Once Again: The Top Ten Responses To - "I Love Kucinich But He Can't Win"

by Tad Daley

OpEdNews.com

Every noble work is at first impossible. The virtue lies in the struggle, not in the prize. ---- Bhagavad Gita

INTRODUCTION: The Most Effective Strategy Now To Gain New Votes For Dennis Kucinich

How many times have you heard someone say: "I love Kucinich ... but I just don't think he's electable?" I often encounter staffers for other candidates out here in Los Angeles where I am based, and even they often say these words to me. Saul Landau recently said on National Public Radio that Dennis's name has apparently been changed to the hyphenated "Kucinich-ButHeCan'tWin." The Congressman himself has been asked about the phenomenon repeatedly in the presidential debates.

Our campaign's overarching theme is "Fear Ends / Hope Begins." Over and over again, people say to us: "Dennis stands for so many of my hopes and dreams. But I so intensely fear George Bush's re-election ... that I will not vote for or volunteer for or donate to Dennis. I will support instead some other, lesser candidate -- who does not really reflect my aspirations, but who has a better chance of winning on November 2nd."

At the Kucinich campaign, we believe our single most effective strategy to gain new votes is to move these individuals to change their minds.

Now that the cold primary season has commenced, there is little doubt that this as our most fertile garden to till. This is about mobilizing support from those who are already with us! These are votes that are already rightfully ours! This is about persuading people to defy their fears, and to vote their hopes and dreams.

NUMBER TEN: ANY Democratic Candidate Will Have A Great Shot At Victory In November.

We think that the Democratic nominee - whoever he may be - will quite likely triumph in November 2004. It's a matter of simple arithmetic.

Despite a vastly superior Republican war chest, Al Gore still beat George Bush in 2000 by 530,000 votes. Al Gore and Ralph Nader together beat George Bush by 3.5 million votes. Surely, the vast majority of Gore / Nader voters in 2000 will vote for the Democrat in November 2004. What has George Bush done that could possibly cause them to change their minds?

In addition, George Bush ran for president as a centrist ... but has governed as a highly partisan conservative. We believe that many of the "swing voters" who pulled the lever for Bush in 2000 -- now that they have seen the true agenda of Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld unmasked -- will simply change their minds. Why would a moderate voter who voted for a pleasant and centrist George Bush then vote for an abrasive and reactionary George Bush now?

Republicans have not won the nationwide popular vote since 1988. One of the central theses of both John Judis and Ruy Teixeira's 2003 book The Emerging Democratic Majority, and E.J. Dionne's 1997 book They Only Look Dead: Why Progressives Will Dominate the Next Political Era is that broad demographic, geographic, economic, and cultural changes are making us a more and more Democratic country. The increasing destruction of the American middle class -- as companies use tax breaks to create new jobs abroad and as ever more Americans worry about providing health care for their families - is generating increasing economic insecurity and frustration. Labor has been reinvigorated as a political force since John Sweeney took charge of the AFL-CIO in 1995. And this fall we'll have by far the most popular politician in America - Bill Clinton - actively campaiging for our side.

Perhaps most importantly, has there been any election in recent memory when so many Americans have been so utterly committed to defeating an incumbent president? "George W. Bush might be the worst and most unqualified president America has ever had," wrote Norman Mailer recently. Not even during the Nixon and Reagan eras were so many normally non-political people saying: "I'm gonna do everything it takes to get this guy out." How many such normally non-political people do you know who are equally fired up about getting George Bush re-elected?

We believe that George Bush will receive fewer votes than he did in 2000, not more. And this time he will lose both the popular vote and the Electoral College. We think the odds are very good that George Bush, on November 2nd, will emulate his father - and ride off into the sunset as another failed one-term president.

NUMBER NINE: Dennis Is The Candidate With The BEST Shot At Victory In November.

We believe that Dennis would be the candidate most likely to bring an end to the presidency of George Bush. What was the consensus verdict after the 2002 Congressional election debacle for the Democrats? That if Democrats run like Republicans, Republicans will surely win. That the Democrats need to present voters with a clear distinction, a clear choice, and a clear alternative vision. "It's Democrats above all who need big ideas," says former Clinton and Gore pollster Stanley Greenberg, "who need to create an election that is about something." The lesson of 2002 is that the candidate with the best chance to beat George Bush will be the candidate who offers the starkest contrast to George Bush. And no one can dispute that that candidate is Dennis Kucinich.

Is there any Democrat who would better motivate our liberal and progressive base in November 2004 - generating not just votes, but midnight oil and shoe leather? George Bush may well secure a majority of white males, but white males become a smaller and smaller proportion of the electorate with each four-year election cycle. And historically among voters of color, the more progressive the candidate the greater the turnout on Election Day. Dennis, indeed, is the candidate who can best mobilize the "emerging Democratic majority."

