As Howard Dean approached the podium two nights ago to address his political foot soldiers, a sense of perverse anxiety and curiosity must have resonated throughout the crowd -- anxiety over a distant third-place finish Dean suffered at the Iowa caucuses and curiosity over what steps the good doctor would take to revitalize his once promising, now plummeting, campaign.
Meanwhile, somewhere else in this state of (as pre-caucus political analysts were more than willing to label) "independent people," John Edwards, a candidate whom filmmaker Michael Moore described as having "not much there, there," addressed a crowd of different psychological standing. Edwards' candidacy, once appearing adverse to impetus, had in a week gone from dubiously unfulfilled potential to impeccable political timing.
All that was missing was the reasoning to explain this peculiar twist of fortune. How had Dean's imposing organization, his unmatchable fund-raising apparatus, fallen so fast? Where were those 50,000 Iowans that Dean headquarters claimed would undermine the last-minute pollsters' projections? Furthermore, how had Edwards, a candidate who was hoping simply for a "respectable" showing in Iowa and who, at his own admission, needs to raise more funds, fast, in order to sustain political viability, garnered such a high percentage of supporters?
My parents, the consummate conspiracy theorists, claimed that Washington insiders, fearful of their job security if in fact outsider Dean were to win, spearheaded an anti-Dean movement at the caucus' onset. Meanwhile, political pundits, whose collective and blatant miscalculations suggest that they threw darts to predict winners (minus the maestro: James Carville), projected that Dean's lack of foreign policy credentials and Edwards' persuasive electability had caused the surprising turnaround.
Putting aside the over-analytical political punditry and dismissing puerile conspiracy theorizing, one can see the true answer lies not in policy stances or organizational tactics, but rather in message and demeanor. For months, as analysts wondered why Edwards had not jumped into the fiery anti-Dean fray, the North Carolina senator stayed on the course of positivism, being lured into political banter only when another candidate threw out a personal challenge. Meanwhile, Dean (whether it was his choice or his burden as the front-runner) drew swords with almost all his fellow presidential hopefuls, at times yelling at even the press for their overwhelming and onerous scrutiny.
Eventually, Dean (and, similarly, Gephardt) seemed more concerned with his own position then with the positions of the people he was campaigning to represent. With a touch of candor, empathy and an ability to convey that he understood the layman's problems, Edwards never seemed out of touch with his potential constituents. In due course, Edwards, rather then belittle his campaign by succumbing to political quarrelling, chose instead to concentrate on detailed policy proposals and an enhanced political message. Not subjected to the scrutiny from his fellow candidates (although this will likely change) and unhindered by inopportune Fox News sound bytes, Edwards's positivism was able to resonate with Iowans, and, as we'll likely see in a week, will continue to resonate in upcoming primaries.
Candidly speaking, for the past two months I too have been skeptical of the Edwards campaign; specifically of the unconventional tactics that seemed to provoke the national media to dismiss his candidacy while simultaneously making him look ill-prepared ("green") for the primary process. But this past week has forced a conceptual restructuring of my understanding of the political process. For starters, Dean's third-place speech made me rethink my notions of political "rageiness." Furthermore, I learned approximately 15 new ways to incorporate the word "caucus" into sexually suggestive political statements. But more importantly, my firm belief that politics was a gala of cynics was shattered entirely.
As I write this, President Bush has yet to give his State of the Union address; however, by all accounts he will use the speech to give a positive portrayal of himself as a visionary leader who stands above the political fray (leaving complaints over a jobless recovery and an Iraqi society on the brink of civil war to those who are out of power). Like Bush, Edwards has chosen to accentuate the positive aspects of government, and has demonstrated the ability to downplay philosophical disagreements in order to champion a cause he believes in. More than ever, Edwards' hopes of riding this wave of political positivism may earn him the Democratic presidential nomination and possibly the White House.
