I called Howard Dean a potential ‘little Lenin’ in this Pit thread, arousing anger of some resident Dean supporters, it seems. My comment was based on my perception of Mr. Dean as an angry, divisive and extremely inflammatory political figure, supported by cohorts of deluded, narrow minded and angry people.
In particular, there were his famous comments about Republicans as rich and racist.
Anyway, I was called on it, so I decided to open this debate.
To educate myself, I dug out this article:
Indeed, it seems there is more to Mr. Dean then I supposed and a virtual plethora of diverging views exists to explain his actions.
However, I am not ready to remove my ‘little Lenin’ comparison just yet. Personally, I think Lenin was one of the greatest scumbags in history: power obsessed maniac, lying about everybody and everything, wreaking havoc and destruction everywhere he went with the only goal of obtaining power. He was always on the sidelines, always divisive, inflammatory, trying to pit social groups against each other; he never accomplished anything positive and grabbed undeserved credit for actions of other decent people. Contemporaries attest that listening to Lenin was like watching a tornado; the main message of his speeches was destruction of everything. Yet Lenin enjoyed faithful following of narrow-minded, angry and credulous people, willing to do his bidding. That’s my take on Lenin and I think Mr. Dean bears a small resemblance.
But there is also a different view. Many people insist that Lenin was a true believer, devoted to his cause and carried away with the sense of his gigantic mission. That can also apply to Mr. Dean, in small measure of course.
So, whether it’s the former or the latter, my comparison remains appropriate. Unless the real explanation of Mr. Dean actions lies elsewhere.
