The morning after
With many days of discussion ahead, I offer a quick take on the meaning of Lamont’s win last night:
1. Those running too close to Bush and his government could pay a heavy price this fall. Joe Lieberman has been one of the most public defenders of Bush and his failed government, even attacking other Democrats who challenged Bush. Two-thirds of the American people want a new direction. Candidates credibly offering a new path will have the upper hand this fall.
2. In this new era, partisanship is a virtue. The conservatives rise to power, and their utter failure to govern responsibly or effectively, requires a new progressive politics of confrontation, not accommodation. This new politics may be uncomfortable to those used to an America governed by Democrats and progressive values, but for our politics and values to triumph progressives must and are learning how to resist “cutting deals,” working to “get things done” on terms set by an irresponsible governing majority.
This is not an ideological development in progressive politics, but a pragmatic one. Senator Lieberman never understood this, constantly seeing this discussion through an outdated and inappropriate ideological prism. Of course there is room for someone with Senator Lieberman’s view on the War, for example. He was after all endorsed by virtually ever major institution in the Democratic family. There is a growing, and necessary, intolerance, however, of progressive leaders unwilling to take on Bush and his failed government head on – and this was the battleground in this election, whether the Senator understood it or not.
I have great sympathy for those wishing our politics could be more genteel, where both sides could come together to work things out for the common good. But we live in a different time, and our the rising partisanship in the Democratic Party is a necessary, pragmatic and I believe virtuous response to the circumstances we face today at the dawn of the 21st century.
3. A new 21st century politics is emerging. As NDN and its affiliate NPI have been saying for some time, new governing challenges, new ways of communication and a changing American people are rapidly creating a new politics unfamiliar to those of us who grew up in 20th century American politics. Political success in the future will derive from a leader’s mastery not just of a compelling and effective governing agenda, but of “new 21st century tools” to get one’s message out more effectively and the engagement of vital new citizens who are yearning to be part of – and ultimately will change – our politics.
4. Senator Lieberman should end his re-election bid. There are many reasons he should bring his campaign to an end, but in this entry I site one above all - performance. From the beginning of this race the Senator has seemed to be conducting a campaign for a different era, a different conversation and a different time. Given his stature, losing a Democratic Primary to an unknown opponent is a political failure of great magnitude. I have offered my advice and my critique of what has been a terrible campaign on this blog for the past several weeks. Given the scale of the mistakes he has made so far, and how out of touch with the state he has become, why should anyone believe he will figure out to do something seldom done in history – win as an independent after losing a primary?
It is time, my good friend. Senator Lieberman, it is time. Time to end this part of your remarkable career with dignity, grace and honor. You had a great run, made a great contribution, and done a lot of good. But it is time to move on.
Update
Given the interest on this issue, i wanted to point to some previous blogs during the Primary campaign. I wrote about Senator Lieberman's three main missteps last week, and earlier in the month had offered my advice on his campaign. I also posted some comments on a perceptive article by Ruth Marcus. I hope this helps understand where I am coming from on this. Simon.
- Simon Rosenberg's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Lieberman-Lamont
Simon
As always, I value your insight into this race, and this was another great post. I am heartened by the unity being displayed by the Democrats after Lamont's victory. Even the NYT used the words Democrats and United in the same headline. Also as you predicted last Friday, it appears the sniping about those crazy kids in the blogosphere has died down. Let's hope this is the beginning of a phase that takes us to victory in November.
On the topic of new ways to win, working on the ground with Lamont's campaign was very interesting. They had automated techniques of volunteer outreach to fellow voters, canvassing and GOTV, that were incredibly efficient from what I had seen two years ago in the Kerry and Kerry-Edwards campaigns. I'd like to chat with you about it when you return from vacation.
All the best
Beyond Checklist Liberalism
I very much agree with your points, Simon, and boy do I ever hope that Lieberman takes your closing words to heart.
Some more thoughts on partisanship vs. ideology: After reading your words, "He was after all endorsed by virtually ever major institution in the Democratic family," I recalled an important post by Mark Schmitt called Beyond Checklist Liberalism. Sure, Lieberman had the endorsements of the established progressive interest groups -- labor, environmental, women's -- but "Lamont supporters actually aren't ideologues," Schmitt writes. "They aren't looking for the party to be more liberal on traditional dimensions. They're looking for it to be more of a party." I think he's right, and I think that connects to what you wrote as well. Connecticutt Democrats were looking for someone to stand up to the failed policies of the Bush Administration and in their current senator, all they have is an enabler of those failures. I think we'll eventually see what you and Schmitt, as well as Markos, have discussed, which is a more unified progressive movement and Democratic Party. Perhaps sooner than we think, if this kind of stuff keeps up...
Good stuff
Simon:
Very good posting. I saw a quote in the Note this morning on the CT race, and how Lamont's supporters phrased something very similiar to your second point above.
It points out that while Joe suggested the race had implications on wheter "bipartisanship" is seen as a good thing in itself or not, the article quoted one Dems supporting Lamont who told them that they are only for "bipartisanship when it is 'bi,'" and they don't think [Bush/Cheney/Rove/Mehlman] have ever or will ever do their part to make it "bi."
Tim
Old Politics
Lieberman's great failure is threefold.
It's first in not understanding the crowd he was getting in bed with on too many of the most important issues of our time. Great for Sen. Lieberman that he believes in bipartisanship - that's what the US Senate once stood for. But this isn't Abe Ribicoff's US Senate; it's a Republican majority built by people like Grover Nordquist who proclaimed that "bipartisanship is date rape." Sen. Lieberman deluded himself in believing he was practicing "bipartisanship;" rather, he was merely giving more and more power and leverage to Republicans who didn't see the world through Joe Lieberman's eyes. After he saw Max Cleland demonized and defeated by those Bush Republicans for votes on a homeland security bill which Lieberman had managed on the floor, how did Lieberman still not get it?
Second, on an issue of core values, he went to the dark side. Yes, Lieberman put all of his emphasis on his agreement with George Bush on the Iraq debacle not his disagreements; yes, he mocked Democrats who he said cared too much about non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; yes, he spoke on the Republican side and helped lead the frontal assault on the Kerry-Feingold Iraq amendment; and no, his deathbed protests to the contrary, Joe Lieberman did not speak out forcefully against the ineptitude of Rumsfeld and Bush - if he had, he would have preserved the moral authority we admired in him for years, and CNN would have taken his statements live just as they did when he upbraided Bill Clinton's moral failings. All this is true. But most importantly, when he took to the WSJ OpEd page to scold Democrats who "undermine presidential credibility at our peril," he stopped being a Democrat. He opposed the right to dissent which is a core value of our Party.
Lastly, Joe Lieberman put himself above the Party. A man who was supported by the DSCC in 1988 as a longshot challenger to Lowell Weicker, a man warmly embraced by Democrats of all ideological stripes as our VP nominee in 2000, a man who vied for the nomination himself in 2004 and then frankly sat on his hands in the general election when all the rest of the Party was lifting for Kerry-Edwards, Joe Lieberman ironically ended his losing primary campaign thinking the Party owed him the nomination even as he told CT voters in no uncertain terms that he didn't care enough to abide by it.
This isn't a defeat by the bloggers -- it's the ultimate self-inflicted wound by a politician. It's time for Joe Lieberman to step aside.