The Lieberman Answer

Possibly my next-to-last post on the Connecticut primary here. But while the latest poll has it at 51-45 Lamont (down from 54-41 a week ago), I'm not buying it. Maybe there's a whole slew of dynamics about Connecticut politics that I just don't get, granted. But given the way the campaign has gone, I don't see how Joe pulls out even a close win. If I had money to put on it, I'd say it's more to the tune of 65-35 Lamont on Tuesday night.

Of course, that goes against my express wishes and desires for this race. While Scot Lehigh's critique of the campaign rings too true to these ears, Robert Kagan's defense stands as the strongest: Joe's ultimate sin is not his vote for invading Iraq ... it's his failure to recant.

I had a great discussion a few days back with a political type that I have a great deal of admiration for. The topic was this race. His point was that he just didn't buy that Lieberman was sincere in his efforts on issues that seemingly played to the right like violence in video games and the like. My point, which remains, is along the lines of "What's so inconsistent about being a Democrat and saying there's too much violence available to 10-yr old kids?" Likewise, when it comes to the great issue of this election, what's so inconsistent about being a Democrat and being forthright in defense of America in a war on terror? For that matter, what's so inconsistent with being a Democrat and believing that there's room for repairs to our entitlement programs (yes, even Social Security), affirmative action, school choice, and any other number of issues?

In the end, though, it seems ironic to me that in the midst of arguing that Joe suffers from a lack of commitment to Democratic principles (something I find inexplicably impossible to argue given his efforts in Mississippi in the 60s), what really sets people off the easiest is the one issue he's never suffered for commitment toward: a strong national defense.

Be that as it may, I stumbled upon a fortuitous quote today that spoke loud and clear to this situation: "The arrogance of the young is a direct result of not having known enough consequences."

Perhaps when people see what a now-impending Lamont victory brings, they'll ask whether it was worth the cost.

Backgrounders:
Marty Peretz:

It was then that people like Joe Lieberman emerged, muscular on defense, assertive in foreign policy, genuinely liberal on social and economic matters, but not doctrinaire on regulatory issues. He had marched for civil rights and is committed to an equal opportunity agenda with equal opportunity results. He has qualms about affirmative action. But who, in his hearts of hearts, does not? He is appalled by the abysmal standards of our popular culture and our public discourse. Who really loves our popular culture--or, at least, which parent? He is thoroughly a Democrat. But Mr. Lieberman believes that, in an age of communal and global stress, one would do well to speak with the president (even, on rare occasion, speak well of him) and compromise with him on urgent matters of practical law.

Yes, Mr. Lieberman sometimes sounds a bit treacly. He certainly is preachy, and advertises his sense of his own righteousness. But he has also been brave, and bravery is a rare trait in politicians, especially in states that are really true-blue or, for that matter, really true-red. The blogosphere Democrats, whose victory Mr. Lamont's will be if Mr. Lamont wins, have made Iraq the litmus test for incumbents. There are many reasonable, and even correct, reproofs that one may have for the conduct of the war. They are, to be sure, all retrospective. But one fault cannot be attributed to the U.S., and that is that we are on the wrong side. We are at war in a just cause, to protect the vulnerable masses of the country from the helter-skelter ideological and religious mass-murderers in their midst. Our enemies are not progressive peasants as was imagined three and four decades ago.

If Mr. Lieberman goes down, the thought-enforcers of the left will target other centrists as if the center was the locus of a terrible heresy, an emphasis on national strength. Of course, they cannot touch Hillary Clinton, who lists rightward and then leftward so dexterously that she eludes positioning. Not so Mr. Lieberman. He does not camouflage his opinions. He does not play for safety, which is why he is now unsafe.

David Gergen:

For much of the 20th century, the country applauded when leading members of the opposition party joined up with a president to forge a bipartisan front in time of danger. As World War II approached, Republicans Henry Stimson and Frank Knox joined Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt's Cabinet to serve as secretaries of war and the Navy. After John F. Kennedy was elected during the Cold War, leading Republicans took the helm at Defense, Treasury, the CIA and the National Security Council to help a Democratic president.

Without Les Aspin rounding up Democratic votes in the House and leaders such as Al Gore supporting him in the Senate, President George H.W. Bush could not have secured congressional approval for the first Gulf war. Working across the aisle, especially in time of national danger, is a time-honored tradition in America. Will Connecticut Democrats now throw it out?

Moreover, it is simply wrong to believe that the senator is a lapdog or toady of the president. Yes, he agreed to the war and has spoken up for it. But look at his stance on a string of questions since. On torture, Abu Ghraib and warrantless surveillance, he has taken sharp issue with President Bush. Yes, he voted with the president on the war itself, but he should not be tarred with too broad a brush.

In a related vein, one has to ask who will work out the bipartisan compromises on big domestic issues if senators such as Lieberman are sent packing. One of the most serious problems we face in politics is the disappearance of a vibrant middle, giving way to a vicious polarization. The House of Representatives borders on a snake pit, and with farewells of people such as Bill Bradley and Pat Moynihan, as well as Jack Danforth and Bob Dole, the Senate may be heading in that direction, too. The result? The political class is almost dysfunctional in Washington, even as storms gather just over the horizon.

Joe in his own words:

Here’s the bottom line: When you sort through the fact and fiction, the truth and consequences, you will see that I am the same person you have always known, fighting for what I sincerely believe is right for my state and country.

The big difference between my opponent and me is that I believe in solving problems. That you can remain true to Democratic ideals and find common ground to get things done for your constituents. That you can be compassionate in domestic policy and tough in foreign policy. That you can stand up for progressive values and still work with the other side to help people make a better life for themselves.

That’s what this all about. Not me. Not Ned Lamont. Or George Bush. This election is about you and which one of us is best qualified to give the people of Connecticut the best future you can have.

My opponent can distort my work all he wants. But he can’t change the fact that my record of experience and results makes me the best Democrat to serve Connecticut in the U.S. Senate.

The proof is in the pudding: 35 years of fighting and delivering for you -- for your jobs, your security, your health and safety, your environment, your opportunities, your families, your rights, and your future.

That’s why every major newspaper in Connecticut, including three more today, have endorsed me in this campaign. Even though many of them disagree with my position on Iraq, they recognized that I have worked my heart out to solve problems and produce results for you, and that I am the candidate who Connecticut Democrats can count on to build a better future for our state.

So let me close by saying this. If after hearing the truth about where I stand on Iraq, you still want to cast your vote solely on that one issue, then I respect your decision. But if you care about all the other issues facing us, and want to make real progress on them, then I ask once again for your trust and your vote on Tuesday.