I suppose the partisan Republican is a happy man today. Looking for relief from the negative Republican-centric tenor of the national discussion this election year, the defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman to Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Democratic primary last night brings into public scrutiny the Democratic Party’s alarming wartime hostility to hawkish foreign policy and military action. In consequence, that perusal of public discourse may now very well shift from the Republicans and their deficiencies to the Democrats and theirs.
That is one way to look at it, and a cavalierly political and partisan way at that.
Though I am a Republican, and in that sense partisan, I find no joy or solace in Sen. Lieberman’s defeat. Now is not the time for partisanship. It is a time of war and elevated national consequence. It is a time for statesmanship. On ninety-five percent of the issues the senator and I completely disagree. He is a stalwart liberal Democrat, I am a stalwart conservative Republican.
But that is secondary to the fact that Sen. Joseph Lieberman is an unapologetic hawk in symbiosis with the great statesmen—Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Senator Henry Jackson—and traditions of a once great party. He is admirably willing to cast aside partisan interest in favor of supporting and strengthening America’s ability to win in Iraq and defeat the great evil of our age: Eighth-Century Islamic fascism.
Joe Lieberman is an honorable man and a credit to the Senate and to his country. In this time of war his statesmanship—his a-partisan courage—is needed now as much as ever, yet it seems to be in such short supply. It is a war we did not initiate, nor is it one we want. But it is a war we must win. To maliciously cut down the few statesmen who understand this and act accordingly despite the immediate partisan and personal implications is as reprehensible as it is self-defeating.
Ours is an age that transcends parties and factions, we need leaders who do the same. We need more Joe Liebermans. It is a sad tragedy that his courage of conviction and indelible principle have earned him the rebuke of his own party.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Take Heed
There seems to be an increasing perception among the punditry that, barring drastic change, Democrats will win control of the House in the November elections. Should this happen, it is important that we keep in mind why it will happen. (That it could happen I have no doubt, that it is an inevitability, I do.)
A Democratic House would not be the product of a popular realignment towards the Democratic Party, for the American public is as disgusted with Republicans as they are with Democrats. The public opinion polls so many eagerly seize upon as evidence that Republicans are doomed and a Democratic ascension is nigh show no public affinity for Democrats. Quite the opposite, the public places a pox on both houses. In fact, in an age of hyper-partisanship one of the few aspects of the American political landscape that actually is bi-partisan is the preponderant negative esteem the electorate holds Republicans and Democrats in. This explains why many incumbents of both parties are vulnerable at this juncture, and a November of the American people’s discontent may just lead to a lot of suddenly unemployed members of congress, from each side of the aisle.
The single, glaring problem with this for Republicans is that, as the majority party, such an omnipotent anti-incumbent inclination will inexorably result in the defeat of more Republican incumbents than Democratic, and possibly lead to a Democratic House. This possibility brings into light an important dynamic at play in this election cycle, a cycle in which, depending upon the result, many are likely to misread or misrepresent the significance of. Should Democrats take the House and/or the Senate it will not be because of any realignment towards Democrats and Democratic principles (How could it be, given that the Democrats are all too often a party without principles), nor, for that matter, will it be the fruits of a highly motivated Democratic base. In the last election cycle the Democratic base was motivated to the point where they were foaming at the mouth in murderous hatred for the president and the Democrats still lost the presidential race and seats in both houses.
A Democratic victory, should one occur, will be based upon an anti-incumbent mood which they are equally the brunt of but, as the minority party in a two-party system, are also paradoxically the ultimate beneficiary of.
Even more paradoxically, Democrats might win the House because of a popular revulsion among conservatives and Republicans at the very traits Democrats of the contemporary flavor represent. Republican political liabilities stem from the fact that national conservatives are aghast at the profligate, big-government style of governance the Republican congress has drifted towards, a style in which the Democratic Party irrefutably embodies. For all the across-the-board increases in spending that occurred under the Republicans watch, Democrats routinely charge them and the president with under-funding everything. How deviantly ironic would it be if on January 3, 2007 Democrats owed their newfound majority to revulsion at a form of governance which fits perfectly with their political and governing philosophies? Or, put in another manner, bemuse yourself at the possibility that a year or two in the future a negative reaction to profligate governance in 2006 turns out to be the cause of....heightened profligate governance.
