It has long been accepted in politics that an incumbent has no guarantee of reelection or even renomination. Members of one’s own party can run against an incumbent for any reason (with the loser expected to support the winner in the general election, unless named Joe Lieberman). Often this is done when an incumbent holds positions which vary from the more ideological components of their party. For example, Ronald Reagan ran against Gerald Ford, and conservatives approved of that. Republicans frequently write off other Republicans as RINO’s, and they are history in the party if they refuse to sign Grover Norquist’s pledge not to raise taxes.

Races involving Joe Lieberman vary from the norm in areas beyond the expectation that the loser in a primary will support the party. Apparently when one is named Joe Lieberman it isn’t even appropriate to run against him in a primary. David Brooks considers liberal opposition to Lieberman “The Liberal Inquisition” in Sunday’s column. Brooks does deserve some credit for acknowledging that John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are likely to face similar treatment from Republicans. Brooks correctly reports on Lieberman’s overall liberal record, but ignores other differences between Lieberman and Lamont when he writes, “But a lifetime’s record is deemed not to matter any longer. For in the midst of the inquisition all of American liberalism has been reduced to one issue, the war.”

While there are other differences between the two, even if Brooks were correct this would be sufficient to warrant a primary opponent The war is not just one issue. It is likely the worst foreign policy blunder in our history. George Bush’s foreign policy is responsible for not only weakening our national security, but for strengthening al Qaeda, Iran, and North Korea. By destroying the moral credibility of the United States, and discrediting the idea of democracy among many, the war also makes it more difficult to deal with all other dictatorships and has created difficulties for democracy movements where they are in infancy. Even beyond the unnecessary deaths of our soldiers, the cost at home has also been too high as it has caused too many Americans to forget the ideals this nation was founded upon. In backing George Bush on the war, Joe Lieberman has violated the basic principles of many liberals. The war is hardly just one issue.

Jonathan Chait expresses similar views in criticizing those who support the primary challenge to Lieberman:

Moulitsas and many of his allies insist that they just want Democrats to win. But in fact, they believe that any deviation from the party line — except for a few circumscribed instances, such as Democrats running for office in red states — is an unforgivable crime. They have consigned large chunks of the center-left to enemy status. It is an odd way to go about building a majority.

Lieberman is hardly guilty of just “any deviation from the party line” and the opposition to Lieberman remains comparable to the other examples I noted above. The real test will be after the primary. Should Lieberman win the nomination and liberal bloggers continue to oppose him, then Brooks and Chait will have a strong case in criticizing such components of the blogosphere. My bet is that, along with Ned Lamont, most liberal bloggers would support Lieberman’s reelection and concentrate their fire on Republicans in states where there is a real battle.

Filed under: Democrats, OP/ED's | Get Permalink or trackback |