Our Choice (The New Republic Endorses JOE LIEBERMAN for President!)

The New Republic ^ | January 7, 2004

[Timesink]

Our Choice
by the Editors

Post date: 01.07.04
Issue date: 01.19.04

ecall for a moment the political climate in the United States in January 2001. Ralph Nader and the Supreme Court had made George W. Bush president, but he had lost the popular vote, and his party had lost seats in the House and Senate. The campaign had been fought largely on Democratic terrain--with Bush promising a larger federal role in education and health care, and a multicultural Republican Party. With national security a second-tier political issue, and welfare and crime no longer political issues at all, all that remained of Ronald Reagan's winning formula was tax cuts. And even that had been challenged by John McCain in the primary. With Latinos, professionals, and other growing constituencies trending Democratic, Bush's victory appeared to many like a fluke in a country heading the other way. 

If Reagan's formula looked increasingly obsolete, Bill Clinton's seemed alive and well. The nomination of Al Gore and Joe Lieberman had seemed to secure the New Democratic legacy. Foreign policy hawkishness, free trade, and fiscal discipline--once heresies in the party--were now mainstream. Indeed, the dominant Democratic response to Gore and Lieberman's loss was to chastise them for not running more explicitly on Clinton's record. When The New Republic endorsed Gore in the 2000 Democratic primary, the editors wrote that, "[a]s the Clinton administration draws to a close, it leaves a Democratic Party cleansed of many of the habits that long alienated it from average Americans and from its own best traditions."  

If only those words were still true today. The years since January 2001 have been among the worst in the contemporary history of the Democratic Party. To be sure, the party has suffered from events beyond its control. Since September 11, 2001, George W. Bush has ruthlessly turned the country's fear and rage into a wedge issue, sacrificing national unity but recreating the visceral flag-politics of the 1980s. But the Democratic Party has also buried itself. In late 2002, with the Bush administration threatening preemptive war in Iraq, Democratic strategists developed a remarkable plan for the midterm elections: Ignore national security. One year after the bloodiest foreign attack on U.S. soil, and on the eve of one of the most audacious foreign policy gambles in U.S. history, Democratic candidates campaigned on the sluggish economy and prescription drugs. And Bush and Karl Rove ripped them to shreds.  

From that humiliation, the Howard Dean revolt was born. In early 2003, the former Vermont governor began captivating the Democratic base with his thunderous attacks on Washington Democrats. But, in their righteousness, Dean and his supporters have embraced an analysis potentially even more damaging than that of the party leaders they seek to depose. We are not speaking primarily about Dean's general-election prospects (though they are grim, and their potential consequences for the House and Senate even grimmer). The problem with Dean's vision of the Democratic Party is more than electoral; it is intellectual and moral. And the candidate who offers the clearest, bravest alternative is Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman.  

 

undamentally, the Dean campaign equates Democratic support for the Iraq war with appeasement of President Bush. But the fight against Saddam Hussein falls within a hawkish liberal tradition that stretches through the Balkan wars, the Gulf war, and, indeed, the cold war itself. Lieberman is not the only candidate who stands in that tradition--Wesley Clark promoted it courageously in Kosovo, as did Richard Gephardt when he defied the polls to vote for $87 billion to rebuild Iraq. But Lieberman is its most steadfast advocate, not only in the current field but in the entire Democratic Party. In 1991, he broke with every other Northern Democrat in the Senate to support the Gulf war, then broke with George H.W. Bush when the former president allowed Saddam to slaughter tens of thousands of Iraqi Shia in the war's aftermath. In 1998, Lieberman joined with McCain to co-sponsor the Iraq Liberation Act, which committed the United States to regime change in Baghdad. And, in the 2000 campaign, when the younger Bush was still peddling neo-isolationism, it was Gore and Lieberman who insisted that the United States be prepared to use force to stop genocide and promote democracy.  

By deriding Democratic support for overthrowing Saddam as "Bush Lite," Dean threatens to define that tradition out of the Democratic Party. Reasonable people, including reasonable hawks, can differ about the wisdom of the Iraq war, especially given the apparent absence of an ongoing Iraqi nuclear program. But the nature of Dean's opposition suggests an old Democratic affliction: an excessive faith in multilateralism and an insufficient faith in the moral potential of U.S. power.  

