The woman who arguably gave the world George W. Bush didn’t spend so much time in Bill Clinton’s Oval Office because of her political smarts, but she had a point that is relevant to why Lieberman is facing such a strong challenge from Ned Lamont in next week’s Connecticut primary. The fury directed at him by many Democrats is rooted not just in his support for Bush’s Iraq fiasco but in his annoying habit of hedging his bets, as reflected in his risk-averse insistence that if he loses the primary, he’ll run as an independent. His campaign poster when he ran for high-school class president featured him crouched on his parents’ roof under the line: vote or i’ll jump. The charm of that has worn off.
But there’s something psychologically deeper going on in this campaign that is both understandable and depressing–a cannibalistic distraction from what should be the top priority of Democrats, namely booting Republicans. The same Democrats who are justifiably angry with Lieberman for not holding Bush accountable are harming efforts to, well, hold Bush accountable.
Lieberman’s problems began long before he was kissed by President Bush at last year’s State of the Union. With his Senate seat safe, he didn’t have to fight in 2000. He went easier on Dick Cheney in their vice presidential debate than he did a few weeks back against fellow Democrat Lamont. During the Florida recount, he made a point of favoring military absentee ballots likely to be Republican. Lieberman has voted 90 percent of the time with the Democrats–but his first impulse is often to find fault with them. His 2004 run for the White House was better known for its attacks on fellow Democrats than on the incumbent. He approved of Washington intervention in the Terri Schiavo case. On Iraq, he buys the GOP argument that equates criticism of the commander in chief with hurting the troops, which means no real oversight. (Has he forgotten the Truman Committee during World War II?) The duty of the opposition is to oppose.
At the same time, the Senate needs collegial moderates who work across party lines. It’s the only way to stop the really bad stuff. And the revival of the romance of the antiwar left is a potential disaster for the Democrats. That’s what gave the world Richard Nixon in 1968, when ideologically pure liberals who had backed Eugene McCarthy in the primaries refused to rally around Hubert Humphrey because Humphrey was “complicit” in the Vietnam War machine. Clinton managed to forge a pragmatic center for Democrats, which is why he didn’t hesitate to campaign last week for Lieberman. Clinton’s strong support may well pull the man who once called his behavior “disgraceful” over the finish line. It’s also a warm-up for selling his pro-war wife to skeptical liberals.
The bloggers who have noisily intervened deny they’re interested in ideological purity. They point to their support in Senate races for pro-life candidates. But on Iraq, the liberal blogs brook no dissent. Not that it matters in Connecticut. If Lamont wins, only the laziest analysts can attribute it to the Netroots. Daily Kos is not exactly Topic A in the diners and union halls of the Nutmeg State.
But if the blogs aren’t a force on the ground, they are becoming a powerful factor in directing the passions (and pocketbooks) of far-flung Democratic activists. They’re helping fuel a collective version of what shrinks call “projection,” where the anger of Democrats at Bush is projected on a handy target, in this case Lieberman. But in doing so, they have neglected what FDR called “the putting of first things first.” Job one for Democrats is identifying which Republican House incumbents are vulnerable in their own states and directing all available energy against them. Savaging fellow Democrats (except those who cannot win) should come after taking control, not before.
The challenge facing voters this year is not to hold Democrats accountable for their heresies but Republicans accountable for where they have taken the country. They are the ones in power, not Joe Lieberman.
