Scary Lieberman?
Michael Scherer, a talented correspondent at Time and an alumnus of Mother Jones and Salon, two terrific, pugnacious magazines, was not pleased with Senator Joe Lieberman’s harsh take on the Democratic party. First, Lieberman:
Well, I say that the Democratic Party changed. The Democratic Party today was not the party it was in 2000. It’s not the Bill Clinton-Al Gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government. It’s been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and basically will —and very, very hyperpartisan. So it pains me.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this a commonplace observation on the left — indeed, don’t many liberals see this broad trend as a very good thing? Jon Chait’s terrific “Freakoutonomics” suggested that leading Democrats were questioning the Clinton-Gore consensus on growth and inequality, and also on trade. Howard Dean encouraged a broader reassessment of the wisdom of Clinton-Gore moderation on regulatory policy. And it seems reasonable to argue that the human-rights hawkishness of Clinton-Gore (it was more complicated than that, to be sure) has been discredited by the Iraq debacle. These are all respectable views. Plenty of Democrats have changed their mind — plenty think NAFTA and CAFTA are dangerous giveaways, plenty think we need to sharply reduce our military commitments and use armed force very sparingly, etc. Protectionist isn’t a term of abuse to everyone. Neither is “hyperpartisan.” Ask Jon or Matt Yglesias. When Republicans are “dangerous extremists,” a widely held view among liberals and Democrats, it is senseless to compromise with them. That wasn’t as clear a decade ago.
So Lieberman hasn’t evolved with the times. Given that, it’s hardly surprising that he considers these developments a not entirely good thing. Scherer, however, detects something more sinister.
He is not just condemning his party’s position on Iraq, or praising McCain, his long-time friend. He is condemning in sweeping language the very core identity of the Democratic Party as weak and extremist. This is a tried and true Republican theme, which traditionally has more to do with scaring independent voters than with actual reasoned debate of the issues.
But by highlighting the many ways Democrats have changed — evolved — isn’t Lieberman raising substantive issues in a pretty reasonable way? Not everyone has changed their minds about free trade. Highlighting that many leading Democrats have doesn’t strike me as irrational, extreme, or even all that scary (unless one is very easily scared).
Again, Lieberman could be wrong. Perhaps free trade has suddenly become a bad thing over the intervening period. I doubt it. But I’ve criticized preferential trade agreements, so I don’t think this is laughable, exactly. I do think it’s risible to suggest that there’s something illegitimate about Lieberman raising this fairly anodyne, reasonable point.
Moreover it’s not clear to me that what Lieberman is saying is real real different from what Clinton and McGurdy were saying in the early ’90’s. Lieberman isn’t as adroit a messenger, mind you, but listening to that message back then paid huge dividends.
— Sanjay · Mar 31, 01:20 PM · #
I haven’t read Scherer’s original piece (not seeing a link) but it seems like you and he are at least somewhat talking past each other. Maybe he’s more concerned about Lieberman’s use of defense policy (i.e. “strong on defense”) to tar the Dems than about the free trade bit.
— Dan Miller · Mar 31, 04:16 PM · #
Lieberman’s comments are really indefensible. To take them one at a time –
The protectionist charge is the only one with some validity. I’m also disappointed that the Democrats aren’t leading the charge on free trade, but I don’t see much real protectionism either – no big tariff increases, import quotas, etc.
“Small group on the left” – polls consistently show the public largely to the left of the Democrats in congress on the issues. The congressional party often shapes its positions to protect members in swing districts rather than to reflect the center point of party or public opinion. Lieberman’s comment is ignorant or dishonest.
“Isolationist” – with all due respect to those thoughtful, conscientious people who support continued involvement in Iraq (all three of you!), the position that we and the Iraqis would be better served by withdrawal, or the position that we should not immediately start bombing Iran, hardly makes one an isolationist.
And, after years of Bush and Rove politicizing everything within reach, even in effect holding Democratic political prisoners (e.g. Don Siegelman) to describe the Democrats as “very, very hyperpartisan” is just plain batshit crazy.
So the way to interpret this is that Lieberman is trying to get McCain elected; and for whatever reason (I’m inclined to think the inherent weakness of the case) he’s using fear, innuendo and dishonesty to do it. I don’t think there’s any reason to take anything he says seriously until after the election.
— Peter · Mar 31, 07:19 PM · #
Lieberman’s views may be reasonable — but part of being a prominent representative of a political party is that you’re expected to be judicious about criticizing the party publicly. You raise concerns within the party — not in public — except in fairly profound situations. Joe Lieberman not only violates this rule, he seems to delight in doing so. It’s pretty clear that moral vanity is what drives his behavior, and that’s why so may of us find him insufferable.
— Charles · Mar 31, 08:03 PM · #
Bill Clinton cut defense budgets, and both Senator Clinton and Obama talk more about international diplomacy as a solution to our problems than President Clinton did. If anything, “reform” was a Gingrich talking point in the ’90s—that definitely seems to have switched hands. And it’s not like Lieberman himself has been a voice for accountability and transparency of any sort lately.
He’s got kind of a point on trade, but that’s about it. What he’s really pissed at is that everyone else stopped liking war. He just fails to honestly describe the reason for his agitation.
— Consumatopia · Mar 31, 08:30 PM · #
Right – on trade, there’s certainly something there…but Reihan basically ignores the rest of the quote.
When, exactly, did Clinton and Gore launch a huge 5 year + war in Iraq in order to enfore their “hawkish” position on human rights? And are we really supposed to look to the Clinton age to see the value of bipartisanship? This is a bunch of crap.
— berger · Mar 31, 09:07 PM · #
I rue the fact that the Democratic party is showing so much protectionist sentiment. It’s the isolationist smear that’s objectionable. Lieberman can’t simply redefine isolationist to mean “against war” (if anything, he should be calling the Democrats pacifists).
I think a good laugh test is Daniel Larison’s response to claims that the mainstream of the democratic party is isolationist. If I haven’t gotten my wires crossed, he’s had a lot of compelling criticisms of Obama from an isolationist perspective.
— Justin · Apr 1, 12:11 AM · #
Dang, the more I think about this, the more absurd it becomes. Back in 2006, when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were supporting his campaign, he claimed to be an orthodox liberal Democrat except on one issue—Iraq. Now he disagrees with the Democrats on pretty much everything? And he’s trying to pretend that it’s Democrats who have changed between 2006 and 2008?! This is a bigger whopper than when he claimed to oppose the Bankruptcy bill but he voted to end the filibuster. Scared of him? Eh. Sick of his say-anything absolute lack of integrity? Oh yeah. That is one feature of Bill Clinton I would definitely like to move away from.
Deception is Lieberman’s only tool, spite is Lieberman’s only goal.
— Consumatopia · Apr 1, 02:51 AM · #