A Last Few Words on Connecticut

« Beyond Checklist Liberalism | Main | Vietnam Analogies Everywhere! »

08/07/2006

A Last Few Words on Connecticut

Some random thoughts in the closing days:

First, is there a better expression of what I called “checklist liberalism” than Lieberman’s I-gave-at-the-office answer to George Stephanopoulos this morning, complete with the Rumsfeldian question-answer format?:

Lieberman: “Did I keep in touch with Democrats? You bet I did….I have the support of most of the key inner constituencies, advocacy groups within the Democratic Party : the AFL-CIO, the League of Conservation Voters, Defenders of Wildlife, Human Rights Campaign, NARAL, Planned Parenthood PAC. They wouldn’t support me if I lost touch with them.”

Second, I want to comment on some bits of Dan Balz’s article, billed on the Washington Post website as “What A Lieberman Loss Would Mean.” Balz’s unsurprising argument is that if Lieberman loses, it will increase the importance of the Iraq War in the 2008 Democratic primaries, and advantage candidates like Al Gore whose opposition has been stronger.

In contrast, Balz says, “many party moderates say they see worrisome parallels to what happened to the Democrats during Vietnam, when they opposed an unpopular war but paid a price politically for years after because of a perception the party was too dovish on national security.

“‘Candidates know they cannot appease [antiwar] activists if they are going to run winning national campaigns,’ said Will Marshall, president of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute.”

Two comments on this: First, the 2008 primaries are seventeen months away. Balz projects a straight line from the way the issue breaks today to that point. And seems to take it for granted that we’ll still be embroiled in Iraq. But consider that at the time of the 2004 primaries, the war was less than one year old! By the time of the first primary votes in 2008, it will be almost five years of war. We’re now in the fourth year of the war; does anyone seriously think that by the sixth, absent some enormous change, that “antiwar activists” won’t be the vast majority of people? If the issue - the war - remains unchanged, the politics of it cannot remain unchanged.

This is why I’ve never been worried in the past about the “split” on Iraq among Democrats. I thought that by the time we got within sight of the 2008 primaries, either something dramatic would have happened to change things, or it would become completely obvious to everyone that withdrawal on a timetable was the only option. With David Broder and Tom Friedman now in the “cut and run” camp, with Senator Clinton standing up to Rumsfeld, that moment has almost come. And while the Lamont challenge may accelerate it somewhat among the more cautious politicians, it’s the reality, the fact that we are now in the middle of someone else’s civil war, that is driving everyone else to that consensus.

Also, I’m really tired of the Vietnam/Democrats analogy, in which the entire political history of Vietnam is reduced to McGovern’s loss in 1972. The real reason the Vietnam War divided and discredited Democrats and splintered the liberal consensus was because - let’s not be afraid to admit it -- Democrats started that war. Opposition to the war didn’t unify or define the party, it divided it. Nixon won the 1968 election because Humphrey was associated with the war, couldn’t split with LBJ, and Nixon promised - dishonestly -- to end it. The national security gap for Democrats first appeared in polls in 1967-68, because LBJ was held responsible for the war itself, not because they were associated with antiwar activists. (See this paper from the Truman Project for more.) And in the election after 1972, the 75+ Democrats who won congressional seats were overwhelmingly anti-war, a transforming fresh spirit in politics that dominated Congress for the next two decades. We can only hope that a new class of legislators elected on a wave of revulsion at the war and at corruption will be as skilled and resilient.

Third, I’ve been predicting for weeks that the Lieberman independent bid would amount to nothing, and that seems to now be the conventional wisdom, especially after Senator Frank Lautenberg suggested that if he did not come within 10 points of Lamont, he should drop the Party of One bid.

Politicians can be superficially supportive but also cruelly contemptuous toward colleagues who can’t take care of their own business. I think that some of the establishment figures have to be noticing that not only did Lieberman put himself in this situation, but he did absolutely nothing, at any point, to get himself out of it. From attacking Lamont, acting peevish and entitled, declaring the independent bid, refusing to say anything that would show any difference between his view of Iraq and Bush’s (even with George Stephanopoulos this morning he was mouthing the WH line that the only threat to a unified, stable Iraq was “the terrorists”), to finally trying a clumsy imitation of Lamont’s enthusiastic rallies, the only result of which was that the face of his campaign for a day was a loudmouth DC lobbyist who looked like an understudy for the “Billionaires for Bush” comedy troupe, Lieberman didn’t make one right move in six months. He doesn’t even seem to realize that if he denounces his opponent for voting with Republicans and calls him “center-right,” he can’t credibly also say, “That’s something that separates me from my opponent - I don’t hate Republicans.”

I was going to end this post with some attempt to figure out why it happened, but all explanation - such as that he doesn’t quite understand how politics has changed since the 1990s - seems inadequate to the magnitude of the flame-out. I think it’s possible that after the primary, unleashed from the obligation of being a checklist Democrat, Lieberman may emerge as a very, very conservative figure, one of those real neoconservatives (in the older sense of the word) whose main politics is to obsess over and recoil at what they see as the excesses of the left. Michael Barone is a good example of such a figure, and that way madness lies. I’m just speculating, but if that does occur, we’ll understand why he couldn’t run a plausible Democratic campaign in 2006: he couldn’t bring himself to.

