Lieberman's Loyalty

Jonathan Chait of the Los Angeles Times argues that Democrats are foolish to splinter over the Lieberman issue:

Purely foolish Democrats, by Jonathan Chait, LA Times: Ned Lamont's challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman in next month's Connecticut primary has blossomed into a full-scale Democratic civil war. ... A good window into the competing mentalities can be found in two arguments, one by prominent Lieberman supporters, the other by a prominent critic. First, the supporters. ... Marshall Wittmann and Steven J. Nider of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council complain that "far too many Democrats view George W. Bush as a greater threat to the nation than Osama bin Laden." ...

Those loony Democrats! But wait, is this really such a crazy view? Even though all but the loopiest Democrat would concede that Bin Laden is more evil than Bush, that doesn't mean he's a greater threat. Bin Laden is hiding somewhere in the mountains, has no weapons of mass destruction and apparently very limited numbers of followers capable of striking at the U.S.

Bush, on the other hand, has wreaked enormous damage on the political and social fabric of the country. He has massively mismanaged a major war, with catastrophic consequences; he has strained the fabric of American democracy with his claims of nearly unchecked power and morally corrupt Gilded Age policies. It's quite reasonable to conclude that Bush will harm the nation more — if not more than Bin Laden would like to, than more than he actually can.

This is what Lieberman and his backers don't understand. They piously insist that ... they won't take political potshots at a Republican president when he's waging a war in America's name...

But if Lieberman's allies are irritating and often wrongheaded, alas, his enemies are worse. Lieberman recently declared, "I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party." Markos Moulitsas, the lefty blogger from Daily Kos who has ... made Lieberman's defeat a personal crusade, posted this quote on his website in the obvious belief that it's self-evidently absurd. But shouldn't we all have greater loyalties than the one to our party — say, to our country? Partisanship isn't nothing, but must it be everything?

Moulitsas and many of his allies insist that they just want Democrats to win. But in fact, they believe that any deviation from the party line — except for a few circumscribed instances, such as Democrats running for office in red states — is an unforgivable crime. ... It is an odd way to go about building a majority.

Their technique of victory-via-purge is on display in Connecticut. ... Lieberman has announced his intention to run an independent candidacy should he lose the primary. Moulitsas and other Lamont supporters are filled with outrage that Lieberman has opened up the possibility of splitting the liberal vote and letting a Republican win.

Well, OK, some anger is appropriate here. But doesn't this suggest that the whole Lamont crusade has sort of backfired? Although I'm no Karl Rove, it seems to me that turning a rock-solid Democratic seat into a potential Republican pickup represents something less than a political masterstroke.

The whole anti-Lieberman blog campaign has a self-fulfilling quality: They charge that Lieberman isn't a Democrat, they drive him from the party, and they declare themselves to be correct. The more ex-Democrats they create, the more sure of their own virtue they become.

There's more to this. To the archives:

Paul Krugman: Talk-Show Joe: Paul Krugman looks at Joe Lieberman's declining popularity as he has become a centrist — a centrist within the Republican party:

Talk-Show Joe, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Friday was a bad day for Senator Joseph Lieberman... The ... news was that Ned Lamont, an almost unknown challenger, received a third of the votes. This gave Mr. Lamont the right to run against Mr. Lieberman in a primary, and suggests that Mr. Lamont may even win.

What happened to Mr. Lieberman? Some news reports may lead you to believe that he is in trouble solely because of his support for the Iraq war. But there's much more to it than that. Mr. Lieberman has consistently supported Republican talking points. This has made him a lion of the Sunday talk shows, but has put him out of touch with his constituents — and with reality.

Mr. Lieberman isn't the only nationally known Democrat who still supports the Iraq war. But he ... has joined the Bush administration by insisting on an upbeat picture of ... Iraq that is increasingly delusional. Moreover, Mr. Lieberman has supported the attempt to label questions about ... Iraq and criticism of the administration's policies ... as unpatriotic. How else is one to interpret his warning, late last year, that "it is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril"?

