Dean's 'declaration of independence' is a red flag

This past weekend, Howard Dean posted an odd document on his web site: "A Declaration of Independence by the People of Dean for America." The former Vermont governor has raced to the head of the Democratic pack on the basis of his straight-talking opposition to George W. Bush; his agenda for 2004 is replete with liberal initiatives intended to "take back America" from its Republican usurpers. While Saturday's "Declaration" appeared, at first sight, to announce another populist initiative from the Dean campaign, on closer inspection it revealed something rather different: Howard Dean would follow President Bush in foregoing federal matching funds in his election campaign, thus becoming the first Democratic presidential candidate in thirty years to abandon the public financing system.

There are plenty of things about American democracy that could use some attention right now, but the influence of money over the political process is especially corrosive. More than $500 million was poured into the 2000 election campaign, and it's likely that the 2004 election will be even more expensive. While Howard Dean is well ahead of his Democratic rivals in fundraising and in most polls, he's worried that he'll win the primary only to lose out against Bush in the spending stakes for the general election. Thus Dean has decided to abandon the $20 million that he's entitled to under the public financing system — which would restrict him to a war-chest of around $45 million through the end of the primary season — and to go flat-out for the big bucks that the President's currently raising. (Bush's deep-pocketed pals have already given him $85 million for 2004.)

Dean's argument is simple: as long as the system is skewed in favor of big money, Democrats need to play ball if they're going to stand a chance. Dean's platform actually calls for extensive reform of the campaign finance system, with improved public support for presidential challengers in future elections. The bargain that Dean is trying to strike with his liberal supporters, then, is clear: "Let me torpedo the existing system of public funding for the 2004 campaign, and I'll create a better one when I've beaten Bush."

There are three problems with this argument. First, Dean's own campaign has demonstrated that grassroots activism is the most valuable campaign contribution. Dean's handlers have styled the former governor as a "clean" candidate, a genuine alternative to Bush and to the weary visages of Joe Lieberman or John Kerry. Consequently, many ordinary Americans have already volunteered for Dean on their own time. By abandoning the existing system of public financing, Dean is sending a message that money — rather than local support — is the key determinant of political success. Instead of making a virtue of its grassroots reach, the Dean campaign is following Bush into a world of big money and expectant donors.

Second, Dean's stated reason for leaving the public-financing system disguises the role of this extra money in crushing his Democratic challengers. The purpose of the primary season is to allow a variety of voices to contend for popular support amongst a party's registered voters. In recent years, however, the primaries have turned into big-money affairs, and candidates are forced to establish their credibility not through their ideas and arguments but through their fund-raising prowess. The media tends to follow the money rather than the debates, and to decide upon the "serious" candidates long before the public gets its chance. Dean's effort to up the ante will only worsen this trend.

The final problem concerns the potential donors themselves. If Dean manages to double or triple his existing take in the coming months, he'll incur obligations to big-money contributors seeking favors from a Democratic presidential administration. It was Bill Clinton who originally got the Democratic party hooked on corporate cash, a dependence which fueled a cycle of deregulation and kleptocracy, of Enrons and stock-market bubbles, throughout the last Democratic presidency. Can Dean raise Bush-like sums of money without incurring the same obligations? It seems more likely that, if Dean makes it to Pennsylvania Avenue on corporate America's dime, it'll be business as usual in the White House for another four years.

For many Democrats, it doesn't matter who replaces Bush: any carbon-based life form would be preferable to four more years of W. This antipathy is a source of enormous strength, in that it's driving ordinary Americans into grassroots efforts for a variety of rival candidates. However, the desire to beat Bush also brings the danger that his potential successor will compromise a progressive agenda in the name of securing a victory — any kind of victory — in 2004. While it's probably too early to direct terminal cynicism at Howard Dean, his "Declaration of Independence" should also serve as a wakeup call to those who yearn for genuine and lasting political change in 2004 and beyond.

Nicholas Guyatt is a lecturer in the history department. He is from Bristol, England.