DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE. In the early 1970s, they rejected their hawkish tradition on national security with the nomination of George McGovern for president. The resulting weakness on national security issues has haunted them ever since. Democrats didn't recover until the 1990s when the Cold War was over and national security was no longer the paramount national issue.
Now, after 9/11 and with Islamic jihadists still threatening America, Democrats are purging the hawkish remnants in their party. That's the meaning of the primary defeat in Connecticut yesterday of Senator Joe Lieberman to Ned Lamont, an antiwar Democrat. Lamont is the epitome of a peace Democrat: force averse, naively trusting in diplomacy, and firmly opposed to a strong national security policy.
The sacking of Lieberman is all the more striking because of his position in the Democratic party. He is not only the most prominent advocate of peace through strength, but also the foremost Democratic champion of Israel. It was because of his national security stance that he was chosen as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2000.
Six years later, he's been pushed aside by a party sprinting to the left. Meanwhile, the man who picked Lieberman in 2000, Al Gore, has also flipped on national security. Gore himself was chosen as Bill Clinton's vice presidential running mate for the same reason Lieberman was, his credentials on national security: Gore had been one of 10 Senate Democrats who supported the first Gulf War.
For Democrats today, no good can come from the rebuff of
Lieberman, who is running now as an independent to keep his Senate seat. His race will draw enormous media attention as Lieberman attacks Democrats for fostering "the old politics of partisan polarization." That charge, along with the national security issue, will be exploited by Republicans as they try to stave off a Democratic landslide in the midterm election on November 7. What happened to Lieberman can only help Republicans.
In his concession speech, Lieberman indicated he wants to turn his campaign into a national crusade. Addressing "people outside of Connecticut," he said: "If you are disappointed with the ugly tone of our politics, if you are fed up with the nasty partisanship in Washington, then I ask for your help, too . . . Come to Connecticut to help and don't hesitate to send a campaign contribution." As an independent, Lieberman is cut off from party funds.
It's probably the case, however, that Lieberman won't have a major impact on House and Senate races this fall--except in Connecticut. Three House Republicans from Connecticut--Chris Shays, Nancy Johnson, Rob Simmons--face tough reelection races. With both a Democrat and an independent Democrat on the ballot for the Senate, it's bound to complicate straight party voting. Shays has already endorsed Lieberman.
Nonetheless, Republicans were quick to jump on the Lamont victory as evidence that Democrats had jettisoned the FDR-Truman-JFK tradition of a strong national security policy. Lieberman has pointedly described himself as an heir to that tradition. The last thing Democrats need in 2006 is a highly visible Democrat zinging the party for tilting to the left on national security.
|
