[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Look To The Left
An Essay by DudeAlmighty[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
In several ways, 2004 decided the future of American politics and history, and therefore world history. Paul David Wellstone defined the year. He rose from the grassroots of Minnesota, wrestled in the mud of the Democratic primaries, and faced the heavyweight champion of 2000, only to be slaughtered. He revived the spirit and message of George McGovern, and 2004 mirrored 1972. McGovern's humiliating defeat to Richard Nixon in the presidential election of 1972 directly affected the future of his Democratic Party as early as 1976, just as Paul Wellstone directly affected the future of his Democratic Party as early as 2008.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Pure and simple, Paul Wellstone changed history. So a question we historians ask today is: What if Paul Wellstone had not ran for President at all?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]While George Walker Bush and Richard Milhous Nixon are not particularly comparable outside of circumstance, the similarities between George S. McGovern and Paul David Wellstone are uncanny. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In 1972, Senator George McGovern of South Dakota ran a populist and extreme-left-wing campaign for the presidency which originally started with a base support of hippies and near-socialist - and indeed, socialist - activists. Despite McGovern's polarizing attitude towards the war and domestic affairs, Senator McGovern used the logic against him and turned it in its favor. Moderates, conservatives, hawks, and un-McGovern liberals divided themselves between Ed Muskie, Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, George Wallace, and so many other candidates that the anti-war faction of the party united behind George McGovern. And so the hippie Senator prevailed in enough primaries to clinch the Democratic nomination. He would face a "Stop McGovern" effort from Hubert Humphrey in and after the California primary, only to prevail once again at the convention. After his accidental nomination, the spirit of the McGovern campaign, faced by the disapproval of the Democrats who had previously supported other less polarizing candidates, refused to wither. The McGovern campaign would be spirited and organized, and the Senator would try his very best to defeat the President who he personally felt was doing wrong in Vietnam and even in the United States. And he would be defeated in one of the worst electoral landslides in American history. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Now let us turn to Paul Wellstone, and let us describe his presidential campaign in 2004.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]2004: The Last Stand of Wellstone Liberalism[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Paul David Wellstone had first been elected to the United States Senate in Minnesota - a state bordering South Dakota - in 1990. And since he had joined the Senate in 1991, Senator Paul Wellstone had never faltered in offering only his true political positions and attitudes, indeed towards war and peace abroad. This would not change when President George W. Bush initiated the War in Iraq. Wellstone would vote against the war and speak out against it at every rally he made. In January 2003, two months before the war would officially begin, Wellstone announced he was considering a bid for President. Although he was old news in presidential politics on March 20, 2003 - the day that a number of U.S. military helicopters landed in Iraq to drop the first American soldiers to fight the Hussein dictatorship - he would make global news when he heard of the invasion inside the United States Capitol and immediately left the Senate floor, called together a press conference on the steps of the Capitol, and uttered these momentous words: "I have seen that my President is not capable of seeing the opposition to what will be an unpopular and unjust war. My nation is headed in an unhealthy direction which will lead to its embarrassment in every way. I am running for President in 2004 because I can't stand by."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Indeed, Paul Wellstone refused to stand by. He would face immediate disapproval when, almost immediately after his effective entry into the presidential campaign, he was criticized by former Vice President Al Gore, the winner of the Democratic nomination in 2000 and the one who Wellstone had considered mounting an insurgent bid against that same year. Although Gore had drifted leftward since his defeat at the hands of Florida and a Supreme Court decision in November and December 2000, he too saw the polarizing opinions of Paul Wellstone. "I can't see him as being healthy," Gore remarked about Wellstone when describing the Democratic candidates who had thus far announced. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Wellstone stayed silent. He never wanted Gore's endorsement, because he was never going to get it. When it came to Paul Wellstone, Al Gore was a centrist, and nothing about that could change. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Although Wellstone had nearly headed the opposition to the Iraq War in January and February 2003, he was far from the frontrunner position. He barely polled above 5% nationally, and in New Hampshire polls, he received only 7% of the vote guaranteed. No, the frontrunner would be Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, a liberal with a strong support base. