Remaking Your Party Has Consequences
The DailyKos crowd and many left wingers are happy today about the fall of Joe Lieberman, who lost his primary battle in Connecticut, 52-48. It was a close race, and certainly one that won't be forgotten soon.
Pundits are all over the place saying anything you can really imagine about how this bodes well or ill for the Democratic party.
But I think the analysis of the NRO's editors is pretty good.
Lieberman is positioned to win the Senate seat -- and indeed will have the support not just of the Democrats who break away from Lamont, but also the Republicans who barely know who his challenger is -- and will likely win it in a way that seemingly hurts the party.
If he wins as an independent, he will never again have the moderating influence on the Democrats he once did. We wish the Democrats weren’t going in this rejectionist direction, but it’s their party and their choice.
So you've remade the party -- now the Democrats fear stepping out of line and making nice with Republicans ever -- but at the cost of cutting away at your party. Congratulations, you now have one less Democratic Senator who engages in bipartisanship and compromise. Because you have one less Senator period. Everything in life is tradeoffs.
Think about this though. The hope of winning a Senate majority may hinge on whether Lamont can now take down Lieberman in the general election. Think about how much of a reward that would be for Lieberman. A Democratic party that makes gains in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Montana, Ohio, Missouri, and maybe Nevada, and then sees Lieberman not rejoin the Dems in the Senate or -- and this would be a really gratifying middle finger -- caucus with Republicans.
posted by wt @ 2:30 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
But with Lieberman there's long been a "with friends like these..." problem. And, yeah, maybe *technically* he was part of the Democrat club, but he obviously was of his own mind and not particularly beholden to the Democratic platform. Which I guess is ok, I wouldn't want senators to be automatons, but since his expression of independent political thinking so often included supporting Bush in ways that were so untenable to Democrats, if the seat really does end up lost to a Republican it might not be such a big loss. Yes, a Republican may be more likely to follow more of the Republican platform, but I'm inclined to think that any Republican Connecticut might produce would be fairly moderate and not go along with the full Republican party line themselves. (For instance, more like a Christine Whitman than a Trent Lott. Or a Lieberman in a Republican's clothes for a change.)
Lieberman was the party's nominee for VP in 2000. He got 65% of the vote in CT in 2000 when he didn't even campaign. It's hard to see how he was barely part of the Democratic club by 2006.
Oh wait, didn't we like, go to war, somewhere?
Lieberman wasn't lockstep with Bush. He supported the Iraq war, didn't criticize Bush enough on it, and stuck to his guns when he ran for President in 04.
This was a single issue primary, and I credit the Lamont campaign for making it that way. It was brilliant political strategy. But let's not pretend Lieberman was basically a Republican (there are some much closer to Bush -- Ben Nelson comes to mind).
My point though, and the point NRO was making, is that he might possess tendencies to move right that would have been thwarted by official membership in the Democratic Party, committee assignments, etc.
Now, however, let's see what happens. I think he'll win in November. And being bucked by your party as they endorse your opponent, and potentially strip you of your committee seats, is certainly not going to make you warm to them if you come back to the Senate next year.
So yes, there is one fewer pro-War Democrat in the Senate. But isn't a pro-war Democrat better for the party than a pro-war independent or Republican? If not, tell that to Hillary.
Elevating "compromise" to a first principle is stupid. When only one side compromises, it isn't called that anymore; it's called appeasement, capitulation, etc.
Lieberman's "comprises" to the far-right deprived the voters of Connecticut of the representation in Congress they deserved.
Whether Lieberman's compromises deprived Connecticut of representation is hard to know. I guess we'll find out in November.
Your first point, though, is 100% straw man. Lieberman didn't raise compromise to a first principle. Check out his Sierra Club report card, his NARAl report card, his anything-other-than-Iraq report card, and you'll see he was way -- I repeat -- way far from Bush or the Republican line.
He lost because of Iraq. Now, like I've said, that's absolutely fine. Clearly, the Democratic party is going in a different direction. Dissent and compromise are not to be tolerated. I think it's bad political strategy, but hey, it's not my party.
When 60% of the American public thinks the war was a mistake and an overwhelming majority also agrees it's been badly executed, why on earth would the Democrats want to be even vaguely associated with that neocon nightmare? Saying Joe is right about everything except the war (which isn't true; the Cheney energy bill jumps to mind) is like saying Strom Thurmond was on the right side of most issues except segregation. It's a huge difference.
The voters of Connecticut have no obligation to tolerate "dissent" from important views they hold. Lieberman's views did not represent those of Connecticut Democrats, so they fired him. It's a local election. Attempting to draw larger conclusions about what "Democrats will tolerate" is a big over-read.
All of this reminds me of when Dean was the front-runner, and you constantly heard leaked stories about how excited Rove was to have him be the nominee. Of course, those stories were all false, as was revealed later, and the Bush re-election team was in reality relieved that Kerry had been nominated over Dean, primarily because Dean's war record was clear and unequivocal.
Make no mistake. The Republicans wanted Lieberman to win. They want him to run now. And the reason has nothing to do with the Senate or national politics; it is about the three House seats in Connecticut that could easily flip Democratic if the party is unified in that state. A distracting ground war between Lamont and Lieberman will harm that effort; you can bet Rahm Emanuel wants Lieberman out of the race.
Ned Lamont, Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, etc. represent the true center of American politics. Joe Lieberman represents the midpoint between the right and the far right.
