Tenacious D (continued)

IN A STATEMENT e-mailed to the Phoenix, Democratic National Convention Committee chair Alice Huffman praised Kucinich and welcomed his participation in the convention. But while Kucinich dreams of a sort of Gingrichian role, anything beyond a token convention appearance could make him the Democrats’ version of Pat Buchanan, who alienated moderate voters at the 1992 Republican Convention by showcasing the GOP’s most extreme views. Chances are slim that convention organizers will work to showcase Kucinich next month.

There is one way he might actually manage to affect the 2004 election, however: by convincing potential supporters of independent candidate Ralph Nader to vote Democratic. Last year, Nader urged voters to support Kucinich in the Democratic primaries, and in October 2003 the two headlined a rally in Washington, DC, sponsored by Democracy Rising, Nader’s progressive organization. Earlier this month, however, Kucinich said he couldn’t remember the last time he and Nader talked. And whatever ideological affinity the two men may share, it seems clear Kucinich sees his role — at least in part — as heading off the challenge Nader poses on the left. "There has to be a place inside the Democratic Party for people who are standing strong for peace, for civil liberties, for health care, for fair trade," he says. "And as long as there are spokespersons inside the party who’ll reach out and keep trying to attract people in, as long as we continue to work with the party to try to shape its direction, there’s always a chance that we can bring people in to support the Democrats."

If the course of the campaign had unfolded differently — if, say, Dean had decided to remain in Montpelier rather than seeking higher office — might Kucinich have parlayed his anti-war stance into a bigger role, however briefly? It’s impossible to say. But it’s unlikely Kucinich, even without Dean in the field, could ever have served as this year’s Eugene McCarthy, whose near-miss 1968 presidential-nomination bid delivered a stinging anti-war rebuke to incumbent Lyndon Johnson and rocked the Democratic Party. As already noted, Kucinich’s look and often testy manner pose serious liabilities. (When I asked him if he might create a new progressive organization, à la Howard Dean, Kucinich offered the following comeback, capped by a derisive snort: "There’s no question that I intend to create a new progressive organization. It’s called the Democratic Party.") He also lacks the centrist trappings that helped Dean mitigate his anti-war stance. Instead, his eager embrace of the Democratic Party’s far-left elements, as well as his backing from fringe groups like the Natural Law Party, severely circumscribes his appeal. "In many ways, Dennis is an admirable and valiant fellow, and his politics are not the politics of convenience," says Doug Ireland, a veteran left-leaning political journalist. "He is a genuine left populist. But if you’re going to run a message campaign, I think he could have had a much more effective strategy for collaring broad swaths of the Democratic electorate. I think Dennis should have spent a lot more time talking to working-class Democrats and a lot less time talking to New Age festivals and vegetarian tofu suppers."

Whatever opportunities Kucinich may have missed, it’s almost certain he’ll be an obscure footnote when the history of the 2004 campaign is written, a long-forgotten name occasionally dropped by political junkies to showcase their mastery of presidential arcana. "It’s irrelevant, it’s over, he did miserably," Sabato says. "What else can you say?" Massachusetts congressman Barney Frank — a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus — is gentler, but no less pessimistic about Kucinich’s chances of influencing either the convention or the general-election campaign. "The problem Dennis runs into isn’t just that he didn’t get delegates, but that he didn’t get a lot of votes," Frank says. "Jesse Jackson made his candidacy work in 1984 and 1988 in the primaries, and I think Jackson did have an impact on the party, in terms of making sure that the Democrats stayed with affirmative action. In Dennis’s case, the problem is that he just didn’t do well enough in the primaries to get a lot of clout." Frank’s Massachusetts colleague Mike Capuano, also a Progressive Caucus member, suggests that’s a good thing. "I like and respect Dennis’s enthusiasm," Capuano says. "But we have a candidate. And anyone who cannot see that John Kerry’s victory this fall would better serve the progressive agenda than anything else we can do between now and November, I would strongly disagree with. That’s exactly why we lost the White House so many times in the last 30 years."

And after the election? Kucinich supporters hope he’ll labor for years to energize the Democrats’ left wing. "He’s fairly young, and the Democratic Party is going to be badly in need of a gadfly for some time to come," Zinn says. "Just the very fact that John Kerry is the Democratic candidate shows that, and the power of the Democratic Leadership Council within the party. There’ll be a great need for somebody like him, and I think he’s likely to play that kind of role for a number of years, until the Democratic Party begins to move out of its lethargy." But Kucinich’s optimism about transforming the party may gradually be eroded by a general lack of interest in his agenda among Democratic politicians and voters. Time will tell whether he can reconcile the probable disconnect between his lofty expectations and what he’s actually able to accomplish.

Not surprisingly, however, Kucinich is bullish about his legacy. Asked what historians will say about him in 50 years, he offers the following: "They’ll say, ‘How does the guy keep going?’" In 100 years? "They’ll say, ‘He’s slowing down.’" With any other politician, it would be easy to dismiss these comments as hokey jokes. The perplexing thing about Kucinich is that you can’t be sure he’s kidding.

Adam Reilly can be reached at areilly[a]phx.com