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]However, Wellstone would not end his campaign, and he certainly would not change his political positions. Instead, he initiated a grassroots campaign in Iowa, where he built up support among small town voters and farmers. His knowledge of farming would greatly impress the farmers he met. His support built up, and by the later end of the year, he polled evenly with the main frontrunners for victory in Iowa: John Kerry and John Edwards. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]But even Wellstone knew he could not win with Iowa alone. By winning Iowa, he would send a message to the political world; but a humiliating showing in New Hampshire would only humiliate himself and make his message stillborn. The trick would be gaining support among moderates in New Hampshire - a difficult task when competing with less polar figures such as Kerry and Dick Gephardt. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]However, the Wellstone campaign would be relieved by receiving a powerful asset from another symbol of a small state: Former Governor Howard Dean, who had already formed a presidential exploratory committee of his own but had decided against running in April 2003. Dean, a recent entry into presidential politics, wholeheartedly announced his support of Paul Wellstone, and traveled across the border from his home state to neighboring New Hampshire, the second and the key primary of the early stage of the primaries.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In the D.C. primary on January 14th, Senator Kerry placed his first victory with 44% of the vote. Placing a close second was Senator Wellstone, with 40%.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In the Iowa caucus five days later, the Wellstone presidential campaign would see its efforts payed off. For all their work in organizing a grassroots campaign in Iowa and slowly building a support base among farmers and workers, Wellstone won the caucus with 36% of the vote. Kerry took 31%, while Senator John Edwards of North Carolina took 27%. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The New Hampshire primary was extraordinarily close. The fight between John Kerry and Paul Wellstone was an epic war in which Wellstone was accused of extremism, while Wellstone fired back with explaining his positions and attacking Kerry for his "inactivity in the Senate" and "being another symbol of the failed policies of the past." Kerry was expected to win; however, Senator Wellstone scored a second consecutive victory by 3,000 votes. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Paul Wellstone had "Big Mo," as George H.W. Bush had termed rolling momentum in 1988. For the first time, he was a frontrunner. The fight wasn't between Kerry and Edwards, or Kerry and Gephardt. The battle was now between John Kerry and Paul Wellstone.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The rest of the primary season would be bitter. The Wellstone campaign turned to airing ads containing images of war, in past wars and even some clips from Iraq and Afghanistan. He would campaign in favor of rape victims and those with mental illnesses. He championed his "cause for the unfortunate Americans," painting himself as a true humanitarian. John Kerry, meanwhile, took on the role of the offensive against Wellstone, attacking his decision to vote in favor of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. It was to this attack that Wellstone responded with an ad containing a clip of one reading a passage from his 2001 autobiography, Conscience of a Liberal, criticizing his vote and calling it "a mistake." Many accused Kerry of "being too vicious" in his attacks against Paul Wellstone, which reflected in his standings in the primaries. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]John Edwards managed to take only South Carolina and North Carolina. Meanwhile, Kerry and Wellstone campaigned as though they fought in a boxing match. Kerry would jab Wellstone's right cheek with victorious throughout February in states such as Washington, Maine, Tennessee, Missouri, Delaware, and Arizona, while Wellstone won only Michigan. On Super Tuesday - March 2 - Wellstone would throw himself back into the ring with upset victories in California, Georgia, New York, Ohio, Mississippi, and Rhode Island, and an overwhelming victory in Vermont. He then continued to carry his momentum through Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Illinois, and Wyoming, where he upsetted Kerry once again. The public polls showed Wellstone rising in popularity among Democrats, the reasons most released being his honesty and his dedication to the anti-war movement. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]John Kerry was losing support, and fast. The reasons were subtle yet powerful. He had little charisma. His campaign was not as energetic or spirited as Wellstone's. His message was not as powerful. And his campaign was nearly self-imploding from the opposition of the Vietnam Veterans for Truth organization, who had denounced their fellow Vietnam War brother-in-arms. On March 10, 2003, John Kerry, realizing that continuing his presidential campaign and his losing to the momentuous Wellstone campaign would damage his future, announced that he would drop out of the presidential campaign. Paul Wellstone, the George McGovern of 2004, had knocked out the Ed Muskie of 2004. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]However, he had yet to encounter the Hubert Humphrey of 2004. Many had realized that Wellstone's polarizing public opinions would stand little chance against President Bush in November, despite his strong performance in the primaries which would be attributed to dedicated college students and liberal activists (remind you of another Democratic nominee?), and that a Stop-Wellstone movement would begin shortly. The "Anti-Wellstone Democrats," as they would be termed, attempted to draft the junior Senator from New York, the nationally famous and popular Hillary Rodham Clinton. Clinton refused; she had her eye on 2008. Instead of their preferred candidate, they ran a little-known Senator from a state whose primary had already past (and voted for Wellstone): Bob Graham of Florida. Graham ran on his "gubernatorial experience" and his "actual chances to defeat the President, unlike the current favorite for the nomination." [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Graham would perform well against Wellstone. He would carry Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Arkansas, Kentuky, Puerto Rico, and Montana. However, despite his more moderate campaign being more popular and more desired by the Democratic hierarchs, he was doomed from the start by his late entry. Like Humphrey, he would attempt to change the rules of the convention to allow delegates to vote freely. Although many in the party supported Graham, they knew that doing so would only provide a backlash. And so, Paul Wellstone was declared the 2004 presidential nominee.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]He would select Senator John Edwards as his running mate. This was a reward for Edwards's endorsement of the Wellstone campaign in early May.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The Democratic National Convention attempted to energize the base around Wellstone, despite what it had gone through. Although many Wellstone delegates were ecstatic over his victory, delegates from states such as Alabama and Mississippi sounded dull or angry when they were forced to cast themselves for the Wellstone campaign, as they had been instructed to do by the reluctant endorsements of the reluctant failed candidates, John Kerry and Bob Graham.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The general election campaign of 2004 was similar to that of 1972's in many ways, and yet it was different. Paul Wellstone would campaign from state to state, and he would be welcomed by the ultra-liberals who had recently converted since the start of the Wellstone campaign. However, the polls showed President Bush and Vice President Cheney remaining twenty points ahead of Wellstone and Edwards. All strategists knew what the Wellstone campaign was missing: The support of centrists, moderates, and the necessary independents. Although nearly every Democratic politician besides "DINOs" like Senator Zell Miller endorsed Wellstone, they were privately infuriated that such an extreme liberal had won the nomination. Former President Bill Clinton was upset that the same party which had nominated himself twice and his Vice President once had "taken a step backwards into the failed policies which made the party what it was in the 1980s, post-Carter and pre-myself." Although both Clintons still endorsed Wellstone, their endorsements were lukewarm at best. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Like the "Democrats for Nixon" campaign in 1972, a "Democrats for Bush" organization was founded by Senator Zell Miller of Georgia. The organization ended successfully by converting thousands of Democratic centrists into Bush supporters. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Paul Wellstone was "ripped apart" by the Karl Rove political machine. He was called a "pot-smoking hippie"; "an extremist with Communist and perhaps even terrorist-leaning sympathies"; "a representative of the Democratic Party, an organization dedicated to the extremist left-wing cause." Pictures of Wellstone would be photoshopped to give him long, greasy hair and coke-bottle sunglasses to make him appear like a hippie. He would also be compared to George McGovern, as I do now. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The Wellstone campaign faced opposition from every side. However, the Senator from Minnesota continued his anti-war campaign, and he would never respond to the dirty attacks of the Rove campaign. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Ultimately, on Election Day, Paul Wellstone failed. He would carry Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and the District of Colombia. Bush won the rest, some states in massive landslides (he won 91% of the vote in Texas). Paul Wellstone would win 39% of the vote. President Bush would win 60%. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Wellstone was, indeed, 2004's George S. McGovern.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]A World Without Wellstone[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Needless to say, Paul Wellstone left a resounding mark on the Democratic Party of today. