Battling for the soul of the Democratic Party (Or Not)
- National Review assembles a distinguished group of commentators that engage in a theme and variation on "cut and run"
- Josh Marshall dismisses the "net-roots" theory of Lieberman's defeat in favor of old-fashioned political discontent, complete with a warning to other incumbents (particularly Republicans) to take notice.
- Andrew Sullivan takes a wait and see approach.
Marshall and Sullivan seem to be on the right track here. I really wish I could have found something worth praising in the NR pieces because their writing is usually very insightful, but the pieces all seem to echo the conventional wisdom about Democrats that has become the centerpiece of recent Republican campaigns. For example, NRO's own Mona Charin adds this:
He never represented a wing of the Democratic party. He had no noticeable influence upon his colleagues. The Democratic party is what it is — a foolish, demagogic, head-in-the-sand, appeasing party. Nothing that happens in Connecticut will affect that very much.
While I agree that nothing that happened in Connecticut will affect very much on a large scale, painting the rejection of Lieberman as some sort of "appeasement" is a gross distortion of the root cause of Lieberman's downfall - Lieberman himself.
During the Clinton impeachment Lieberman was hailed as the "conscience of the Democratic party" and has always been a poster child for Democrats' acceptance of people of faith. To my eye, it seems as though Lieberman embraced these distinctions and took them to an extreme conclusion - that he was morally superior not just to the party as a whole, but to the Democratic voters in Connecticut. Feelings of superiority don't sit well with invividuals who are made to feel inferior, but perhaps Lieberman will now be free to turn that moral superiority on a system seen as morally bankrupt by those same voters he alienated.
In his "concession" speech, Lieberman decried the fact that, "the old politics of partisan polarization won today," and vowed to fight against those forces as an independent candidate. I am anxious to see what tone his campaign takes in what is sure to be a heated contest. If he can truly tap into people's frustration with partisanship and political gamesmanship, I believe he has a good chance at reclaiming his Senate seat. However, in a race as contentious and heated as this is sure to be, living up to that lofty goal will be a tall order.
Lieberman has shown himself to be a good man, and a decent, principled, public servant. Those principles led to decisions and positions that did not sit well with Democratic primary voters. That is often the price you pay for being principled. I'm anxious to see if Lieberman has the courage to stick to his principles in the general election. If he does, and he wins, that will have implications more far reaching than any primary defeat.
posted by Patrick at 10:39 AM
4 Comments:
Why do you think that Lamont is wrong for Connecticut? I think he's a good mix of old money and progressive politics. Driving around the state last weekend, I saw the most Lamont signs in people's yards...Joe signs were exiled to offramps and other impersonal places.
I didn't get any annoying Lamont phone calls, but I got harassed by a Lieberman recording at my parents' house...TWICE.
Also...the last time Nutmeggers voted Independent, our taxes went through the roof. But local memory seems to be selective, on that front...Weicker's backing of Lamont only seemed to reinforce the idea that Connecticut politics needed some shaking up.
I'd be curious to know why you (Algoite) think that Lamont isn't right for Connecticut.
Well, that's what we get from the big media. On the commercials in Connecticut, you see a little more than just the war thing. Here's my take, as someone who voted for Lieberman (twice in one election!). He has always been fairly rational and moderate. I can appreciate that, and that's why I voted for him. But let me tell you, if I were still a Connecticut resident today, I would have been first in line to vote for the other guy.
Lieberman has been auditioning for the national stage ever since his unsuccessful bid for VP. His strategy has been about attracting moderate conservatives (which only makes sense if you keep getting voted in by your home Democrats for 18 years). To do this, he has thrust his religion into the limelight...and he has pressed harder on social issues like censorship (very important to me personally) and DOMA.
Normally, I appreciate it when politicians stick to their guns if they really strongly believe in an issue. I hate it when politicians pander for votes. But on the other hand, I happen to think that he's wrong on these particular issues, and just from things I saw and heard at home last weekend, I get the sense that a lot of other Connecticut voters agree with me.
As far as Lamont and his positions, if you check out his website, he's got a fully developed progressive platform...kind of like Wes Clark or Russ Feingold. That's the sort of thing that doesn't make the national media, because it can't fit into the 30-second timeslot for the story. All we get as national spectators is "Lieberman voted for the war, Lamont disagrees." That, of course, is a rant for some other blog.
As a Connecticut native, I was particularly interested in this race. I have been very annoyed at how the various media outlets have analized the results--liberal, conservative, and mainstream alike. I agree with 95% of what you said, sir. Very nicely said.
i think many of us who are affiliated with the democratic party would have felt somewhat less betrayed had lieberman left the party to make an independent run instead of actually sitting through the primary and losing there.
it reminded me very much of the time he refused to give up his seat as al gore's running mate: very much a "have his cake and eat it too" moment.
that being said, the moment i knew there was a challenger to him i made my decision to back lamont: while i was introduced to him as a one-issue candidate (to me by far the most important issue), i was also tired of lieberman's chastising of the democratic party without chastising the republicans. i believe both are at fault in regards to the poisonous rhetoric: the republicans for using it and foreign policy as a political too, and the democrats for stooping to that level! ...unfortunately i also believe the american people to be at fault for falling for that sort of thing for the amount of time we have. it's time we were a little more intelligent about these things.
Post a Comment
<< Home