Representing the centrist take on the Lieberman race, Joe Gandelman strongly recommends this post at the Glittering Eye (emphasis mine):
My first reaction to last night’s results with Lieberman, McKinney, and Schwarz all defeated was that there was an anti-incumbency movement at work. But on reconsideration I’ve decided that, as James Joyner notes, the results are more clearly explained by issues specific to each individual campaign than some general movement against incumbents.
The Lieberman primary defeat is without doubt due to Lieberman’s failure to be more partisan and, as such, it’s yet another movement in the direction we’ve seen over the last 30 years. Once upon a time there were right-leaning Democrats and left-leaning Republicans holding higher office but those are becoming increasingly scarce. That tends to leave those, like me, who are less interested in partisanship and ideology without a comfortable home.
Look, I have no specific beef with the unitarian jihad. Most of the time my perspective and theirs overlaps and I really sympathize with the urge to keep apart from the partisan hordes. But why the passive voice? You don’t need a history degree to know that bloodsport politics did not just evolve incrementally by the gentle, gradual forces of nature and chance. As much as anybody two individuals consciously drove our current state of affairs – Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay. Even Tom DeLay initially recoiled from Newt’s nasty approach to politics, not out of any principled objections but because he thought it wouldn’t work. DeLay was wrong, of course, and Newt neither forgot nor forgave.
For a nutshell view of the Newt revolution’s amoral nastiness read through his 1998 memo on language. Rather than acknowledge your opponent’s right to have an opinion, which obliges you to answer, Newt correctly observed that it is a thousand times easier to smear him as sick, demented, pacifist and therefore unfit to have any opinion at all. Viva McCarthy.
Newt largely dismissed bipartisanship but his spiritual successor, Tom DeLay, plainly loathed it. In fact most recognize that Tom DeLay’s most important accomplishment had nothing to do with Democratic adversaries but came from his ability to intimidate moderate/left-leaning Republicans into hiding or primary them out of the party altogether. Refer to the Nick Smith bribery/blackmail scandal for DeLayism in action. This totalitarian approach to party doctrine is plainly anathema to independent-minded moderates like Joe Gandelman but as I pointed out a long time back, it works. The party with discipline usually wins, even if keeping the cats in line takes a very big and slightly illegal stick. Even rightwing commenters on this site acknowledge that Gingrich hit on an ugly but winning formula and as long as the Dems pass on Newt’s memo the GOP comes out ahead.
Nice-guy politics didn’t just wither up and die, someone made it dead. Maybe this is all academic footsie at this point and I’m just being a semantic pedant for arguing the case. Then I recall that Newt still thinks he can be president. Does this matter anymore? Feel free to pass judgment in the comments.
Pb
Yes, it matters.
Oh no, Lieberman has been partisan enough, thank you–just for the wrong side! Seriously, what’s the word for someone who, when the chips are down, refuses to get in line with the rest of his party, enables the opposition, and ridicules the rest of his party for not doing the same? If all Democrats acted like Lieberman acts, then there wouldn’t be any Democrats, period.
JoeTx
For a brief shining moment on September 12th, seeing all the Senators together saying today, we are all Americans, we had an opportunity to unite as a country behind a common goal. We had the world on our side willing to do anything we wanted.
George Bush and the republicans had a great opportunity with 9/11, but instead decided to beat us all over the head with it with every speech they gave. Pathetic!
Keith
Party affiliation is now based primarily (and nearly solely) upon social ideology, not fiscal ideology, in my opinion. The big tents can accomodate small govt. vs big govt. idealogues, but the bases prefer the social tent to be quite small.
Ancient Purple
Talk about someone who has not a single grasp on history.
Unless, of course, this clown wants us to pretend that Humphrey and Goldwater or Adams and Jefferson were just acting when they all but tore each others throats out.
Ozymandias
I like Radley Balko’s analysis on the primary result. I don’t mean to say that I might agree with him, just that I like the way he put it.
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/026903.php#026903
SeesThroughIt
Excellent point.
John S.
And now the liberal MSM is going around complaining that poor Joe is just too high and mighty for Connecticut voters. CNN and MSNBC this morning both framed his defeat as “Lieberman ran on his conscience, and the voters punished him for standing for what he believes in”.
Never mind the fact that voters defeated Lieberman because they don’t agree with his views and do not feel that he represents them anymore. That is what representative democracy is supposed to be about: voting for the candidate that best represents you. So why does the liberal MSM hate democracy?
mrmobi
Good point, Tim.
The folks who brought us the “Contract On America” have had a pretty good run. In the process they’ve managed to debase the political discourse quite a bit, but I don’t believe that’s what happened in CT. This was just voters pointing out to their long-time Senator that they are done with elective, un-ending war as a foreign policy. Good for them. It’s past time we had a debate in this country about what jihadism means for our future. A debate where ideas are exchanged and all sides are represented. A debate where war is not the first and only choice.
