2004Jan13.html
Comment by Kennedy — 1/14/2004 @ 1:06 pm
“I’m a jazz pianist in Iowa; you want to talk about long shots?”
Heh. Thanks, James.
Comment by Mark Hasty — 1/14/2004 @ 2:55 pm