The Democrats seem primed for yet another debacle in the upcoming mid-term elections. Backed by a massive "netroots" effort, no-namer Ned Lamont successfully challenged Senator Joe Lieberman and won the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary by a small but indisputable margin yesterday. Lieberman became one of only a handful of incumbents in United States history to lose a primary leading up to an election. In Lieberman's case, this is even more shocking given the Senator's national reputation after his failed candidacy for Vice President in 2000.
Although Lieberman's decision to run as an independent this fall has many in the Democratic party questioning their allegiances, the more important question is what this defeat means for the the Democrats in general.
In the characteristically level-headed approach that has impressed me all year, the Washington Post backed Lieberman in the lead editorial today and argued that he was the "better candidate" for Connecticut. The Post editorial aptly explained this position:
"Becoming beholden to orthodoxy is not healthy for either party. Compromise is not the equivalent of weakness, and Mr. Lieberman is no sap. He is a person of strong views who believes in listening to those who disagree with him and, if possible, finding common ground. The alternative is gridlock. Mr. Lieberman's brand of centrism and bipartisanship is a needed salve for a divided country, which could use more such lawmakers, not fewer."
In a column of his own, Eli Pariser, the Executive Director of the infamous MoveOn.org PAC declared that Lamont's victory signaled a triumphant end to "Triangulation," a movement begun in the early 90's by Bill Clinton in an attempt to capture the middle-ground for the Democrats in American politics. According to many, Lieberman was a Senator who often shared the middle-ground with Republicans and was willing to break with his party on several important issues, such as the Iraq war.
Pariser seems to be confused. The Democrats were successfull BECAUSE OF Triangulation, not in spite of it. Despite the public torment of a sex scandal, Bill Clinton excelled as President for two terms and his star only continues to grow with every passing year since his presidency. Triangulation was a successfull approach to garnering a majority of the electorate, and then applying Democratic ideals in a way that appealed to most Americans.
The 2004 election indicated that the Democrats are out of touch with a majority of Americans. This doesn't necessarily mean that Democratic values are out of the mainstream, but the approach and strategy being employed by Democratic candidates was not clicking. Pariser evidently wants a return to a Howard Dean-style of electioneering. I agree with many of the ideals and theories of so-called "liberals," but I know that the "net-roots" campaign style of Howard Dean and now Lamont will not work. It only appeals to a small cross-section of Americans (18-25-yr old shaggy-haired rich kids), and it will not work on the national stage.
Simply yelling that the war is bad may inflame the passions of many, but it doesn't actually accomplish anything. This has been the Democrats' problem for a while now. They are quick to criticize, but slow to offer viable alternatives. I'm pulling for Lieberman, and I wouldn't be surprised if he won.
what happened to your site? just kidding, it looks good! hope you will return full force soon. i like reading your blog at work.
p. s. why do you insist on parroting the same tired conventional wisdom on the Lamont-Lieberman race. I heard this from Cokie Roberts last week.
p. p. s.
Posted by: Allen | Sunday, August 13, 2006 at 12:26 AM
go russian orthodox.
Posted by: Allen | Sunday, August 13, 2006 at 12:27 AM
Allen,
I'm trying out a new design for a while. I like this one alright.
Also, don't you understand that those people on TV and theradio are actually parroting OTIUM?
Posted by: otium cum dignitate | Sunday, August 13, 2006 at 06:35 PM