New York Times Editorial - The irate moderates' revenge
New York Times Editorial - The irate moderates' revenge
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: August 10, 2006
The defeat of Senator Joseph Lieberman in the Democratic Party's Connecticut primary at the hands of a little-known businessman is bound to send a message to U.S. politicians of both parties that voters are angry and frustrated over the war in Iraq. The upset was not, however, a rebellion against the bipartisanship and centrism that Lieberman said he represented in the Senate. Instead, Connecticut Democrats were reacting to the way those concepts have been perverted by the Bush White House.
Ned Lamont, a relative political novice, said he ran against Lieberman because he was offended by the senator's sunny descriptions of what was happening in Iraq and his denunciation of Democrats who criticized the administration's handling of the war. Many other people in Connecticut may have felt that sense of frustration, but no one else had the money and moxie to do what Lamont did.
Lieberman says he will run as an independent in November, taking on Lamont and the Republican, Alan Schlesinger. Schlesinger is a very weak candidate, but Lieberman should consider the risk of splitting his party if the Republicans are able to convince Schlesinger to drop out in favor of a stronger nominee.
Lieberman's supporters have tried to depict Lamont and his backers as wild-eyed radicals who want to force the Democratic Party toward extremism. It's hard to imagine Connecticut, which likes to be called the Land of Steady Habits, as an encampment of left-wing isolationists, and it's hard to imagine Lamont leading that kind of revolution.
The rebellion against Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, irate moderates. They are the voters who have been unnerved over the last few years as America has seemed to be galloping in a deeply unmoderate direction. A war that began at the president's choosing has degenerated into a desperate, bloody mess that has turned much of the world against the United States. The administration's contempt for international agreements, congressional prerogatives and the authority of the courts has undermined the rule of law abroad and at home.
Yet while all this has been happening, the political discussion in Washington has become a captive of the Bush agenda. Traditional beliefs like every person's right to a day in court, or the conviction that America should not start wars it does not know how to win, wind up being portrayed as extreme. The middle becomes a place where senators struggle to get the president to volunteer to obey the law when the mood strikes him. Attempting to regain the real center becomes a radical alternative.
When Lieberman told The Washington Post, "I haven't changed. Events around me have changed," he actually put his finger on his political problem. His constituents felt that when the White House led the United States into a disastrous international crisis and started subverting basic American traditions, Joe Lieberman should have changed enough to take a lead in fighting back.
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: August 10, 2006
The defeat of Senator Joseph Lieberman in the Democratic Party's Connecticut primary at the hands of a little-known businessman is bound to send a message to U.S. politicians of both parties that voters are angry and frustrated over the war in Iraq. The upset was not, however, a rebellion against the bipartisanship and centrism that Lieberman said he represented in the Senate. Instead, Connecticut Democrats were reacting to the way those concepts have been perverted by the Bush White House.
Ned Lamont, a relative political novice, said he ran against Lieberman because he was offended by the senator's sunny descriptions of what was happening in Iraq and his denunciation of Democrats who criticized the administration's handling of the war. Many other people in Connecticut may have felt that sense of frustration, but no one else had the money and moxie to do what Lamont did.
Lieberman says he will run as an independent in November, taking on Lamont and the Republican, Alan Schlesinger. Schlesinger is a very weak candidate, but Lieberman should consider the risk of splitting his party if the Republicans are able to convince Schlesinger to drop out in favor of a stronger nominee.
Lieberman's supporters have tried to depict Lamont and his backers as wild-eyed radicals who want to force the Democratic Party toward extremism. It's hard to imagine Connecticut, which likes to be called the Land of Steady Habits, as an encampment of left-wing isolationists, and it's hard to imagine Lamont leading that kind of revolution.
The rebellion against Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, irate moderates. They are the voters who have been unnerved over the last few years as America has seemed to be galloping in a deeply unmoderate direction. A war that began at the president's choosing has degenerated into a desperate, bloody mess that has turned much of the world against the United States. The administration's contempt for international agreements, congressional prerogatives and the authority of the courts has undermined the rule of law abroad and at home.
Yet while all this has been happening, the political discussion in Washington has become a captive of the Bush agenda. Traditional beliefs like every person's right to a day in court, or the conviction that America should not start wars it does not know how to win, wind up being portrayed as extreme. The middle becomes a place where senators struggle to get the president to volunteer to obey the law when the mood strikes him. Attempting to regain the real center becomes a radical alternative.
When Lieberman told The Washington Post, "I haven't changed. Events around me have changed," he actually put his finger on his political problem. His constituents felt that when the White House led the United States into a disastrous international crisis and started subverting basic American traditions, Joe Lieberman should have changed enough to take a lead in fighting back.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 9:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home