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In January 2005, an unknown centrist named Simon Rosenberg of New York was elected National Committee Chairman of the Democratic Party. Chairman-Elect Rosenberg, whose opponent was the early Wellstone supporter Howard Dean of Vermont, announced his intention to "change the failed Democratic Party of Wellstone into the successful, triumphant Democratic Party of Bill Clinton." Chairman Rosenberg ruthlessly pushed for official centrist positions in the Democratic Party, and in the Democratic congressional primaries in 2006, he privately attempted to ensure the victories of all New Democrats and even Blue Dog Democrats. The Democrats won a congressional landslide in the midterm elections of November 2006. However, the victory did not only belong to the Democratic Party in general; it also belonged to Chairman Rosenberg, who oversaw the sweeping into office of 43 moderates and the ousting of many liberal Democrats.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In 2008, Rosenberg publicly announced his support for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Although she faced opposition from other centrists, she remained the frontrunner throughout the campaign. She was also endorsed by many liberals, such as Senator Barack Obama of Illinois (an early supporter) and Howard Dean of Vermont. John Edwards, who had disgraced himself by running with Paul Wellstone in 2004, ran for President a second time, only to be defeated by a large margin in Iowa. He would drop out after an even larger landslide loss to Clinton in New Hampshire. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Hillary Clinton would clinch the nomination. She would select Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana as her running mate, and together, they would go on to defeat John McCain and Tim Pawlenty in a landslide in November 2008. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Today, President Clinton is hugely popular among the American people, and she appears certain to win re-election in 2012. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The reason for centrism's victory in the Democratic Party is obvious. Paul Wellstone divided the Democratic Party in its 2004 primaries, and then proved the ultimate unelectability of its ideology in November 2004. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Now, we reach the main point of this essay. What might have happened if Paul Wellstone did not run for President in 2004?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Wellstone was very privately devoted to running for President; he nearly ran against Al Gore in 2000. Therefore, it may be correct to assume that the only way to prevent Wellstone's campaign is to eliminate him from politics completely. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]So perhaps Norm Coleman runs a better campaign against Paul Wellstone for the Senate in 2002? Perhaps the winds change in his favor enough to deny Wellstone a third senatorial term? For the sake of altering history, let us assume this point of divergence, and move on with our alternative history. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Without Wellstone's hat in the ring, the main candidates are now John Kerry, John Edwards, and Dick Gephardt. Perhaps it is likely that, without such a devoted leftist in the race, Howard Dean of Vermont decides to enter the campaign, instead of withdraw from it in March 2003. Dean's populism may prove relatively successful in the primaries; however, it is also well-known that he is somewhat gaffe-prone. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Dean may make a mistake on the campaign trail, and would withdraw eventually. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I personally believe John Kerry would then win the nomination. Before Wellstone, it appeared that he was the main frontrunner, and no one besides Wellstone could have swiped victory from under his nose in Iowa. With a victory in Iowa, Kerry is likely for victory in New Hampshire, and by that point, he has the nomination in the bag. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]For his running mate, I interestingly propose that Kerry would select John Edwards. Edwards was perfect for any candidate in 2004: He was somewhat of a compromise between Southern Democrats (he even had the accent) and the liberalism of Democrats such as John Kerry. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Kerry was a strong candidate for the general election. If he had been nominated, Kerry and Edwards may well have united the party behind its ticket and against Bush - the opposite of the result of Paul Wellstone's campaign. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The Kerry Administration would have overseen a slow withdrawal from Iraq and a continued fight in Afghanistan. However, the economy still would have declined in early 2008, and with the country in recession, America may have turned to the Republicans once again. They may nominate John McCain like they did in our timeline, and if he is nominated, then he likely wins. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Culturally, the effects would have been different as well. The Wellstone campaign saw a revival of the leftist movement: Not exactly the "hippie" movement, but the anti-war counter-culture was magnified in the presidential campaign of 2004, and so they have remained in the public image until this day. Without this revival, the old politics would have remained, and the counterculture we know today would not exist in this alternate universe. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Would this be for better or for worse? It is not for me to decide. I only present the facts of history and my best guess at the alternative.[/FONT]
At least, I should stop trying with full-length timelines.