Dean is rightly passionate about the harm done to America's relations with its allies. Bush, he says, continues to "rub their nose in humiliation." But he can muster no similar passion about Iraq's freedom from one of the great monsters of the twentieth century. Saddam's overthrow leaves him cold; he "suppose[d]" it was a good thing. Dean and his supporters identify viscerally with the foreign governments that resent being bullied by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Yet they identify barely at all with the largely voiceless people--in countries like Syria and Iran--who might consider a democracy's projection of power into the heart of a region defined by tyranny to be progressive, even inspiring.  

All this raises questions about what a President Dean would have done when America's European allies bitterly resisted the Clinton administration's efforts to help Bosnia defend itself. Today, even more than then, global anxiety about America's overwhelming power means it is likely that any significant U.S. military intervention short of an Afghanistan-style response to direct attack will provoke hostility in Europe and on the American left. A Democratic president may have to defy both America's allies and his domestic political base to aggressively fight terrorism and defend freedom. So far, at least, Dean's record on the national stage suggests he doesn't understand that. Lieberman does. It is not just that he voted for the war and for the $87 billion for postwar reconstruction. The clearest--and least popular--truth about the Iraq occupation is that we don't have enough troops to secure the country. And, in the short term at least, we can't get them from other countries or by reconstituting the Iraqi army. All the major Democratic candidates say the United States must win the peace in Iraq. Yet only Lieberman has put that goal above his political self-interest--and repeatedly called for more American troops.  

Most Democratic strategists seem to view Lieberman's brave, consistent foreign policy record as less valuable against Bush than the military experience of John Kerry or Wesley Clark. But the assumption that the Democratic Party can make itself credible on defense through the personal heroism of its leaders trivializes its problem--much as the Republican Party does when it finds black and Hispanic spokesmen to sell its urban policies. The Democrats' national security problem stems from the public perception that its leaders lack a clear, aggressive strategy for defending the country at a dangerous time. Neither Kerry nor Clark--who have taken contradictory positions on the war in Iraq and opportunistically opposed the $87 billion for Iraqi reconstruction--have addressed this crisis of ideas. Lieberman has.  

 

n domestic policy, Lieberman has his failings. His infatuation with Silicon Valley has sometimes blinded him to the necessity of tough, fair government regulation of the financial markets, especially on the expensing of stock options. But, unlike some of his fellow Senate "moderates," Lieberman's overall economic record is progressive and responsible. He voted for Clinton's 1993 budget and against both Bush tax cuts. He would repeal the upper-income portions of Bush's tax cuts, a position consistent with his long-standing belief that the Democratic Party should cut taxes for the middle class. In 1991, Lieberman told The New York Times that Democrats must "understand that middle-class people are breaking their backs so they and their kids can live better, and it is our responsibility to make that happen and not just to keep taking from them." That is the kind of language that helped elect Clinton and that Democrats need to recapture today. 

Where Lieberman diverges most from his competitors on domestic policy is in his willingness to challenge entrenched party interest groups. Many liberal intellectuals privately fret about the teachers' unions' stranglehold on Demo cratic education policy. But Lieberman is one of the few national Democrats to challenge them. He supports experimenting with school vouchers, not because of free-market theology but because of neoliberal empiricism: He wants to see if they work. And his educational heresies extend beyond school choice. In 2000, he rankled Ted Kennedy and the teachers' unions by endorsing tough new testing for schools, yet he also proposed generous funding increases to make those standards achievable. This was the Third Way at its best: government demanding accountability but providing real help.  

Liberals resent Lieberman's moralism. But what they see as sanctimony, many ordinary Americans see as overdue concern about the toxic influences that saturate their children's lives. Clinton acknowledged that concern with calculated micro-initiatives like the v-chip. But it is Lieberman, the more sincere New Democrat, who infuriated Hollywood--and thus denied himself a rich vein of campaign funds--by repeatedly insisting that the entertainment industry value the public good as well as the bottom line. Similarly, many liberals mocked Lieberman as self-righteous for denouncing Clinton on the Senate floor at the height of the Lewinsky affair. But, given the then-pervasive fear in the Democratic Party about crossing the Clintons, Lieberman's speech took courage. And it emboldened his colleagues to do the same, which helped keep Clinton's immorality from tainting the whole party.  