Posted by Mark Schmitt on 08/07/2006 at 12:00 AM in 2004 elections, Decembrist archives | Permalink

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Unbelievably good post.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | 08/07/2006 at 12:21 AM

What "Tim" said.

I come here regularly to get the perspective I find nowhere else.

Particularly grateful for the analysis of the 68 amd 72 elections; one thing I've never understood; when it became apparent after Watergate refused to go away, that Nixon was crashing and burning, why didn't McGovern get more recognition as having been right about Nixon, and the way he wasn't going to end the war in Vietnam. I mean I was around at the time; it was when I first noticed that the mainstream press was anything but liberal, and McGovern Democrats portrayed as anti-war, hate-America first hippies (even though the hippie phenom was dead by then) seems permanently imprinted on the minds of all journalists who become part of the mainstream Washington press corps, as if rejecting McGovernism is a rite of passage.

Posted by: Leah A | 08/07/2006 at 03:10 AM

“I think it’s possible that after the primary, unleashed from the obligation of being a checklist Democrat, Lieberman may emerge as a very, very conservative figure, one of those real neoconservatives (in the older sense of the word) whose main politics is to obsess over and recoil at what they see as the excesses of the left.”

Here’s a prediction of the future: Bush will finally jettison Rumsfeld as a liability he can no longer carry and, in a desperate attempt to maintain the argument that the war is nationally unifying project, appoint Lieberman as his replacement. Lieberman’s personal relationships in the Senate will make him easier to confirm than any other conceivable choice and will mute Democratic criticism of the war's conduct for a few months. Rumsfeld’s removal will pull a stick out of the hands of Democratic candidates as they approach the ’06 elections, and hand their GOP opponents a pretext for declaring them “outside the mainstream.” Remember, you heard it here first.

Posted by: Tilden'76 | 08/07/2006 at 04:28 PM

another "thank you" for saying something sensible about the vietnam war, democrats, etc. the pervasive nonsense about that era, often from "youngsters" (under 45?) who are otherwise well-informed and incredibly bright, has led me to believe that there are some aspects of history that you can't really grasp unless "you were there".

my objection to lieberman isn't even primarily his support for the war. it's his adoption of some of the mindless cant from the right - no morality without religion, support the president as C-in-C, expensing stock options will sink technology - which suggested a lack of critical thinking. and pandering to interest groups doesn't assuage that. in a republican democracy, these folks are supposed to employ their advantages (intelligence, contacts, staff resources, etc) to resolve complex issues. if they're just going to count heads, we may as well have government by proposition (which has worked so well in CA).

Posted by: ctw | 08/07/2006 at 04:56 PM

The Zell Miller of the North?

Posted by: Paul Camp | 08/07/2006 at 09:02 PM

I earlier predicted that Joseph Lieberman will win today. The current situation in Lebanon changed everything. Many Democrats are starting to realize that the Islamic nihilists play for keeps. What if I’m wrong? If so, the Democratic Party is finished as a national entity. Its power will be restricted to the bluer areas of the country. The chance of ever again capturing the required 270 electoral votes will be next to zilch.

Posted by: David Thomson | 08/08/2006 at 11:12 AM

Mr. Thomson,

When the Israelis first moved on Hezbollah a few weeks ago, I had a similar thought about the likely impact on the Connecticut primary, but I have since repented and suspect that a Lamont victory is in the works (last minute theatrics about websites notwithstanding). Whether this is because the events in Lebanon had no impact, or less then I imagined, or had an impact different then I expected on the electorate I can’t say for sure. What I can say is that I think you're substantially off base in your own analysis.

First, it is implicit in your comment that most Democrats do not realize the danger posed by the Islamist movement. Your second point seems to be that the rest of the country is more cognizant of their peril. Finally, you conclude, quite explicitly, that this disconnect will keep the Democrats from the White House in the near term. I disagree.

I am willing to concede that the average Democrat does not fully grasp in the challenge that is posed by the Islamists, but in this they are hardly alone – the rest of the country doesn’t really get it either. Most Americans of every stripe perceive menace in our opponents (it is hard not to see it) but struggle to understand its depth, shape, and meaning. The instincts of liberals and Democrats have actually served them quite a bit better then those of Republicans and movement Conservatives, who are more hampered by military fetishism, latent racism, and exceptionalist assumptions. Liberals, including large numbers of Democrats, at least have a vague sense that Islamists are somehow a symptom of the larger challenge of militant religious fundamentalism and a gut feeling that the tap root of Islamist power is reaction and a culture of victimization and thus not ultimately susceptible to military force. Finally, I would like to agree with you that those who do not understand the seriousness and nature of the current challenge to Western liberalism cannot achieve the Presidency, but alas, the current occupant of the Oval Office is stark refutation of that hope.

Posted by: Tilden'76 | 08/08/2006 at 03:44 PM

tilden'76:

your last comment is frightening, since being dead on (IMO), it gives credence to your earlier prediction. one might hope that lieberman would see through the ploy and decline in the national interest, but his decision (assuming it's not just a temporary face-saving act) to run as an independent doesn't seem to support that hope.

Posted by: ctw | 08/09/2006 at 10:32 AM