The effect this would have on the political dynamics going into 2008 and beyond I’ll leave for another day, but I will close with a word of caution to any who would misinterpret or exaggerate the significance of a Democratic victory this year. This victory would not mean, as I reiterate, a realignment towards liberalism or the Democratic Party; or the end of conservatism (a theory the inveterate liberal E.J. Dionne hopefully [or maybe hopelessly] posited this week). One victorious election does not a realignment make, and if Democrats do win (after losing the last two elections, arguably three) it will be in spite of themselves. It will be the yield of a popular odium towards a wayward Republican congress so deep that it will have compensated for a similar inclination towards the Democratic Party. The electoral soil may be fertile for a fruitful Democratic election day this year but it is barren for a sustainable Democratic majority or enduring Democratic political prosperity. Jubilant Democrats and despondent Republicans take heed.
A Democratic House would not be the product of a popular realignment towards the Democratic Party, for the American public is as disgusted with Republicans as they are with Democrats. The public opinion polls so many eagerly seize upon as evidence that Republicans are doomed and a Democratic ascension is nigh show no public affinity for Democrats. Quite the opposite, the public places a pox on both houses. In fact, in an age of hyper-partisanship one of the few aspects of the American political landscape that actually is bi-partisan is the preponderant negative esteem the electorate holds Republicans and Democrats in. This explains why many incumbents of both parties are vulnerable at this juncture, and a November of the American people’s discontent may just lead to a lot of suddenly unemployed members of congress, from each side of the aisle.
The single, glaring problem with this for Republicans is that, as the majority party, such an omnipotent anti-incumbent inclination will inexorably result in the defeat of more Republican incumbents than Democratic, and possibly lead to a Democratic House. This possibility brings into light an important dynamic at play in this election cycle, a cycle in which, depending upon the result, many are likely to misread or misrepresent the significance of. Should Democrats take the House and/or the Senate it will not be because of any realignment towards Democrats and Democratic principles (How could it be, given that the Democrats are all too often a party without principles), nor, for that matter, will it be the fruits of a highly motivated Democratic base. In the last election cycle the Democratic base was motivated to the point where they were foaming at the mouth in murderous hatred for the president and the Democrats still lost the presidential race and seats in both houses.
A Democratic victory, should one occur, will be based upon an anti-incumbent mood which they are equally the brunt of but, as the minority party in a two-party system, are also paradoxically the ultimate beneficiary of.
Even more paradoxically, Democrats might win the House because of a popular revulsion among conservatives and Republicans at the very traits Democrats of the contemporary flavor represent. Republican political liabilities stem from the fact that national conservatives are aghast at the profligate, big-government style of governance the Republican congress has drifted towards, a style in which the Democratic Party irrefutably embodies. For all the across-the-board increases in spending that occurred under the Republicans watch, Democrats routinely charge them and the president with under-funding everything. How deviantly ironic would it be if on January 3, 2007 Democrats owed their newfound majority to revulsion at a form of governance which fits perfectly with their political and governing philosophies? Or, put in another manner, bemuse yourself at the possibility that a year or two in the future a negative reaction to profligate governance in 2006 turns out to be the cause of....heightened profligate governance.
The effect this would have on the political dynamics going into 2008 and beyond I’ll leave for another day, but I will close with a word of caution to any who would misinterpret or exaggerate the significance of a Democratic victory this year. This victory would not mean, as I reiterate, a realignment towards liberalism or the Democratic Party; or the end of conservatism (a theory the inveterate liberal E.J. Dionne hopefully [or maybe hopelessly] posited this week). One victorious election does not a realignment make, and if Democrats do win (after losing the last two elections, arguably three) it will be in spite of themselves. It will be the yield of a popular odium towards a wayward Republican congress so deep that it will have compensated for a similar inclination towards the Democratic Party. The electoral soil may be fertile for a fruitful Democratic election day this year but it is barren for a sustainable Democratic majority or enduring Democratic political prosperity. Jubilant Democrats and despondent Republicans take heed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)