Dont miss Thomas Byrne Edsall, writing in todays New Republic online about the role of the "upscale left" in the Lieberman-Lamont duel, and why the result is bad news for Democrats in 2008.
Sample:
The Lieberman-Lamont primary is a study, writ small, in what has ailed the Democratic Party over the last few decades. Simply put, Democratic presidential primary electorates continue to be dominated by an upscale, socially (and culturally) liberal elite. Democrats must first win the approval of this elite before they can compete in the general election. Its a trap that no Democrat other than Bill Clinton has found a way to escape, and Lamonts victory shows why.
So does this mean then that America is more willing to tolerate candidates who pander to the right-religious wackos than the snobby left-wing dilitantes? (Hey John McCain dont worry about speaking at Bob Jones University, the GOP is a big tent of ideas where no one has to pander to a psychotic base like that OTHER party!)
Good idea to attack the messenger. Except wait a second. This is ... The New Republic. Martin Peretz, Peter Beinart et al. Gosh these are died in the wool Democrats. WTF. Oh never mind Abbie. We know all the LSD flashbacks from the years of abuse make you a major Depends customer on occasion.
Gmax,
I think buried in Abbies frustration is a bit of truth, though. Quite frankly, you cant run as a Republican if you doubt that theres a heaven and a hell (or, in the least, it would be extremely difficult to get a nomination).
And, for the most part, you cant run in either party unless you (and/or your friends) are part of the economic elite.
Quite frankly, I dont see this as a problem for the Democrats. Each party has its out-of-touch-with-the-mainstream factions. The Pro-lifers on the Right, the Pro-gay marriage on the Left. The Bible-Thumpers on the Right, the Gaia-worshipping Feminists on the Left. Its been that way for awhile now and the Democrats havent died yet. Honestly, I think that the worst the Democrats could do right now is just not gain seats in Congress. Public dissatisfaction with the Republican party is just too great right now (be it the Republicans fault or not).
So, yeah . . . I dont see the long term consequences Edsall is predicting really coming to term . . .
Last time I checked the contingent of Pro lifers were very close to a majority, depnding of course on how the question in the poll was taken. And I dont think other than maybe Massachusetts, does there exist a place where the pro gay marriage are anything except a small but vocal minority.
But for this one thing we agree. The worst that Democrats can do, will probably be their default path. The Republicans have screwed up a lay down loaner hand but they are quite fortunate to be able to run against Democrats. For that I must say a prayer.
Abbie Hoffman asked, "Does this mean that America is more willing to tolerate candidates who pander to the right-religious wackos that the snobby left-wing dilettantes?"
Yes.
Which "main stream" is Lamont out of touch with? Hes being attacked because hes opposed to the war in Iraq...along with about 60% of Americans. What is Lamont doing wrong? "Pandering" to the majority?
And, whats with the "elitist" thing? Can the majority be called "elitist"? There seems to be a lot of labeling and name-calling going on here, but not much of a reasoned argument...
When Lamont talks about negotiating with our enemies, and says the answer to Iran is a carrot and stick approach (apparently he was on retreat for the last three years) he shows up out of the mainstream.
When Lieberman comes out in full support of the war in Iraq—the issue most important to Americans—Lieberman (and most of the Republican party)—shows itself to be out of the mainstream.
Relying on polls is a difficult thing to do Publicus (what a strange mix!). Americans are certainly upset with the handling of the war in Iraq, the strategy of the war in Iraq, and the leadership of President Bush. So...that means that we should pull out our soliders, attempt to deal diplomatically with terrorist groups and terrorist sympathizers, and operate on a level in a more globally frinedly manner?
Sounds like appeasement, reminds me of a certain time in history, and would certainly be "out-of-touch" with the majority of Americans.
Its about strategy. The adherents of appeasement are in the minority. Things are stale and dont seem to be moving, despite the money and the effort, and the people want more, so...
Apologies for the bold.
The unpopularity of the war is much like the unpopularity of the Korean and Vietnam wars. The American people want to see results, quickly. They dont want to surrender, but they dont want to see the fighting drag on. This is exactly why Truman decided to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. I suspect that, if asked, a sizable chunk of the American public would support the use of nuclear weapons (as they did in Korea and Vietnam) to settle things in the Middle East once and for all. Note that Im not in favor of this option; its just worth pointing out that this is very different from a desire to withdraw.
In response to Fred, I think a better comparison for the Iraq conflict is the American revolution, not 1930s Germany. Playing the part of the England....us. Read about the Howe brothers strategy for winning the hearts and minds of the people of NJ and how it backfired.