Ian,
First, you should take your talking points from places other than Daily Kos and Atrios. It feels so slimy to hear my friend repeating the same garbage spewed on those sites. It's ok to read them -- I try to every day for good perspective -- but they need to be taken with a grain of salt or they become echo chambers.
I'm glad you bring up the Cheney Energy Bill, which was indeed a good example of bipartisan politics, passed 74 to 26, with the support of such famous conservatives as Dick Durbin, Maria Cantwell, Barbara Mikulski, and Barrack Obama. Lieberman's there alright (though he strangely missed the vote to bring it to the floor, on which even Hillary voted yea).
I think this seems to cut against you all the more -- plenty of people are cooperating with the President, plenty of Democrats supported the war in 2003 -- but Lieberman just hasn't been vocal enough about disavowing his previous support. Kerry and Edwards have. Clinton has. Many others have. But Lieberman saw little point in criticizing Bush for the sake of criticizing him. He was too civil. And now he's been cleansed.
Again, that's ok, that's fine. The Democrats can do what they want. But you have to recognize what a foolish, nay, absolutely dumb, move that will be in the long run.
Republicans want Lieberman to run as an independent, you're absolutely right. But how did he get there? By losing the primary. Now the money that would have gone to the three House challengers will be funnelled to Lamont. Now Lieberman himself gets to campaign on not being "anti-security" and can bring out moderates in November. Now McCain or other popular mavericks like Giuliani may come out to support Lieberman, further driving up moderate turnout that Shays and others needs to keep their seats.
Again, pretty foolish. Especially when Lieberman wins in November anyway, which all indicators point to.
Lastly, the "true" center of American politics is probably best gleaned by looking at Presidential elections, not state wide elections. Given our last 4 Presidents, I'd have trouble saying Lamont is anywhere near the center. That's just a line the Kos people gave you to repeat Ian. Snap out of it. Seriously.
Presidential elections are a poor indicator of the center of American politics. First of all, in the two years since the last election, that center may have migrated; I would certainly expect it to have done so, given that Bush's second-term performance has been even more disastrous than his first. If the ongoing disaster in Iraq, the mismanagement of Katrina, the many botched nominations of deeply unpopular people (Miers, Bolton, etc.) have not moved the center of American politics, I do not know what would.
Moreover, if we really intend to use the Presidential barometer for where the "center" is, this just bolsters my argument. 2004 was the first time in the last four elections that the Republican candidate for President received more votes than the Democratic candidate. In 1992, 1996 and 2000 the Democratic candidate received more votes. I doubt very much that Clinton or Gore would have launched the Iraq war, mismanaged Katrina as badly, written that terrible energy bill, etc.
You will probably respond that in 2000, Joe Lieberman was on the ticket, so a-ha! However, this would drastically overestimate the VP's effect on voter behavior and would underestimate the extent to which Lieberman's differences from the party have become clear since 2000. Lieberman has not always been as bad as he is now; it is only the Bush administration which has brought out that side of him.
Much of your comment is just explaining the reasons Lieberman's independent bid is bad for his former party. Of course, I already agree with this; but that is Lieberman's fault. Lamont had every right to challenge him in the primary, and did so, and pledged all along (even when down by 60 points) that he would support the winner of that primary. Now that Lamont has received the nomination by a fair vote of his party, it would be ridiculous to suggest he should drop out to pave the way for Lieberman or something like that.
Lieberman's behavior, in fact, is the best example yet of his selfishness and short-sightedness. If he were half the statesman that the Republican Party is now claiming he is, he would have conceded gracefully and let the "unity ticket" in Connecticut do their work.
Lastly, I do not agree that Lieberman is even somewhat likely to win the election in November. I do not think you believe it either; no D.C. insider like yourself could underestimate the importance of money and party support. ;) Lieberman will no longer have either one. I think that in a few weeks, as his campaign struggles to get the engine started to get out of his own driveway, he will drop out. But even if he does not, there is no reason to believe that the voters of Connecticut enjoy a sore loser any more than does the American public as a whole.
I'm not a DC insider Ian. I'm a lawyer, and a bad one at that. I follow politics, but I don't know the first thing about running a campaign.
I think we've gotten to an impasse on most of the points, so I'll just respond to clarify my arguments:
1. Maybe the political center has moved in the last 20 months, fine. But you said Ned Lamont was in the political center. Besides being unsupported by anything, I think that's blatantly false.
If anything, it's Lieberman. A strong-on-defense Democrat, like Clinton, whose approval ratings (in Connecticut, yes) are far higher than Lamont's.
Gee, Lieberman's at the political center, and yet was kicked out of his party. That demonstrates two things for me: 1) Lamont isn't a centrist, so I win; and 2) the Democrats (at least in CT) aren't centrists, and that's a good message for Republicans to grab ahold of ASAP.
2. Lamont's win is bad for the Democrats. First off, he's going to lose the general election. Lieberman is starting to pull away, and he's getting endorsements from mavericks like Ken Salazar (D-Col) already. I think McCain will probably stump for him soon.
Lamont is only holding 65% of DEMOCRATS, and note that that is his only real base. A few indies will come his way, but he needs to win basically all Dems to have a shot, and he hasn't gotten them in his corner yet. My guess is he won't.
Yes, exposing fissures in the Democratic party and impairing their efforts at the House seats in CT is all Lieberman's fault. He's a big selfish meanie. I guess I don't really care who's to blame though. I'm just debating the political strategy of running against Lieberman in the primary. And it's bad.
Post a Comment
<< Home