 

he deep irony of Lieberman's campaign is that many Democrats view him as timid. But how much courage does it take for Dean to throw red meat to the party faithful? The Democratic Party is racing back to the '80s, with interest groups enforcing litmus tests on everything from partial-birth abortion to steel tariffs, and party activists dangerously out of touch with a country that feels threatened by terrorism, not Donald Rumsfeld. Dean has helped create this mood of self-righteous delusion, and his competitors have, to varying degrees, accommodated themselves to it. Only Lieberman--the supposed candidate of appeasement--is challenging his party, enduring boos at event after event, to articulate a different, better vision of what it means to be a Democrat. Three years ago, that vision seemed ascendant. Today, it is once again at the margins. It may take years, or even decades, for Democrats to relearn the lessons we thought, naïvely, they had learned for good under Clinton. But one day, Joe Lieberman's warnings in this campaign will look prophetic. And the principles he has espoused will once again guide the Democratic Party. It will be the work of this magazine, to whatever small degree possible, to hasten that day.

[Timesink]

Sorry Howie!

I'll bet this makes you MAD, doesn't it Howie?

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
	Kenya						20.00	1

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[Clemenza]

The New Republic is the house organ of the DLC. No surprise here...

[Hildy]

I'm reading Ann Coulter's TREASON now, and every time I read something a Democrat says or writes, I think of how she so eloquently states it in her book: DEMOCRATS HATE AMERICA AND WILL DO ANYTHING TO WEAKEN IT.

[GeronL]

There are a bunch of nuts... Lieberman was the least nutty,,,

[nwrep]

Joe L. seems to be the only patriotic, non-treasonous Democrat running, or am I missing someone?

[kingu]

I wonder if the New Republic would have changed their view in light of Lieberman's comments on amnesty.

[boycott]

I'd give Joe Lieberman strong consideration now that I am growing weary of all of Bush's pandering to special interest & giveaways.

[FreedomPoster]

I missed those comments - what were they?

[Cautor]

Joe L. seems to be the only patriotic, non-treasonous Democrat running, or am I missing someone?

You're kidding, right?

Joe L. is nothing more than a lying, flip-flopping, opportunist who would sell out America for another vote. If you've listened to the countless self-serving statements this liberal New England democrap has made, you wouldn't even ask the question you did.

[kingu]

The short version: Bush doesn't give illegals citizenship. The long version can be found on this thread.

[Rays_Dad]

This dude must write with beer glasses on. I mean is there any other way to get such a distorted look at society. Nicework asshat.

[zarf]

I'll throw Gephardt into that mix. A liberal yes, but a loyal American who, if push came to shove, would defend our national interests.

The rest of the dwarfs would allow the UN to govern our foreign policy.

[Action-America]

I'd give Joe Lieberman strong consideration now that I am growing weary of all of Bush's pandering to special interest & giveaways.

Agreed.

I don't think that Lieberman would do any better than Dubya. But, I seriously doubt that he would do much worse, since, he does at least, seem to be somewhat of a patriot. And, since it would be a Rat in the Whitehouse, the Pubbies in Congress would suddenly develop the backbone to stand up to his liberal agenda and that would certainly be an improvement over the current state of affairs, where Congress today, rubber stamps all of Dubya's liberal initiatives.

 

[Lancey Howard]

I'd give Joe Lieberman strong consideration now that I am growing weary of all of Bush's pandering to special interest & giveaways

Don't be a clown. Bush gave us tax cuts. You do work for a living, don't you?

[StarFan]

Joe L. is nothing more than a lying, flip-flopping, opportunist who would sell out America for another vote. Agreed. Why even one of his staunchest defender, Don Imus, discontinued inviting him on his show during the 2000 campaign. He said something along the lines that he didn't recognize his old friend.

[jagrmeister]

Without getting into un-PC ground, I think the reason why TNR endorsed Lieberman is fairly obvious. Still, given Lieberman's centrist tendencies (at least relative to Dem base), it shows how out of touch they are with their own party.

[rbessenger]

Joe L. seems to be the only patriotic, non-treasonous Democrat running, or am I missing someone?

A Dem with some conservative views against a Rerpub with many liberal policies.

No need to consider such a contest as the Dems will never run Lieberman.

[futureceo31]

Lieberman released comprehensive proposal in September

ARLINGTON, VA -- Joe Lieberman, who released his own comprehensive immigration reform proposal last September, responded to the expected release of President Bush's immigration reform plan today:

"George Bush's plan leaves foreign workers as fodder for our fields and factories, without giving them a path to legalization and a fair shot at the American Dream. He's had an election year conversion to immigration reform, but it's too little and three years too late."

