E.J. Dionne, Jr. thinks that Joe Lieberman can "grow" as a result of his primary experience and that such growth would be good for the Democrats. Defining party purity in terms of pacifist internationalism and inveterate opposition to the Bush Administration, which Dionne by implication seems to favor, seems to me to be a return to McGovernism (with even less reason than in 1972 and likely ultimately with the same electoral results).
I dont know if its so likely to be like 1972 again. We had a lot of old WWII vets & others around then who voted en bloc for Nixon. A lot of them are still with us, and still vote, but I notice many bought off on a lot of the war revisionism, and see this as just another Vietnam and by God we wont get took again. You just cant take those ol guys for granted, and the elderly women are even more prone to pacifism now.
And then there are the gen Xers and Yers. I fear the Reps will get hit from both ends of the voter spectrum in 08.
Joseph:
Youre setting up a false choice between unqualified support for Bush administration blundering and "pacifist internationalism." Its hardly pacifist to say that we should have better reasons to invade and occupy a country than the reasons we had to go into Iraq, and its hardly pacifist to say that the Senate should stand up to the President. The latter, if anything, is good old American respect for the dignity of our plural and divided institutions, Id say.
Brett,
Youre right that there is a measured reponse to the perils of the world that may not quite be that of the Bush Administration. In the Democratic Party, Joe Lieberman and Peter Beinart represent it, but thats not the position to which Dionne is giving aid and comfort.
Joseph:
Without attempting to sound rude: Your post posited a false choice, your reply to my comment posits no choice. (The "aid and comfort" language underlines an intimation of treason, which has been used all too often by the right to attempt to stifle the debate that might have led to better, more considered, less costly policies. Everyone knows that you only "give aid and comfort" to the enemy, not to those who wish you well.) At any rate, Liebermans and Beinarts aggressive attacks on those who dared to criticize Bushs push for war in Iraq, and its prosecution, do not reflect the best traditions of either the Senate or opinion journalism.
Brett,
Im not accusing anyone of treason, only of short-sightedness. People are attempting to punish Lieberman at the polls, not because they think hes a smidge too cosy with the Bush Administration, but because he dares favor a vigorous response to the worlds challenges. I think that Evan Bayh said a couple fo weeks ago that credibility on national security was the sine qua non for voters taking the Democrats seriously. I agree. And I think that turfing Joe Lieberman is a step in the wrong direction.
I myself am torn. I would rather have a responsible than an irresponsible opposition on national security matters. But an irresponsible opposition makes it much more likely that "my guys" (and I dont embrace them all, or whole-heartedly) continue in office.
Id love to see a middle ground, but Dionne and the netroots arent advocating it.
"...attempting to punish Lieberman at the polls..." - its not as if Lieberman is somehow ENTITLED to another term. If he lost the election it wouldnt be denial of something to which he has a right of any kind. If he wants another term, hes got to earn it by getting the votes.
If voters are planning on/will be "punishing" him (by not voting for him), then perhaps theyre not interpreting Liebermans support for Iraq as "a vigorous response to the worlds challenges," but an inappropriate response (however vigorous it may be - was too much vigor applied at Abu Ghraib?) that has done considerably more harm than good.