At The Weekly Standard, Matthew Continetti takes a look at the reason why Joe Lieberman is getting the Leon Trotsky treatment from the Democrats. As always, the reason has less to do with political sense and logic than it does with an Ahab-like fixation with George W. Bush:
The second, and more convincing, explanation for the furious assault against Lieberman in spite of his longstanding liberalism is that the assault actually has little to do with Lieberman. Its real target is George W. Bush. Each of Lieberman’s alleged errors comes from siding with positions that the Bush administration also has taken. Since the Iraq war is the major project of the Bush administration, and since Lieberman supports that project, it stands to reason that the Iraq war would dominate the primary. For the progressive bloggers, the actual content of Lamont’s positions on the issues is mostly irrelevant. What is most relevant is his willingness to oppose Bush and conservatives in general.
That is why the most popular campaign button among the Nedheads displays a photo of the moment when George W. Bush, after his 2005 State of the Union, embraced Lieberman and planted what appears to have been a kiss squarely on his cheek. It might as well have been a kiss of death, of the sort that Michael Corleone gives his treasonous brother Fredo in The Godfather, Part II. For Lamont supporters, the photo symbolizes all that is wrong with Lieberman’s approach to politics. One volunteer told me that, when it came to Lieberman, “It always seemed that every time he reached across the aisle, he was compromising our side’s principles.” Another said she supported Lamont because “I want to vote for a Democrat.”
In this view, ultimately a Democrat isn’t someone who is pro-choice and for progressive taxation–like Lieberman. A Democrat is someone who opposes Republicans. One can be conservative on some issues and still have friends among the lefty bloggers–witness Moulitsas’s support for former Reagan secretary of the Navy Jim Webb’s campaign to unseat Virginia Republican senator George Allen. All that is necessary is a burning desire to defeat Bush and the Republican agenda. Lamont has that desire. However, in his more than 30 years in politics, Lieberman has demonstrated he favors compromise when he deems it necessary.
Continetti’s point ends up being proven by Jonathan Chait in The Los Angeles Times who is a left-wing critic of the Ned Lamont campaign. At the same time, Chait is one of the first documented victims of Bush Derangement System, and it shows:
Those loony Democrats! But wait, is this really such a crazy view? Even though all but the loopiest Democrat would concede that Bin Laden is more evil than Bush, that doesn’t mean he’s a greater threat. Bin Laden is hiding somewhere in the mountains, has no weapons of mass destruction and apparently very limited numbers of followers capable of striking at the U.S.
Bush, on the other hand, has wreaked enormous damage on the political and social fabric of the country. He has massively mismanaged a major war, with catastrophic consequences; he has strained the fabric of American democracy with his claims of nearly unchecked power and morally corrupt Gilded Age policies. It’s quite reasonable to conclude that Bush will harm the nation more — if not more than Bin Laden would like to, than more than he actually can.
Basically, Chait’s argument boils down to “I’m not saying that Bush is worse than bin Laden, but Bush really is worse than bin Laden.” It’s a silly argument, and demonstrative of just how unhinged the Democrats are when it comes to separating pissant partisan politics from the job of actually governing. The Democrats hate George W. Bush. The term “hate” is, if anything, too small a word to define the absolute loathing that the Democrats have for our President. They hate him less for what he has actually done than who he is: the disrupter of the status quo. Bush, the erstwhile conservative, has been turned into their own personal Emmanuel Goldstein.
The netroots hate Joe Lieberman not because of his record – which is the record of a liberal, to be sure – but because he had the audacity to put country above party. As even Chait notes:
Lieberman recently declared, “I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party.” Markos Moulitsas, the lefty blogger from Daily Kos who has appeared in a Lamont commercial and has made Lieberman’s defeat a personal crusade, posted this quote on his website in the obvious belief that it’s self-evidently absurd. But shouldn’t we all have greater loyalties than the one to our party — say, to our country? Partisanship isn’t nothing, but must it be everything?