And it's not just Iraq. ...[On] Social Security ... Mr. Lieberman repeatedly supported the administration's scare tactics. "Every year we wait to come up with a solution ...," he declared in March 2005, "costs our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren $600 billion more." This claim echoed a Bush administration talking point... But the talking point was simply false...

There's more. Mr. Lieberman supported Congressional intervention in the Terri Schiavo affair... And ... Mr. Lieberman showed far more outrage over Bill Clinton's personal life than he has ever shown over Mr. Bush's catastrophic failures as commander in chief. ...

Mr. Lieberman, who is often described as a "centrist," is or was very much at odds not just with the Democratic base but with public opinion as a whole. ... Mr. Lieberman's defenders would have you believe that his increasingly unpopular positions reflect his principles. But ... the common theme in Mr. Lieberman's positions seems to be this: In each case he has taken the stand that is most likely to get him on TV.

You see, the talking-head circuit loves centrists. But a centrist, as defined inside the Beltway, doesn't mean someone whose views are actually in the center... Instead, a Democrat is considered centrist to the extent that he does what Mr. Lieberman does: lends his support to Republican talking points...

But this "center" cannot hold. And that's the larger lesson of what happened Friday. Mr. Lieberman has been playing to a Washington echo chamber that is increasingly out of touch with the country's real concerns. The nation, which rallied around Mr. Bush after 9/11 simply because he was there, has moved on — and it has left Mr. Lieberman behind.

And, as noted at the time, Brad DeLong appended the following to Krugman's column:

As Jonathan Chait writes:

Jonathan Chait: [L]ots of Democrats supported the Iraq war initially and believe now that we can and must win.... Lieberman, unlike other Democratic hawks, musters little passion for exposing and correcting the massive blunders the Bush administration has committed. When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, Lieberman noted, in Bush's defense, "Those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001, never apologized." (As if anybody was suggesting we were as bad as the terrorists.) Last fall he said, "In matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril." The clear implication is that it's counterproductive -- traitorous, even -- to call the administration on its foreign policy dishonesties. This is not how the loyal opposition in a democracy ought to behave.

Foreign policy is hardly the only smudge on Lieberman's record.... He has long opposed sensible financial regulations. Even after his pro-business stance came under fire in the wake of the Enron scandal, Lieberman opposed sensible reforms. (As one of Lieberman's friends told the New Republic's Michael Crowley in 2002, "It'll be remembered that he didn't go off the deep end" -- meaning, after the populist furor dies down, Lieberman could resume raking in contributions from grateful executives.) He supported the disgraceful energy bill and federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case.

Lieberman obviously relishes his role as every conservative's favorite Democrat. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. He's lavished with praise for his statesmanship, vision and bipartisanship. And, in the process, Republicans implicitly get to show what's wrong with the rest of his party. Bush and Dick Cheney applaud Lieberman regularly for believing we must win in Iraq, as if to suggest no other Democrat thinks the same...

Chait makes a pretty good case, along with Krugman, against Lieberman. The criticism of Lieberman's positions by other party members has merit. If he loses the primary because of it, that's the way it goes -- when people lost to him in the past they didn't run anyway as indepndents and undermine his chances.

It's too bad Lieberman has decided to reject the voter's and Party's judgment on who would be the best Democratic candidate by threatening to run as an independent if he loses the primary, but such behavior only serves to further undermine and impugn his character and reinforces that his allegiance to the party isn't very strong anyway.

Comments

[hj]

Lieberman's warmongering is very compatible with his Zionism. Not, I hasten to add, that you need to be a Zionist to be a warmonger, and there may be some Zionists who oppose Bush's war. But I would guess there are mighty few of the latter. When he says he has loyalties that are greater than those to his party, I would be curious to know just what loyalties those are.

says...

The comment above is anti-Semitic.

[hj]

Dear Noname. I apologize for calling a Zionist a Zionist. As well as pointing out that, as far as I can tell, most of them (at least the visible, public ones) supported and still support Bush's war. A thousand pardons. Me bad.

says...

Anti-Semitism as all racism is a virulent disease. How is such hatred to be stopped?

