"Lieberman has no convictions other than his devoted commitment to his own self-interest."

Pretty much like any politician.
 

Hmm, let's see. He believes that the parties are beholden to their extreme wings. So he is helping a fellow moderate. He is, in short, doing what he thinks is right. And that shows he "has no convictions?" You may disagree with him, but when a politician goes against what his party is telling him to do, and does what he believes in, that is the very definition of following one's convictions!

I don't agree with his view of the Democratic Party. I think parties do matter. And I think that the Democratic Party is the best vehicle for the types of things Lieberman says he believes in. However, he clearly doesn't believe that. I think he believes that we are on the verge of an evolution of the parties, perhaps including the emegence of a new party. He may be right. After all, the current party structures and positions, which basically have been in position since Wilson, are an exception rather than the rule in American history. And the middle -- where most Americans reside -- is clearly not being represented by either party.
 

12:39:

I agree with the form of your disagreement with Richard. On substance though I think you're way off base.

Yes, Richard is wrong to say Lieberman has no principles. He clearly believes in war in the Middle East as a key element of US foreign policy. And he believes this issue is more important than anything else in US public life -- which makes him all too useful to this rogue President.

But I think you're quite wrong to say that this makes Lieberman a moderate. That word only has meaning if it implies that someone will have a 'moderating' influence on extreme positions. It's possible that Lieberman has done this in the past; in his extreme hawkishness, though, he's done nothing but provide political cover for the Republican jingoists all around him to move farther and farther toward a savage kill-the-Arabs mentality (I hesitate to call that 'right-wing,' because it's just not even on the usual political spectrum). He's done nothing to restrain those people.

'Moderate' is a term of praise that has come to mean nothing. Your calling Lieberman a moderate only demonstrates further that people who use the word are more interested in simplifying politics (and we all know who benefits from that) than in understanding it.

It is moreover nonsense, by the way, to claim that Democrats are beholden to an extreme antiwar wing. It is now something like 60% of the country that wants the war over. It is the escalators and to some large extent the open-ended-commitment-ers who are the fringe elements now, and who would have been from the beginning if the public had been fully educated (and not deceived) about the area, the (lack of) menace within it for US national-security interests, and the war's risks. Groups like MoveOn have been revealed to be, as they were all along, champions of a mainstream sensibility that respects the Constitution and seeks temperance in foreign policy and pragmatism in global economic strategy. There may be extremist pacifists out there but the Democrats are not beholden to them....

All that's on the substance, of course. But formally, again, I agree with you about Richard's insult being inapposite as applied to Lieberman. I think the accusation of selfishness sticks to Lieberman because he considered his own career more important than the approval of his party. But that wasn't necessarily selfish; it may and indeed to some large extent I think it did stem from a sincere, benighted, borderline insane belief that open-ended war in the Middle East, with whatever Realpolitik that requires at home (civil liberties and open dissent be damned), is the business the US should be in. Though this be madness, yet there is a principle in't. -- A stupid, neanderthal, tribalist, unconstitutional principle, but a principle nonetheless.

Remind me to post the Abraham Lincoln quote sometime, about how a free nation can only be defeated by suicide.

Standing Eagle
 

"when a politician goes against what his party is telling him to do"
-- this, by the way, describes Lieberman, but not in the way you think.

Lieberman is not a Democrat. He was elected on the ticket of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

The only other members of the CoL Party are virulently opposed to Lieberman's position on the war. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Orman)

Lieberman is a man without a party. For the next six years he has no way to display 'convictions' by your definition except by defying polling data (which, as you say, on the war he continues to do).

SE
 

SE -
"Groups like MoveOn have been revealed to be, as they were all along, champions of a mainstream sensibility that respects the Constitution and seeks temperance in foreign policy and pragmatism in global economic strategy."

In fact, what you are describing is the end of the tradition of progressives being the party that resists tyranny and promotes freedom, democracy, human rights, personal liberty.

If the Spanish Civil War occurred today, Move On would decry liberals who wanted to fight against facism as neocon neophytes and Americans should mind our own business.

I think that is the tradition to which Lieberman wishes to attach himself -- the pro democracy, pro human rights, anti-facism liberalism of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, etc.

You are right that adhering to that tradition is no longer the moderate position. For that, we should all mourn.
 

I think some of you are being overly charitable to Lieberman. A review of his career shows that there are things he advocates, but all of them are subordinate to his own lust for power. Lieberman is in love with the idea of himself, created for and by the media, of the tough moderate, the statesman. But his positions now are really being driven by his fury and sense of rejection over what happened to him in the Democratic primary. He has never gotten over that, and probably never will, and his bitterness clouds his judgment. Lieberman wants the Democrats and the Republicans to need him. He's not doing this stuff to help his country, but to assuage his own wounded pride.
 