Im going to make two predictions here, and if anyone wants to refute them please be my guest. My predictions: 1. The U.S. will eventually leave Iraq. 2. When we do Iraq will be better off than when our military was there.
I think many people (myself included) dont know what Bushs policy IS except to "stay the course" and most people believe that the current course isnt working.
Many people think wer are losing at that civil war is inevitable or that Iraq is ALREADY in a civil war. Is Bushs position STILL that were winning? If so, he may have a hard time making his case because the reports we get from Iraq dont look so promising. And, weve been at it since 2003.
I guess what Im saying here is, whatever you think about our policy or what it should be, the war in Iraq is the most important issues to voters and they dont like what Republicans have done there.
That doesnt mean the Democrats will win Congress, but it cant be a plus for the Republicans. I think the voters want to hear a new approach—from either party—that suggests what we should do NOW.
Abbie
I probably shouldnt bother responding. I think a few elements are missing (you may want to consider the role of "one people" "all men are created equal" and "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Also, does the recognition that all men are created equal presuppose liberty? Consider). I was not comparing this war to WWII, that is historically inaccurate and stupid. I was comparing Publicus push for appeasement to Neville Chamberlain and "Peace in our time!"
Publicus
I agree with everything you say, except what I think some of the hiding meanings are. I thought this:
Many people think wer (we?) are losing at(or?) (and?) that civil war is inevitable or that Iraq is ALREADY in a civil war.
What does that mean? If there is civil war, then what? People throw around that term as if the significance or consequences are obvious. If there is civil war, does that mean we ought to leave? I would argue that it creates a bigger incentive to stay.
When the war began, I was an opponent of it. I was an opponenet because some undeniable features about the Iraqi people stood out. Sunnis, Kurds, and Shiites have fought and killed each other for centuries. Sectarian violence did not suddenly appear upon our arrival. The reason for its increase afterwards is that one faction believes the other might be gaining the upper hand in the political realm, and (obviously) it doesnt want that to happen (these people dont know democracy, they never have, and I suspect most believe a factional tyrant will arise, regardless of the outcome of our presence). John Stuart Mill and Churchill have said some very intriguing things about a peoples ability to govern themselves, and it may apply to this context more than any other.
I believe democracy spreading is possible (but, the tyrants favortie phrase "I come to liberate these people from..."). I believe it is a good. So, once we were there, handing over sovereignty so soon (prematurely perhaps) and allowing popular elections (which, I admit, had better results than I expected) so early, were probably a strategic error (but politics is a tricky game, especially with global pressure). Dr. Moser is exactly right, the people want A and not A at the same time, and popularly elected officials act accordingly. As a consequence (and as I said earlier), Publicus, you are correct in all of your assertions.
"hiding" in the first line to Publicus should be read as "hidden"
Fred!
Ive been out for awhile. Your observation about "civil war" is astute! I, indeed, dont know what the policy implications should be of a civil war—you see that as a reason to stay.
However, as an analysis of voter behavior, I think that most people see a civil war as an unwinnable war, and a reason to leave. (Whether or not they are right about this is a separate question...but I believe that would be the common perception of the implication of a civil war.)
In any case, I enjoyed your post. Anyone on either side of the political spectrum wins my respect by quoting the Declaration of Independence!
(and most of the Republican party)—shows itself to be out of the mainstream.
Good one...?... That WAS a joke wasnt it?
The unpopularity of the war is much like the unpopularity of the Korean and Vietnam wars. The American people want to see results, quickly. They don’t want to surrender, but they don’t want to see the fighting drag on.
Theres a big difference between being unhappy with the war (due almost entirely to misconceptions of a lack of progress brought about by an agenda driven media coverage of it) and wanting to cut and run from it and cede it to al qaeda and Iran. Lieberman went to Iraq twice. He was astonished the second time to see the progress we had made there and he committed the secular sin of saying so.
People who perceive a lack of progress in Iraq are not contemptible; people who want us to lose in Iraq are.
Uncle Guido—
The American people and the Iraqi people want the U.S. troops out of Iraq. Thats contemptible, isnt it?!
Before the job is done? Yes.
The job IS done. There are no WMD in Iraq. (That WAS the job, wasnt it?!)
Uh sure thats the ticket. Forget about about regime change.
To the United States military:
Job well done. Youve found some, but not nearly all of the WMD. Your efforts to rebuild the infrastructure to Iraq and to establish democracy in the middle east, while commendable, is, according to Publicus, aka the American people and the iraqi people, not your job so GET OUT!