[hj]

I find the "anti-Semitic" name calling increasingly offensive and disgusting. If my post was "anti-Semitic" then so are Walt and Mearsheimer, Buchanan, and a host of people who no longer cower in fear when they are called names simply because the find fault with Israel or Zionism in its most common form. Juan Cole is also, if you are to be believed, an "anti-Semite." Do you really want to cast slurs on all these people? I think you are paranoid on the issue. Or perhaps... well, I will not say it.

[Bruce Webb]

Likud is not Israel. AIPAC is not Israel.

Being against Likudnik eliminationism is not anti-Semitism.

Openly opposing any and all is not to be anti-Israel.

That being said 'Zionism' was the wrong word. Zionism was inherently a secular movement and is opposed by certain sectors of the Jewish Right. Google on 'Hasidic zionism' to get a sampling, for example this:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/363_Transp/Orthodoxy/Naturei.html

A belief in 'Greater Israel' is not synonomous with 'Zionism'. And you can oppose Israel's policy under Likud without in any way being an anti-Semite or a denier of Israel's right of legitimate self-defence. Those who knee-jerk assert otherwise largely overlap with those that suggest that opposition to the war in Iraq makes you anti-American.

To suggest that Lieberman or Perle or Wolfowitz have aligned themselves with Likud and in many ways have privileged the policy goals of Likud to those of the United States is an observation and an argument that can be debated but not dismissed out of hand with name calling. Particularly cheap shot anonymous name-calling.

[hj]

Thanks, Bruce. You put it very well.

[Live Wire]

There can be no anti-Semitism without Semitism. The point being that when one chooses a narrow, exclusionary mythic identity... such as identifying oneself as a descendant of one particular son and grandson of Noah, or perhaps identifying oneself as a distinct follower of one of the many Semitic Sons of God... then you can expect to find a natural opposition from those that are excluded from such an identity by heredity, culture or geography.

I find it depressing that in the 21st Century global jet-age humanity still busies itself fighting what amounts to an endless series of tribal wars.

[pgl]

If one is interested in this race (I'm with Kevin Drum just waiting for it to be over) - Jane Hamsher over at FireDogLake (the gals are all over this race) has some big news - Maxine Waters (the true CAL liberal) is supporting Lamont. Jane also comments on the latest garbage from David Brooks who seems to think it's wrong for Democrats not to support Lieberman. Ahem.

[Right Democrat]

The notion that Joe Lieberman is a closet right-wing Republican is absurd. Lieberman is endorsed by the AFL-CIO and has a 75 percent rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action. Parties win elections by appealing to the center. If Lieberman is driven out of the party, the message will be that centrists are not welcome in the Democratic Party.

[dWj]

I'm less convinced than you are that the two major parties should have a completely unrestrained oligopoly power over our politics; if someone somewhere can still get elected without being either the best Republican candidate or the best Democratic candidate, but the best overall candidate, then hooray that the system hasn't entirely stifled outsiders.

[camille roy]

I am somewhat bored by the netroots tempest on Lamont/Lieberman (Atrios has never been so repetitive) but I do think the contest is important. Dems can't stand for anything unless they have some clarity in their message, and they can't have clarity in their message until they have a modicum of message discipline. Lieberman is insufferable and just plain wrong in the message he communicates. (The notion of standing behind the Poseur In Chief in his vanity war is repulsive.) Politically I see the firestorm that follows Lieberman to be a cautionary tale for elected Dems who want to play 'some of this, but not some of that' with the basic Dem platform and core values. It will be a long struggle to clarity the Dem message, but it is necessary.

[bullbust]

Lieberman should simply become a Republican, a moderate one if need be. But the Democrats should get rid of him. People like him make the Democrats look weak and incoherent.

The Republican part effects a Parliemantary whip with its financial resources and its conservative media machine. There is no need for them to fight primaries. DeLay's hammer mecanism is still in place, even without him.

The Republican "whip" operates behind the scenes, the Dems have to fight in public. The media keeps mum on the former, and makes the latter a topic of dinner conversation.

The Dems fight their primaries because some questions can be settled only that way. For the long term health of the Dems, Lieberman winning is the worst outcome, worse than a Republican winning. He is already a DINO.