In addition, no one could secure the allegiance of more Ralph Nader voters than Dennis Kucinich. Not ALL those 3 million Nader voters will likely vote for ANY Democratic nominee in November 2004. But surely, more of them would turn out to support Dennis than they would any other Democratic candidate. And given how many states would have swung the other way but for the Nader candidacy (he received 99,000 votes in Florida), these voters could make absolutely the decisive difference in the 2004 election.

And do voters really mean it when they say "anybody but Bush?" If a boring centrist candidate ends up serving as the Democratic nominee, will Democrats really turn out en masse? What good will it be for them to get Bush out if few of his actual policies actually change? What if Bush is gone, but American troops are still in Iraq? How much better off will Americans be if Bush is out, but NAFTA and the WTO are still exporting millions of jobs? What is the difference if we defeat George Bush, but HMOs and insurance companies and drug companies are still making all our health care decisions for their benefit instead of ours? How can a Democratic candidate who is not going to do much to change the status quo really be the strongest Democratic candidate?

Contrary to the conventional wisdom that sees Dennis as "too far left" to attract swing voters, Dennis has a history of winning votes from blue collar "Reagan Democrats" - because no one better illuminates how Bush's policies favor the rich and leave them out in the cold. Dennis has a track record in building broad ethnic coalitions. And Dennis is an experienced and seasoned politician, having fought and won grueling political battles as a city council member, a mayor, a state senator, and a member of the U.S. Congress.

Finally, Dennis is from Ohio, a key Midwestern battleground swing state with 20 electoral votes. Dennis has defeated Republican incumbents three times in Ohio. No Republican in the history of this nation has ever been elected President without carrying Ohio. Dennis can keep the Republicans from carrying Ohio in 2004. And as Ohio goes, so goes the nation.

NUMBER EIGHT: If Voters Believe Dennis Truly Has No Chance Of Winning the Nomination - Then For Them There's No Danger In Voting For Him In The Primary!

When people say, "Dennis cannot win," they themselves are often unclear about what they mean. Do they mean Dennis cannot win the nomination? Or that if Dennis does in fact win the nomination, he cannot win the general election? These two very different propositions lead to very different conclusions.

If Voter Vanessa likes Dennis but believes Dennis would lose to George Bush on November 2nd, then a decision to vote for someone else in the primaries might make sense if Dennis was a frontrunner, if Vanessa believes that Dennis has a real shot at the nomination, if the pundits thought Dennis had any chance at all of becoming the Democratic candidate for president.

But they don't.

Most voters and most of the punditocracy have written off any possibility that Dennis can win the nomination. Here in my town the mighty Los Angeles Times never refers to our man as anything other than a "long shot candidate." Ted Koppel famously dismissed him as a "vanity candidate." If Vanessa believes that Dennis has no chance of emerging as the nominee, then a primary vote for Dennis carries no danger of anointing the wrong candidate to face-off against George Bush. For Vanessa, there is no risk that she will help choose a candidate who is going to get blown out in the general. There is no peril. There is no worst-case scenario. For Vanessa, then, voting for anyone other than Dennis is, indeed, "throwing away her vote."

NUMBER SEVEN: Dennis Will Support The Nominee.

Dennis is unalterably committed to supporting whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee for president, and to working tirelessly this fall to defeat George Bush. Dennis toiled arduously in 2000 to win Ohio for Al Gore. There is no "Nader factor" regarding Dennis Kucinich, because Dennis Kucinich is a Democrat, not a Green. A vote for Dennis in January or February or March will not take a single vote away from the Democratic nominee in November. How does a dollar or a day or a vote devoted to Dennis in early 2004 adversely affect the prospects of the eventual nominee in November 2004?

NUMBER SIX: The Nominee May Adopt Some Of Dennis's Ideas - If Dennis Gets Enough Votes.

The more support Dennis generates this winter and spring, the more likely it will be that the eventual nominee - if it is not Dennis - will choose to incorporate some of Dennis's important ideas. If Dennis does better than expected in money, in volunteers, and in votes, the Democratic candidate who emerges may conclude that there is indeed support for things like the abolition of nuclear weapons, a great crusade for economic justice, and the conviction that an expanded ethic of human unity will be no less than the Great Story of the 21st Century. The nominee, consequently, may embrace some of these ideas and explicitly campaign upon them.

This phenomenon has already played out in the campaign. For example, after Dennis strongly rejected Bush's request for $87 billion for Iraq, both John Kerry and John Edwards followed his lead. Dennis's unapologetic opposition to NAFTA and the WTO has caused all the candidates to talk more about fair trade.