No, Pub, it wasnt. We are good Boy Scouts...we have to leave the area better than we found it. There is nothing people like you would like better than for us to leave a raging civil war behind us. Hey, if you think they hate us now, wait until we cut and run.
Like so often in our history, this is probably a "no-win" situation, at least in terms of public relations. I therefore recommend we do whats in OUR best interest.
If dain were President:
1) Partition Iraq...the Kurds will be our good buddies. We play the Sunni and Shia off against on another (e.g., hey, Sunni folk, do you want us to side with those crazy Shia? Better get your act together.) When Turkey gets upset about an independent Kurdistan, we remind them about the 4th ID and how it WASNT in Iraq on time.
2) Terrorize Iran by funding insurgency and occasional special ops against their military sites. Nothing to go to war over, but lethal as hell nonetheless. Also, assassinate the current rulers (hardball, thats right).
3) We allow Israel to finish the job. Instead of tit-for-tat, we run interference for them (against world opinion) and let them TAKE Lebanon...and maybe Syria as well. But no occupation...thats a losers game. Just kick the $hit out of them like in 1967. War of symbols, etc.
4) We give Musharraf an ultimatum...massively invade the mountain country and clean the $hit up, or well move everything weve got into that area (even without his permission). Time to get Osama.
Now, I realize the trolls will come out of the floorboards to say how grateful they are that Im NOT the POTUS...irrelevant. I would expect to be a one-termer. What we need are men who arent worried about their personal futures..we need men to make hard decisions about the future of our nation.
Dain, I have cheered you in the past for disengaging trolls. Now Im engaging one myself. Appologies.
Re partitioning Iraq: Wouldnt it be nice. Let the Islamist Sunni and Shiite jihadists kill each other and themselves. Somehow the world will survive without them. Eventually it will probably have to come to the partitions you describe. Oh, and wont the Sunnis just be tickled to find themselve alone in the baron desert, unencumbered by the decadence oil riches bring?
Re terrorizing Iran: I wish youd used a different word than "terrorize," but then you were always one to call a shovel a shovel. Agreed. Our special ops guys HAVE to take out their nukes.
Re letting Israel finish the job: Israels job wont be finished until Syria is incapable of re-arming Hezballah. Israel has no intention of taking the war to Syria and Condi and the Fwench wouldnt let that happen in any event. Im not happy with the efforts of the BUSH ADMINISTRATION (ptuey) to handcuff Israel. Neither am I happy with Ohlmerts decision to stop in Lebanon. I could be wrong. This whole diplomacy thingy may just be a trick to make Hezballah, Lebanon and Syria reject the deal so that we can put the blame on them for what Israel is about to do.
Re Musharraf: Works for me.
How to tie all this back into the "Lieberman-Lamont duel?" Lamont wants the international community to stop doing what its doing with Iran(talking) and...ahem...start talking with Iran. You know, offer them things. Carrots.
dain for president sounds good right now. The new Cincinnatus? Your methods would either create world war or make for a much shorter hard slog through the war on terror. But wait, a world warr is what we are having, already.
The Jurist bit was funny. Oh, my goodness! That whole line was the most amazing bit of comment linkage I have seen and I so admire that it works so well. I am dizzy with envy and a case well built.
The war is a political problem for the Republican party, but I do not see how it is a moral problem for the US.
dain for president sounds good right now. The new Cincinnatus? Your methods would either create world war or make for a much shorter hard slog through the war on terror. But wait, a world war is what we are having, already. Shall I start the petitions?
U.G. The Jurist bit was funny. Oh, my goodness! That whole line was the most amazing bit of comment linkage I have seen and I so admire that it works so well. I am dizzy with envy and also with awe at a case well built.
The war is a political problem for the Republican party, but I do not see how it is a moral problem for the US. If we just get out, as in Southeast Asia, then we have a moral problem and doom those people to years of tyranny by the violent minority in their midst. Who wants to see the retribution paid to those who sought democracy through American intervention? Killing fields, anyone?
"I realize the trolls will come out of the floorboards to say how grateful they are that I’m NOT the POTUS...irrelevant. I would expect to be a one-termer."
The delusions of grandeur are awesome.
Aw, cmon troll. Hes just funnin.
Thank you Kate.
Uncle Guido,
Youre welcome. Look, I cant even manage a normal blog with efficiency. I wonder how I did that.
You know, I think the war is as much of a problem for the Democrats as it is for the Republicans, if not more so.