I respect Joe G., but it’s a waste of time to decry how partisan things have become. This government is seriously damaging our future prospects. In any case, I don’t see that there is going to be a “litmus test” regarding the war. There is room for Democrats who are hawkish, just not obsequious.
My party does appear to be getting a spine, and there is clearly a move to the left, but I also don’t see us becoming the kind of un-yielding and disrespectful party that modern day Republicans have become if we regain power. Harry Reid is no “hammer.” Hopefully, we’ll get to see if I am right in November.
Slide
Great post Tim and I agree 100% (thats why its great). Hearing the Republicans worry about the Democratic party is quite humorous. The party of Delay and Gingrich is complaining about the Dems being too partisan? An opposition party should be an opposition party – especially when you have an administration like this one that NEVER wants to work with opposition.
Maybe this will teach some of the Dems that the way to get elected is not to be Republican Light but to offer an alternative. People like fighters. Even if they may not agree with everything the candidate says they want someone that shows some spunk, some fight. Kerry was attacked viciously by the Swift Boat Liars and basically did nothing. Why should i expect him to fight for me if he won’t even fight for his own honor? Gingrich was a fighter. Delay was a fighter. They bullied. They intimidated. They took no prisoners. The result? A political tsunami of historic proportions. Learn the lesson Democrats. Grow a spine. Stop trying to stick your finger up in the wind and take the safest path. Leadership means taking positions and convincing the electorate to follow you, not the other way around.
Punchy
Ok, didn’t some super-conserv beat out a moderate in Michigan? And the MSM’s response…..(crickets). But the Leib/Lamont thang is center-stage on every major news website?
Lesson–if the Repubs vote to become more right (read: more partisan), it’s not news. It’s only news (read: correct to editorialize and demonize) when the Dems do it. Got it.
DecidedFenceSitter
Punchy, I hear ya, I had to use google news to find any mention of the Michigan primary other than the fact that it was less closely watched then the Conn. one.
But here we are on Forbes
Tim F.
You guys are killing me – my primary thread was all about the Joe Schwarz race.
Mac Buckets
For starters, a Representative from the midwest who nobody has ever heard of getting beat by another nobody who nobody’s ever heard of isn’t nearly as newsworthy as a longstanding Eastern seaboard Senator who was the Vice-Presidential nominee of his party six years ago getting beat.
Kirk Spencer
To support Mac Buckets remark, I notice that McKinney’s loss (GA-04) is getting less play than Lieberman/Lamont, and more than Joe Schawtz. I suspect it’s not least because McKinney’s been in the public eye more than Schwartz and less than Lieberman.
Tom in Texas
Hey Tim,
If it makes you feel any better I used your thread as an inspiration to impersonate a disillusioned Republican (Mark in MI — I know, REAL original ) on Brendan Loy’s site. He posted a GBCW letter where he decides to leave the Democratic party forever over their hyperpartisanship, a position Im just flabbergasted over considering the extremes in partisanship shown over the last six years on the other side..
HyperIon
mrmobi Said (some really good stuff):
a long run, NOT a good run but i understand what you meant.
agreed. and it is going to be damn hard to re-elevate the debate.
amen, brother.
again, i agree.
The Other Steve
Republicans went through this same debate, starting in around 1988 with Rush going on the air. The letter that Kos posted from Scarborough on dkos is telling, that in ’94 the Republicans were told to be less partisan, and they instead went the opposite way.
Partisanship on the part of Democrats is the answer. My only concern is that it’s the right kind of partisanship.
Thomas Paine was a hyperpartisan, and his Common Sense should provide a model for what to do.
HyperIon
TOS:
regarding
yes. may we never get to: my party right or wrong.
demand that your party (D or R) adhere to the highest standard of ethical behavior and integrity. and then take them to task when they do not meet that standard. eschew hackery in all things politcal.
DougJ
RINO.
RINO — doesn’t support his own positions strongly enough.
RINO — soft on terror, liked free speech too much.
ImJohnGalt
Tom in Texas, I’ve never visited Loy’s site before, but that letter and the contributions from his commentariat (or should I say, the cheetocracy) made my brain hurt. I have a very hard time believing any of the conversion stories over there, or that Loy was ever a Democrat.
He’s leaving the party because Lieberman didn’t win the primary? Good riddance to bad rubbish. Who with a brain doesn’t see the difference between “no room in the party for Lieberman” and “Connecticut Democrats didn’t want him representing them anymore.” Unless they mean “no room in the party for anyone whose face has been up Bush’s sphincter for the past 6 years when they were supposed to be in the opposition party”
ats
Lieberman had every advantage. Incumbency, name recognition, the Clintons, and a slavish press.
Yet that he lost is no mystery. The war and Terry S. made the voters take a closer look at him. And they finally recognized what anyone in Georgetown could have told you years ago. The guy is an arrogant. self-righteous little p***.