What did Lieberman's victory really augur?
Two pundits read the tea leaves at the in the wake of Joe Lieberman's senate victory. (Hat tip: Roger Simon) Just what does it suggest for the Presidential race in 2008? The first pundit, Peter Brown of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute writing in Real Clear Politics, thinks it augurs well for John McCain. Brown thinks Lieberman gambled that Democratic voters were further to the center than its party leadership -- and won. He conjectures that Republican voters are further to the Left than party activists, and that therefore an anti-party but pro-war candidate like John McCain will cross the finish line first, whatever his party may think of him. But Reliapundit thinks Brown is focusing too much on the "maverick" part of the equation. It is the "liberal" component that is important, and in that respect, Rudy Giuliani may have the advantage.
I think the fact that both candidates appeal to so-called centrists/independents who pick-and-choose from among each party's platform is trivial. WHY!? Well, Lieberman's margin over Lamont doesn't portend a McCain victory, but a RUDY VICTORY: It shows that a liberal hawk is a very appealing candidate for parts of the GOP and the DNC and the "moderate" independents.
McCain is not a liberal hawk - he is pro-Life and pro-tax cuts. Sure, he is anti-gun and for campaign finance reform (which hinders free speech), but he is really rather conservative - too conservative for many MANY Lieberman-type voters. Rudy, though, is truly a liberal hawk: he is anti-gun; pro-gay marriage; pro-abortion; and virtually pro-illegal immigation. Lieberman shows that this Rudy-esque combination is truly very appealing.
But that's only how punditry sees the Lieberman lesson playing out on the right side of the political equation. On the Left side of the equation, Reliapundit predicts the Lieberman fiasco will have exactly zero impact on the Democratic Party nomination process. They will ignore it. "I seriously doubt that the Democrat Party can nominate a hawk - liberal or centrist. They will nominate someone more like Lamont than like Lieberman, and THAT is the sad-but-true bottom-line of this story."
Commentary
One commenter whose name escapes me, predicted that the 2006 midterm elections would be a loss for the American public whichever political party won. Maybe he was right. The outcomes predicted by both Peter Brown and Reliapundit both describe are eerily equivalent to the Republicans nominating a candidate from a "third party" -- someone outside the system -- without actually creating one. And that only makes sense if the public is sick unto death of both parties, though Reliapundit argues that only the Republicans are chastened enough to realize it. Roger Simon has argued that there is something different about the 2008 Presidential election that transcends its raw monstrosity. Besides being a billion dollar election in a time of war there is the sense that it is a kind of crossroads; that this particular Presidential contest constitutes (in that wonderful Churchillian phrase) a hinge of fate. But maybe that's putting it too dramatically. Let's wait and see.
posted by wretchardthecat at 1/21/2007 02:57:00 PM
5 Comments:
I pity the winner of the 2008 Presidential Election. Our enemies will push against us and push us hard just to test the toughness of our new President. And it would be difficult for any president to get tough when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is controlled by people who demand appeasement.
Although the President may theoretically control foreign policy, he (or she) must act within the broad constraints set by the balance of power in Congress in general and the Senate in particular. Overall, I think the overall makeup of the Senate is more important than the poor fool who winds up with the Presidency the next time. A President who conducts his foreign policy when his (or her) will is completely at odds with the overwhelming majority of the Senate won't be very effective.
Speaking of Senator Lieberman, Nick Cohen has an interesting two-part essay in the Observer (and the Guardian).
Although the modern tectonic plate of North America mostly corresponds to ancient Laurentia, there are not the same. (For example, Florida was once part of Africa.) Similarly, the tectonic forces that are polarizing Western politics have the effect of lumping some liberal and leftist “hawks” with most of the Right while the “paleoconservative” movement is becoming allied to most of the Left. It is precisely these two diametrically opposed factions that feel the most bitterness, as they have been summarily “evicted” from the official organs of the ideologies they strongly believe in.
Ned Lamont’s challenge to Senator Lieberman should be seen as an attempted eviction notice by the Soros faction against any liberal or leftist hawk. As for the Republicans, it’s too soon to tell what will happen except this -- it won't particularly matter what people in New Hampshire think because they have a history of voting against the eventual winner.
Great links from Alexis. Thanks!
Trackbacked on The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 01/22/2007
I'm not saying that this will happen, but I'd like it to. The Dems nominate someone on the left of their party, the Reps nominate someone on the right, and a pair like Lieberman and Giuliani decide to make an independant run up the middle. Everything I see about American politics today is divisive to the point of ludicrousness - people have stopped caring what their opponents say, it's become a sick parody of itself where the two parties have nothing but hate and contempt for each other. A respectible bipartisan ticket could actually cut through the morass and give both sides something kind of agreeable. Plus, they'd do a hell of a lot better job than anyone who can make it through a big-party nomination process.
Post a Comment
<< Home