Lieberman cited four major differences between Bush's plan and his plan:

EARNED LEGALIZATION: Lieberman's plan provides a path for immigrants to earn legal status; Bush's does not. Lieberman would allow undocumented immigrants to apply for permanent residency if they have lived in the U.S. for at least five years, worked hard, obeyed the law, and pay taxes. In contrast, Bush's plan would essentially force immigrants back to their home countries after their work visa expires.

BACKLOGS: Bush's plan does little to address the huge backlogs that are keeping legal immigrants from their spouses and children. Lieberman would increase the number of visas, hire more consular officials to process applications, and give the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services a greater share of the old INS budget.

IMMIGRANTS RIGHTS: Bush's plan does little to protect immigrant workers from exploitation by unscrupulous employers. Lieberman would guarantee fair wages and safe workplace conditions. He would also ensure that undocumented immigrants in detention receive a bond hearing, and access to counsel.

AMERICAN DREAM FUND: Unlike Bush's plan, which does nothing to help immigrants who want to learn English, Lieberman would establish an American Dream Fund -- a public-private partnership to expand access to existing English as a Second Language classes and create new programs where the need is greatest.

For more details on Lieberman's plan, visit Immigration

[futureceo31]

What is Liberaman's conservative views???? I live in FLorida and still remember the 2000 election. Guy couldnt be any furhter to the left than he was. He was Al Gore's running mate for God's sakes... Have you such a short memory????

[Cicero]

The reads more like "anything but Dean" than a rational commentary on the needs of the country. Anyone who can say that "Wesley Clark promoted [the hawkish tradition] courageously in Kosovo" is guilty of serious misrepresentation, since Clark has recently been denying everything he said and did earlier and criticizing the Iraqi war effort almost daily. Moreover, how does making Kosovo safe for Albanian terrorists help defend our country against its enemies, formerly mainly Communist and now mainly Muslim? That dog won't hunt, and this is a dishonest article.

[GulliverSwift]

Nothing but wishing in this editorial: the Dems will become the majority party, Wesley Clark established himself as a hawk, Lieberman has principles.

The only true line is that Dean will lose.

[boycott]

Don't be a clown. Bush gave us tax cuts. You do work for a living, don't you?

It would take a clown to not think that someone is going to have to pay for all these giveaways. Sooner or later, someone has to pay.

[boycott]

where Congress today, rubber stamps all of Dubya's liberal initiatives.

I honestly believe that the Clinton administration may have been fiscally more conservative. Fiscally, I am a conservative. Socially, I am more of a moderate/conservative. Bush is way off target if he thinks he can negelect his base.

[AmishDude]

Who do you think TNR will endorse in a month when Lieberman drops out of the race?

[Salvation]

Also on CNN.com

The New Republic endorses Lieberman

[BigSkyFreeper]

Compared to the rest of the pack, Gephardt and Lieberman are more mainstream ideologically. I may not agree with either one ideologically, but come on, they're not whacked out like the rest of the field is.

[superloser]

Bush gave us tax cuts.

How much of the cut did you get to keep? The States have been busy hoovering up all that excess money if you haven't noticed.

[rbessenger]

What is Liberaman's conservative views????

Support for the President in this war. Support for a Ban on Late Term Abortion. Support for a reconsideration of Roe v Wade. Unflinching support of Israel. Opposition to gay marriage- Just to name a few.

Guy couldnt be any furhter to the left than he was.

If you truly believe that a person, particularly a Democrat, could not be farther left then Joe Lieberman then perhaps it is time to stop buying your perscription drugs in the Denny's Parking Lot.

[jern]

very good read. thank you for posting.

[ladyinred]

Did you miss him going along willingly with Al Gore in throwing out our military ballots during their co-attempted coup of our election in the year 2000? How anyone can think that Lieberman who participated in that assault on the constitution is an ok kind of guy is just beyond me!

[Paulus Invictus]

The New Republic is a commie/socialist, Bush-hating piece of trash, but Lieberman is the best of the dwarves. He is still unelectable, however. If only he had stayed with his original principles, the ones he lost when running with IGore, he might get more votes, but a RAT candidate with principles is non-existent these days.

[nwrep]

Thanks for reminding me of that. You are right, I retract my earlier statement.