The answer is, of course, yes, it is. Partisanship is everything to the “netroots” activists who have hijacked the Democratic Party. There is nothing else. The “netroots” exist solely in opposition to George W. Bush. Without him, they would be nothing. The “progressive” movement is ultimately self-destructive because its entire existence is predicated on the basis of opposing one man. By January 2009 (and quite possibly before that), the “netroots” will be a historical footnote at best.
I’ve describe the “netroots” in ideological terms, and while that’s largely true, their real motivation isn’t ideological unless opposition to Bush can be described as an ideology. Why is it that Joe Lieberman, with an 80% liberal rating is a bête noir with the “netroots” while Jack Murtha, whose liberal rating is nearly that of some liberal Republicans is treated like a hero? Why is it that a group of left-wing activists are hawking a former Reagan Administration figure in James Webb?
The answer is clear: the only qualification one has to be a member of their little club is an abject hatred of Bush. Nothing else matters. Lieberman is a traitor not because his voting record shows him to no longer be a liberal, but because he didn’t toe the Bush-hating line. He committed heresy, and now the radical left is trying to throw him under a bus for it. Regardless of whether Lamont wins in the primary or not, the “netroots” have shown that they can control the Democratic Party, and that’s not good at all for the Democrats.
When this country remains at war with a dangerous and devastating ideology, some feel that the only real enemy is their political opposition. It is for that reason that the Democrats do not have the requisite level of maturity and perspective to lead – and despite the many flaws of the Bush Administration, at least they seem more interested in defending the nation than it playing pissant partisan politics.
UPDATE: Jim Geraghty puts it quite succinctly:
How could I entrust a Democratic lawmaker to stand up to al-Qaeda, Iran, North Korea or some other angry extremist, if he or she won’t stand up to Daily Kos?
The short answer: you can’t.
UPDATE: It’s James Webb, not Jack Webb… my bad.
It’s been a good week since your last anti-Netroots rant. What gives? Oh that’s right. This was one of those rare weeks that Netroots-endorsed candidates didn’t pull off surprise primary wins, so you and the GOP got a brief reprieve from their insurgency.
“The Democrats hate George W. Bush. The term “hate†is, if anything, too small a word to define the absolute loathing that the Democrats have for our President. They hate him less for what he has actually done than who he is: the disrupter of the status quo.”
I know you think, or at least allege to think for pissant partisan rhetoric, that Democratic outrage is all about “hatred for one man”, but if John McCain is elected in 2008 and follows the same political course, he’ll be “hated” just as much as Bush. It’s not about “one man”, it’s about a toxic ideology that is ruining America in every way America can be ruined.
“Partisanship is everything to the “netroots†activists”
You’re no less partisan than them.
“Without him, they would be nothing. The “progressive†movement is ultimately self-destructive because its entire existence is predicated on the basis of opposing one man.”
As you repeatedly inform me, Bush isn’t on the ballot this year. Yet the Netroots continue to exist? How is this possible?
“Why is it that Joe Lieberman, with an 80% liberal rating is a bête noir with the “netroots†while Jack Murtha, whose liberal rating is nearly that of some liberal Republicans is treated like a hero? Why is it that a group of left-wing activists are hawking a former Reagan Administration figure in Jack Webb?”
Jack Webb? You sure about that one? As to the crux of your question, outrage towards Lieberman intensified when he started criticizing his own party rather than simply voting against their wishes. And even though I don’t support Ned Lamont’s candidacy, there is nothing inherently wrong with challenging an incumbent in a primary. Until you spill some ink on here about how 2004’s primary challenge to Arlen Specter or 2006’s primary challenge to Lincoln Chafee is all about “hatred”, you’re simply a partisan hypocrite trying to exploit disunity by the opposition.
“How could I entrust a Democratic lawmaker to stand up to al-Qaeda, Iran, North Korea or some other angry extremist, if he or she won’t stand up to Daily Kos?”
Basically, Geraghty’s argument boils down to “I’m not saying that the Daily Kos is worse than al-Qaeda, but the Daily Kos really is worse than al-Qaeda.”
I rather doubt it.
