Six String Ink

Writing in Slate under the head “The Big Idea,” Jacob Weisberg argues that Lieberman’s defeat in Tuesday’s primary in Connecticut is a harbinger of “perpetual Democratic defeat.” Noting at the outset that political analysts tend to overinterpret the results of any single election, Weisberg proceeds to overinterpret Ned Lamont’s victory:

The problem for the Democrats is that the anti-Lieberman insurgents go far beyond simply opposing Bush’s faulty rationale for the war, his dishonest argumentation for it, and his incompetent execution of it. Many of them appear not to take the wider, global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously. They see Iraq purely as a symptom of a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11, as opposed to a tragic misstep in a bigger conflict. Substantively, this view indicates a fundamental misapprehension of the problem of terrorism.

So, holding their representative accountable for rationalizing deception, embracing incompetence and triggering widespread hatred and distrust of the United States by launching an ill-conceived war means that Connecticut Democrats don’t understand the threat of terrorism.

This sounds less like a “big idea” than a summing-up of the Republican reaction to Lieberman’s loss.

Time: At breakfast time, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman was in Cleveland, decrying “an unfortunate embrace of isolationism, defeatism, and a blame- America-first attitude by national Democratic leaders at a time when retreating from the world is particularly dangerous.” In early afternoon, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow told reporters in Crawford, Tex.: “It’s a defining moment for the Democratic Party, whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party they’re going to come after you.” And an hour or so later, Vice President Cheney told wire-service reporters in a conference call: “It’s an unfortunate development, I think, from the standpoint of the Democratic Party to see a man like Lieberman pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security strategy.”The rest of Weisberg’s piece recounts the Democrats’ “Vietnam-era drift away from issues of security and defense,” when Cold Warrior’s like LBJ were forced out of office by anti-war activists. He argues that, back then, a lot of people who didn’t like the Vietnam War nonetheless held their noses and voted for Nixon because, unlike Connecticut Democrats, they understood the larger issues at stake.

As Josh Marshall points out, there are some differences at play here: Joe Lieberman is not a world-historical figure. He’s not fighting some long twilight struggle. He thinks he’s both. But he’s not.

I would add that I don’t think the caricatures of a generation ago hold up that strongly anymore. For one thing, the assertion that opposition to the Iraq war is a “far-left” position is a desperate fantasy. Moreover, I believe Americans of all kinds are taking a harder look at their elected officials than in the past. A recent poll by the Washington Post found that “the percentage of people who approve of their own representative’s performance is at the lowest level since 1994.” The rest of the results strongly suggest that Iraq is the most important factor in this departure from historical precedent.

That poll also puts a dent in another piece of perceived conventional wisdom: That Republicans are the only party with the competence, vision and wherewithal to keep the country safe and secure. In fact, although it’s not mentioned in the article that accompanies the poll results, more Americans (46 percent versus 38 percent) believe Democrats would do a better job handling the war on terror than Republicans.

It should be noted that the poll also found that even Democrats don’t believe their party has a firm grasp of the situation: The public does not think that Bush or the Democrats have a clear plan for Iraq. Even a slight majority of Democrats say their party does not have an Iraq strategy. However, I don’t think that means we should keep electing people, like Lieberman, who support the war.

The opinion of 1,002 people isn’t the best way to understand what is happening to the American electorate. But neither is going back 35 years to find an argument that will support your particular viewpoint.

I think Americans are getting a little tired of relying on conventional wisdom and rhetoric, i.e. the Republicans are the party of grown-ups and realists while the Democrats are panty-waisted pacifists. Weisberg’s thinking seems to be that they should continue to adhere to that belief in the face of what has to considered, by any measure, a disastrous foreign policy.

In other words, we should suck it up and tolerate the delusional thinking that got us to where we are in the first place.

For a more learned dissection of this unfortunate meme, see this.