This possibility may be most pronounced for the pre-eminent original idea that Dennis has put forth in this campaign - the proposal to create a Department of Peace to stand alongside the Department of Defense. If enough votes are cast for Dennis this winter and spring, it may prove the decisive impetus for a new Democratic president to create this new permanent institution to ensure that we devote a bit less effort to forever preparing for war, and a bit more to preventing it.

And consider the other, bleaker scenario. If most of the "I love Kucinich -- but he can't win" crowd support someone else, the 2004 Democratic nominee AND the Democratic Party establishment AND the chattering classes will conclude that there is not much support for the things our candidacy is about. "Gee," they will say, "there's not much interest in withdrawing from NAFTA and the WTO, for putting the brakes on the PATRIOT Act, and for de-escalating the destructive war on drugs, is there? After all, Dennis Kucinich ran for president on that stuff - and look how much support he got."

"Win or lose the nomination," says Kucinich endorser Ben Cohen, "his grassroots presidential campaign is the vehicle for expanding the party, moving it in a progressive direction, bringing in new voters, and reaching out in a serious way to bring back disaffected voters." This is not just a series of primaries to choose a nominee, it is a contest for the soul of the Democratic Party. The more votes Dennis receives this winter and spring, the more power progressives will exercise to shape the character of the Democratic platform in the summer of 2004, and of the Democratic Administration which we believe will take office on January 20, 2005.

NUMBER FIVE: At A Brokered Convention, Dennis Could Play A Crucial Role.

Several pundits have raised the possibility that 2004 might see the first brokered Democratic convention since 1960. That means that the Democratic primaries may not decisively settle on a candidate, and that the decision will have to be hammered out at the convention itself - with delegates as the currency of negotiation. And that means that Dennis's influence could be quite tangible and quite decisive.

Many factors point to a real possibility of the first brokered convention in a generation. Like what? The rise of proportional voting over the previous winner-take-all systems in most state primaries. The importance of the nearly 800 "super-delegate" party honchos, which means that a candidate cannot ensure the nomination unless he wins more than 60% of the elected delegates. The accelerated front-loading of the process -- which means that by the morning of March 3rd nearly half of the delegates will already have been chosen, making it much more difficult mathematically for any presumptive frontrunner to guarantee victory after that time.

If the brokered convention scenario does come to pass, every single vote cast for Dennis in January, February, and March will translate into delegates that Dennis will wield in Boston in July. Enough delegates will enable Dennis to tangibly influence the platform and positions that the Democratic candidate adopts. Enough delegates could enable Dennis to decisively influence who the Democratic candidate will be. Enough delegates could garner a primetime speech to the nation for our great fire and brimstone orator.

And who knows? At a brokered convention, the Democratic Party just may conclude that the candidate with the best chance to defeat George Bush is the one who poses the most striking alternative to George Bush - Dennis Kucinich.

NUMBER FOUR: Electoral Outcomes In 10 Months -- Or A Better World In 10 Years?

Mother Jones writer George Packer recently quoted D.H. Lawrence: "The ideas of one generation," wrote Lawrence in Making Love to Music, "become the instincts of the next." "There is something worse than losing," continues Packer, "and that is losing pointlessly. ... The way for the party not to lose pointlessly is to proceed incautiously. The most attractive candidate will be the one who airs ideas that risk alienating ... because the ideas might be good ones, and might catch the public pulse ... and might make future victories possible."

"Victory," says the inestimable Jonathan Schell, "does not come through the ballot box alone. It sometimes comes by circuitous paths. ... Changing hearts and minds can at times be as important as changing the President. ... When in doubt, it's best to err on the side of speaking the truth."

Must we resign ourselves only to vote for a candidate who can rescue us from a dismal present? Or can we free ourselves to vote for a candidate who can lead us toward a brighter future? Are we concerned solely and exclusively about what is going to happen in America in 10 months? Or can we interest ourselves in the human condition and the fate of the earth in 10 years and beyond?

If voters support Dennis with their money and their sweat and their votes, it will stoke the engines of social change - far beyond the fate of Kucinich for President. A vote for Dennis Kucinich is a vote for the American dream, for the promise of what America can become. As the poet Langston Hughes so eloquently put it: "America, you've never been America to me; and I swear this oath: you will be!" That is the only way to truly make yourself "proud to be an American" ... and proud to be a citizen of the world.

NUMBER THREE: The Left, The Right, And The Center ... Can Change.

We reject the notion that the American electorate is set in stone - e.g., 45% hard left, 45% hard right, and an all-coveted 10% "in the center." We know that the center has moved over time. A great many ideas and initiatives that were once considered hard left - women's rights, civil rights, human rights, gay rights, labor protections, environmental protections - are now much more in the mainstream, much more "moderate," much more "centrist." The anti-war, anti-corporate, and anti-globalization movements of recent years - manifesting in some of the largest demonstrations in history - are surely not far behind.