And the line about the “toxic ideology that is ruining America in every way America can be ruined” is exactly the kind of political bluster I was talking about. The left needs to get a sense of perception. Bush is no more “ruining America” than Clinton was going to bring about UN domination under the black helicopter brigades. It’s that sort of patently ridiculous rhetoric that shows just how illogical the left has allowed itself to become.
Except I’ve repeatedly criticized the Bush Administration on several issues. Try saying anything remotely positive about Bush over at Kos or one of the other fever swamps and see the reaction for yourself.
Um, because he’s still the President?
Well, he was really good in Dragnet…
Again, he has a liberal rating from the ADA of nearly 80%.
The reason why Lieberman is hated is because he had the audacity to support the war. There is no longer any room for Democrats who support the war in the Democratic Party – the new party line is that Saddam Hussein belongs in power and George W. Bush doesn’t. It’s that simple.
No, but the level of rhetoric is vastly different. As Geraghty put it:
Except you’d have to be an idiot to make that reading – or someone trying to twist the argument into something utterly unrecognizable. In fact, the whole argument hinges on the implied assumption that the “netroots” are not anywhere near the threat that al-Qeada is.
“Basically, Chait’s argument boils down to “I’m not saying that Bush is worse than bin Laden, but Bush really is worse than bin Laden.†It’s a silly argument, and demonstrative of just how unhinged the Democrats are when it comes to separating pissant partisan politics from the job of actually governing.”
Anyone who is in the Oval Office is more dangerous to America than Bin Laden could ever be. The policies of a president- be it Bush, Clinton, Reagan, or anyone else to ever occupy the office- can cause more harm than anything a one-trick pony terrorist could ever dream up.
9/11
Casualties: 3,000
Economic Damage: At least $20 billion in direct losses, $100+ billion in market losses ($1.2 trillion in the immediate aftermath, but the market recovered fairly rapidly).
Iraq War
Casualties: 2,700 coalition troops, nearly 5,000 democratic Iraqi troops, 50,000+ civilians (I won’t even count the 72,000-90,000 Saddamist troops and insurgents).
Economic Damage: $320 billion expended. The World Bank estimates that the war will ultimately cost between $1 and $2 trillion.
Whether the goal is “moral” or not, Bush has done ten times the damage that Bin Laden did. Even if Iraq becomes a moderately liberal democracy- and not a failed state- will it have been worth it? Even if Iraq manages to expand their economy to first-world levels, it will take a century just to generate value equal to what we’ve expended on the country.
So, in a sense, Bush is worse than Bin Laden. Morally? Not even close- if Bin Laden had access to the resources Bush does, we wouldn’t have a planet left. But, despite his great restraint and our system of checks and balances, even a well-meaning American head of state can do more damage than a terrorist mastermind without too much difficulty.
“Except I’ve repeatedly criticized the Bush Administration on several issues.”
You mean just like the Netroots are criticizing Lieberman? Why is their insubordination more egregious than yours when you criticize Bush for being insufficiently right wing?
“Try saying anything remotely positive about Bush over at Kos or one of the other fever swamps and see the reaction for yourself.”
I don’t see how that even remotely relates to your declaration of “bipartisanship” based on hit-and-miss opposition to the Bush administration. And you’re not gonna being saying anything “remotely positive” about Kerry on here, so doesn’t that mean you’re swimming with the gators in a fever swamp of your own?
“Um, because he’s still the President?”
And the Netroots will cease to exist if McCain, Guiliani, Allen or Romney becomes President in 2008? Because leftist political ideology is all about “one man”? Give me a break! Conservative domination of government hasn’t quelled the insatiable urge of you or other conservative bloggers to maintain that domination at any cost, so why would the Netroots be any different no matter which party controls gov’t?
“The reason why Lieberman is hated is because he had the audacity to support the war.”
….and publicly bashes his colleagues on his side of the aisle who disagree. The only Republican I can think of who does that is Chuck Hagel, and the righties hardly have a lovefest with him.
“Again, he has a liberal rating from the ADA of nearly 80%.”
Which is why I don’t support his primary challenger….and the fact that it’s idiotic for Democrats to be challenging other Democrats rather than Republicans in a year when we should be playing a merciless game of offense.