Richard -- what is your proof for that statement, or is it conjecture? How do you know he is not fighting for what he thinks is right?

Put yourself in his shoes for a moment. His party rejects him, but the people of Connecticut do not. Perhaps he feels the Dem party has drifted from its values. Perhaps he just feels like the Party doesn't matter anymore. Either way, how does that translate into a lust for power? His election was a victory for democracy (the will of the people of Connecticut was clearly expressed) and a defeat for the political parties.

For better or worse (and I agree, probably worse), he won fair and square and your former state-mates got what they wanted.
 

It's not really something you can prove; it's something that I believe, having followed Lieberman since the beginning of his career. On the surface, he's a statesman, a man of principle. Look at how he campaigns--how he has always campaigned— and you see something very different.

If Lieberman truly felt that his party has lost its way, he could play a much more constructive role in changing it than he has chosen to. Raising money for Republicans is not a meaningful way to have an impact on the ideas and positions of the Democratic Party.

Truth is, Joe Lieberman just wants revenge. He's like a man whose wife left him for a younger man, and he's determined to strike back, no matter how long it takes.
 

Listen, I can't stand the guy either. And I agree that he is a cold hearted politician at times.

But having said that, I think what he's doing makes sense if you are able to stand back for a moment. If it is true, as I suspect, that he believes the middle is being lost in American politics, then it makes sense to support centrist politicians like Collins, who after all, is to the left of Ben Nelson, a Democrat. And if the party deserted you in the last election, and you won anyway, handily, there is little reason to support them now. To use your analogy of a man who's wife left him for another man, this is not revenge. This is dating other people.

I bring this up not because I support Lieberman, but I think the bigger picture is the evolution of the parties. I think we are at a point comparable to the 1820s with the disappearance of the Federalist party and the transformation of the Republican party. Those events happened because they (particularly the Federalists) were not meeting the needs of the people. And that is happening today.
 

Your suggestion is an interesting one and may be right on its own merits, but I just don't see Lieberman acting for these reasons. (Though he may say so.) He may even believe that he is acting to prop up the middle, but he is really doing it to justify himself; it's all about Joe. He is confusing his own political fortunes with those of the two American parties. Hubris....
 

"If the Spanish Civil War occurred today, Move On would decry liberals who wanted to fight against facism as neocon neophytes and Americans should mind our own business."

-- EVIDENCE?

This is C- work unless you present evidence.

I think the reality is that Lieberman is opposing a pacifist appeasenik straw man that does not exist in any significant numbers in American public life.

I think it might also be worth bringing to the fore SOMETHING about FDR, Truman, and even Kennedy as being primarily devoted to human rights rather than (as is certainly proper in some measure) US national interests abroad.

Again: and I say this to Richard "It's not really something you can prove" B. as well: "--Evidence?!"

But I say, something seems to be happen in Goldenberg-land, so I don't imagine Richard will be in on this thread again too fast.

Hastily, with apologies for errors,

SE
 

Sigh. It is a shame to have to waste time with this, but so be it.

Obviously, I'm creating a historical hypothetical. The idea of evidence is absurd to that.

But to your other point that Lieberman is creating a pacifist straw man, I don't disagree. You missed my point if you think I did.

Support for democracy, human rights, etc has been a central pillar of the foreign policy of the Democratic Party since Wilson. Realism has been the central pillar of Republicanism. There have been certainly times when Democrats have behaved "real politcky", and Republicans have behaved idealistically, but for the most part that has been the positions of the two parties. Now those positions have been largely reversed, although it could also be that both parties are converging on a Realpolitik consensus, and only disagree about when to pull out of Iraq. So where does that leave the George Orwell Anti Facist type? Without a party, I would argue.


Also, I should note, although you are undoubtedly right that 60% of the public is opposed to the war, polls I've seen also show Guliani beating all the Democratic candidates. I think the guy is a monster, but I would bet a lot of people respect that he is a hardliner against Islamic radicalism, without bearing any responsibility for the current mess.
 

Just realized I never picked up on this:

"If the Spanish Civil War occurred today, Move On would decry liberals who wanted to fight against facism as neocon neophytes and Americans should mind our own business."

Anon, are you implying it's now conventional wisdom that the US should have intervened militarily in the Spanish Civil War, and that that would have stopped fascism in its tracks before it got rolling?

That's a new one on me, but maybe I've had my bald head in the sand. And it's a pretty startling claim on which to found an accusation against any current political group.

It's like saying that people opposed to federal no-fly lists are the spiritual heirs of those who decided not to bring to bear the entire US military's might in the defense of Fort Sumter, to stop those danged lawless rebels before they got started.

Which is to say, pretty much incoherently crazy.

--Which is not however to say that if I fell into a wormhole to the 30s I would root for Franco.

SE