[TJM]

If Lieberman were to lose the primary,what other than an ego,would cause him to run as an independent? Does he believe that only he should be the "representative" of CT. voters?

If he didn't want to be a part of the Democratic party and acknowledge the voters' preference,why did he stay in the party?

The larger problem he evinces is the belief that he and only he can be a Senator from Ct. Sounds like egotism to me.

[piglet]

Chait is losing it when he claims: "But if Lieberman's allies are irritating and often wrongheaded, alas, his enemies are worse. Lieberman recently declared, "I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party." Markos Moulitsas, the lefty blogger from Daily Kos who has ... made Lieberman's defeat a personal crusade, posted this quote on his website in the obvious belief that it's self-evidently absurd. But shouldn't we all have greater loyalties than the one to our party — say, to our country?"

So the only "evidence" against Lieberman's critics is that they are quoting his quote? Strange. I guess Markos' point is to expose Lieberman's hypocrisy, at least that's the point I would be making. How rotten must a politican be to claim that it is his "higher loyalty" that forces him to disregard democratic procedures? What about loyalty towards his electorate, who didn't elect him to support this load of shit policy? If he believes that the Democratic Party is incompatible with his loyalty (to Bush?), why doesn't he quit and run as a Republican?

"But shouldn't we all have greater loyalties than the one to our party — say, to our country?" This is exactly what Kaiser Wilhelm II had in mind when he famosuly exclaimed "Ich kenne keine Parteien mehr, nur noch Deutsche." (No parties, only Germans - 1914) Make no mistake. That disdain for "party loyalty" is really an attack on democracy. Nobody is forced to join a party but running for office for a party while rejecting its political programme and dismissing the voters' will is deeply dishonest. It would be a disgrace if Lieberman got away with that new old version of the patriotism game.

[piglet]

I think this needs to be clarified. Party loyalty is a bad thing only if it is exaggerated. As long as some political diversity is accepted within a party, and as long as anybody is free to leave it and join or even found another one, there's nothing wrong with party loyalty. Indeed, modern representative democracy cannot work without a reasonable amount of it, and maybe this is part of the reason why US democracy is in such a bad shape these days: as long as politicians like Lieberman can breach their party loyalty, support corrupt policies that their voters reject, and get away with it, it is difficult to see how the voice of the people can ever be made heard.

[Barry]

"Jane also comments on the latest garbage from David Brooks who seems to think it's wrong for Democrats not to support Lieberman. Ahem. "

Interesting how many Republicans support this Democratic Senator. Odd :)

[Barry]

Chait's descent into 'Even the liberal New Republic' hackdom has certain markers - certain things where his illness manifests most prominently. One of those is his rather strong and strange support for Lieberman. Oddly enough, his employer, Martin Peretz, seems to share this condition. Must be a coincidence.

[Gerard MacDonell]

There is no reason for Democrats to support Lieberman, either in the primary or in the broader election.

True, if Lieberman were to lose the primary and run as an independent, then some of the Democratic vote would split. However, this is hardly an argument for supporting him in the primary. Lieberman is currently more popular among Republicans than Democrats. As a result he might siphon off nearly as many Republican as Democratic votes and thereby allow the real Democrat to win. In any event the odds of a real Democratic victory would exceed the 0% that we would accept by nominating Lieberman.

In fact, conceding a Republican gain in 2006 would be better over the longer run than keeping Lieberman. So Democrats should probably vote Republican in November if Lieberman secures the nomination. By eliminating Lieberman from politics now, we would at least have a shot at nominating an actual Democrat to represent the state after 2012. I realize that this probably sounds defeatist, given that CT is meant to be a blue state. But it is more defeatist to lay down and accept a closet Republican on bogus "strategic" grounds.

Rejecting Lieberman would generate more immediate benefits outside CT. It is reasonable to expect Democrats to support Democratic policies, and it is sensible to extract a price for deviating. The party needs discipline, as an earlier poster noted.

No doubt Republicans would complain that this is too harsh or authoritarian. But who, besides Lieberman, cares what they think? The Democratic purpose is not to please Republicans but to reverse their damaging policies. Getting rid of Lieberman would be a useful first step.