"Fear not the path of truth," said Robert F. Kennedy, "for the lack of people yet walking on it." We believe that many Kucinich proposals now considered hard left will one day be similarly considered as mainstream, centrist, and broadly accepted by most of the right-thinking people of the day. One of the best vehicles for accomplishing such a shift in the center of American politics is a liberal and progressive presidential campaign. And Dennis Kucinich is the most liberal and progressive candidate American voters have had the opportunity to embrace in quite a long time. A vote for Dennis Kucinich is a vote to shift the center of gravity of the American political debate. For 2004 and beyond.

NUMBER TWO: Living Up To Your Own Ideals.

"Real courage," said Harper Lee in To Kill A Mockingbird, "is when you know you're licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and see it through no matter what." We believe that it simply feels better to walk out of the voting booth knowing that you were true to yourself, that you stood up for what you believe. Demonstrating support for the things you support is the essence of what voting is all about. What is the point to democracy, if you're not going to vote for the world you aspire to create? Casting a vote based on who is "electable," after all, is casting a vote based on whom you think other people will like. Why not vote instead for whom YOU like? Election Day is a day to let go of your doubts and fears. Election Day is a day to reach for your hopes, to cleave to your dreams, and to stand up for the America that you know we can become. That's the only way to be fully a citizen of any political community.

We are the temporary custodians of the civilization of our ancestors, and we alone will determine its condition when we bequeath it to our descendants. A vote for Dennis today is a vote for what our great nation OUGHT to stand for at the dawn of the 21st Century. And it is a vote for what someday we CAN stand for - if only the people who believe in Dennis actually have the courage and integrity to vote for Dennis. C'mon - you do want to respect yourself in the morning, don't you?

Especially this morning, in this season. There will be plenty of time to choose between the lesser of two evils in the general election. As the Texas sage Molly Ivins exhorts us: Vote with your head on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. But in the caucuses and primaries of the cold winter months preceding, vote with your heart. "I hear them saying, 'you'll never change things and no matter what you do, it's still the same things,'" sings Garth Brooks. "But it's not the world that I am changing. I do this so this world will know, that it will not change me."

NUMBER ONE: Moving History Forward - Like Other Noble Presidential Candidacies Of The Past.

Presidential campaigns in American history have often been about much more than winning and losing. Presidential campaigns can be about driving the engines of history. Consider Bruce Babbitt and Jesse Jackson and Paul Simon in 1988, Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson and Alan Cranston in 1984, John Anderson in 1980, Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy in 1968, Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956 (laying the groundwork for both John Kennedy and the 1960s), Norman Thomas and Eugene Debs in the first decades of the 20th century (without whom Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal would have been inconceivable), Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive campaign of 1912.

None of these efforts resulted in triumph at the ballot box. All of them broadened the public conversation. They pressured the structures of power. They inspired new generations of progressive activists. They served to generate debate, to inject new ideas into the public square, and to accelerate our progress on the road ahead. They were beacons in the political night.

And so too will be the presidential candidacy of Dennis Kucinich. BUT NOT VERY MUCH ... unless those who believe in him actually vote for him.

Victor Hugo famously said: "No army can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come." Many of Dennis's ideas, we might admit, are ideas whose time has perhaps not quite yet come. But how will their time ever come, if we do not choose to vote for those with the vision and integrity to articulate them? Our job is to hasten their arrival in the train station of history, to bring ever closer our day in the sun. A vote for Dennis Kucinich is the quintessential exercise of what Thomas Jefferson liked to call "practical idealism." There is much more at stake here than simply choosing a candidate for president. If politics, as every undergraduate knows, is the art of the possible, then a vote for Dennis Kucinich is a mechanism for expanding the parameters of political possibility.

The historian and former JFK aide Arthur Schlesinger Jr., that great American treasure, recently quoted FDR's assessment of the difference between an ordinary president and a woman or man for the ages. The presidency, said FDR, "is not merely an administrative office. ... It is predominantly a place of moral leadership. All our great presidents were leaders of thought at times when certain historic ideas in the life of the nation had to be clarified."

We do not know if Dennis Kucinich will ever serve our country in the presidency. But we do know that if he does, he will be a great president. Because Dennis Kucinich offers a voice of moral leadership. Dennis Kucinich is a leader of thought. Dennis Kucinich - more than any presidential candidate in recent memory - has put forward "certain historic ideas in the life of the nation" that point the way toward the end of old fears, the beginning of new hopes, and the dawn of a brighter day for the family of humankind.

Tad Daley (tad@kucinich.us) is National Issues Director and Senior Policy Advisor to the presidential campaign of Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio.