« Who Killed Compassionate Conservatism? | Main | Not Safe For Work Post »
July 21, 2006
It's Not About Lieberman
Josh Marshall on Lieberman:
I think the Lieberman skeptics are really on to something when they point out that in the Kondrackes and others there is this sense that for a well-liked-in-the-beltway senior pol like Lieberman to face a primary challenge is somehow a genuine threat to the foundations of the system. You'd think he was a life peer, if not an hereditary noble, suddenly yanked out of the House of Lords and forced to run for his seat like they do in the Commons.
That's what's so stunned me about this debate. I had it out the other night with a very pro-Lieberman writer who, it came clear to me, believed the entire concept of a primary challenge against Lieberman a simply illegitimate form of opposition. Lieberman, as a Democratic incumbent, had a claim on his party's nomination and his Senate seat that couldn't be challenged by a bunch of bloggers and a cable television executive named Ned. It was the impudence of the whole thing that so offended.
I've really been saddened, in fact, by how often, when I drill down into anti-Lamonter motivations, I find their ideological and electoral motivations mere sandrock obscuring a core rage at this affront to tradition and orderly succession. I didn't believe this even a few months ago, but I've been forced to conclude that what scares folks about Lamont is that he represents an assault on privilege -- Joe Lieberman's, to be sure, but also theirs, no matter what sector of politics they currently represent.
In some ways, Lieberman is the canary in their coal mine, and if his sanctimonious song stops, so too may all of theirs. They never reacted this way to the Club for Growth primaries, or the Unions' promise to work against Melissa Bean, or NARAL's threats to primary Casey, because they were comfortable with the role and global motivations of those groups -- they were part of the structure, and they sought only to make it work better for them, not substantively challenge its mechanisms. The bloggers, however, are different, more unpredictable, less obviously invested in the perpetuation of this fine political system we have. And so they represent not a challenge to Joe Lieberman, but a challenge to the establishment as a whole. And that's why the establishment as a whole is howling.
July 21, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/5487872
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference It's Not About Lieberman:
Comments
The entire Lieberman/Lamont affair has, for me, crystalized what progressive bloggers are: they are, in effect, "professional citizens."
Posted by: Danton | Jul 21, 2006 12:56:02 PM
but a challenge to the establishment as a whole. And that's why the establishment as a whole is howling.
This, I think, is wrong. It's how the people in DC complaining about the bloggers may perceive it, in their deep, dead hearts. But, really, the interesting thing about the current anti-TNR/DLC groups, the anti-Iraq War groups, and the anti-Lieberman groups, is that they are all pretty representative of the Establishment class. Kos has a JD from BU, Atrios a PhD from Brown, etc. What you're really seeing is something like an unacknowledged (and maybe an unconscious) struggle between parts of the Establishment. More interesting to me is the fact that the half out of power is arguably the half with longer, deeper roots in the Establishment. Put it this way: as between GHWB (anti-Iraq war) and GWB (pro-Iraq war), the former is more representative of what we long thought of as the Establishment. You can do the same thing with the current Southern dominance in both parties and the occassional flashes of Northern distaste for it. (Kevin Philips shows this most openly.)
It's interesting.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jul 21, 2006 1:00:45 PM
Josh Marshall's post was fascinating, because it highlighted how completely the DC Democratic establishment and the Senators just don't get that most Americans don't like, nor respect them.
Congressional approval rating are in the 20s. None of the Democratic leaders polls all that well amongst Democrats. Media popularity polls in the teens. But Lieberman's supporters continue to cite how popular Lieberman is amongst his colleagues, what a "nice" guy they think he is, how thoughtful, etc. They loudly advertise how popular Lieberman is amongst these extremely unpopular groups.
I just hope he wraps those anchors around him a bit more, and sinks right to the bottom.
Posted by: Samuel Knight | Jul 21, 2006 1:12:58 PM
I'm curious, Ezra. Did you find out what this pro-Lieberman reporter thought of the primary challenges against other Democrats and Republicans? He's not the only incumbent facing a challenge, and hardly the incumbent most at risk, but I haven't seen anyone editorializing on those other races. Does this reporter think there's a Lieberman exception or does he even realize he's playing favorites?
Posted by: Mike | Jul 21, 2006 1:18:58 PM
Billy "On To Damascus!" Kristol sent a $500 campaign contribution to Smokin' Joe Lieberman -- apparently the largest political donation he's made in eight years.
Joe really knows how to pick his buddies, eh? I wonder if they're even aware that they're sticking in the shiv?
Posted by: sglover | Jul 21, 2006 1:19:27 PM
The system's working exactly like it's supposed to but usually doesn't, so of course "establishment" pols are bitching about it. All incumbents seem to feel they're entitled to keep the job as long as they want and view any challenge from within their own party as some sort of affront. People in power always view a challenge not as someone exercising their reasonable, constitutional right to question authority, but as an insult, sorta like Bush does. I don't live in Connecticut, so I'm for the most part indifferent, but it is nice to see that a longtime member of Congress doesn't have to stay in until he/she dies as long as enough people care enough to actually put up a challenge.
RE bloggers: when is someone going to point out that another name for "bloggers" is "voters"?
Posted by: LL | Jul 21, 2006 1:22:22 PM
"or NARAL's threats to primary Casey,"
Casey is not part of the DC Coctail Circuit. You cannot underestimate the Coctail Circuit dynamic. Lieberman has been a Washington Insider for decades. Washington Insider status transcends party and ideology. He is "one of us" for the DC Elite as Sally Quinn would put it.
Lieberman always sides with the DC Elite on issues. His position is identical to that of the WP editorial page. On Monicagate, on desire to move on after 2000 election debacle, on Iraq war, on Alito..........take any issue....he sides with the WP editorial page and the DC Elite it represents. It is not surprising that they are all coming to his defense.
Posted by: Nan | Jul 21, 2006 1:28:28 PM
Two factors:
(1) Your average blog reader and writer tends to be pretty well educated and perhaps politically active, but had no way of getting in touch with others of like mind or acting collectively with them when the others were in far-flung parts of the country. The blogs changed all that, and now "swarm" campaigns with small donations. This is a great thing.
2. The average blogger does not rely on the MSM entirely, because she knows that the press as often as not engages in a "he said she said" game that benefits the person willing to lie the loudest. As a general rule, they are far better informed than your average citizen. When a politician makes a trade-off to save face (such as Lieberman's refusal to vote for an alito filibuster), they don't let the pol get away with the "I opposed Alito's confirmation" defense. (Or, I voted for alito before I voted against him.). Hamdan is a 5-4 decision. Thanks, Joe.
Posted by: rumpole | Jul 21, 2006 1:30:52 PM
And so [bloggers] represent not a challenge to Joe Lieberman, but a challenge to the establishment as a whole. And that's why the establishment as a whole is howling.
That's only part of the story. What must really enrage them is that a majority of voting Connecticut Dems agree with the bloggers and disagree with Da Lieb. I mean, if Lamont were pulling in 10% or even 25%, would the entitled DC class really be so upset?
This is what really rankles me -- the fundamental hostility toward the intelligence and opinions of the people they supposedly represent.
Posted by: Sakitume! | Jul 21, 2006 1:34:42 PM
Most D.C. reporters are Lieberman-style Democrats. That's where their critiques of the Democratic Party always seem to come from, and where most of their views align.
Posted by: Chris | Jul 21, 2006 1:42:10 PM
Few more reasons that the DC publishing community might be freaking out with this primary challenge:
1) If Lamont wins this would be the first online win. They've come close a few times, Hackett, etc. but never won. Coming from 50 points down to knockout a nationally known figure would be one heck of a first win.
2) The readership on the liberals blogs goes up and up. The readership, viewership and attention ship at the DC trade press keeps going down. They hate the competition.
3) Iraq. The DC establishment were completely utterly wrong about Iraq. The whole rest of the world, except for a few other idiots in London were screaming their heads off before the War in Iraq, but the DC "thinkers" thought they were all lunatics. This really rubs there face in that failure.
4) The DC establishment were completely, utterly wrong about Bush. He was a "uniter". He was an "adult" with a great "team". Again most of the rest of the world thought he was bumbling ignoramus. Oops, and Lieberman, like Blair, tied himself to that Bush.
etc.
One last note: Most of the Lieberman supporters also knows that the independent run is baloney. If he loses the primary by more than a bit, he becomes a loser - and his poll ratings in the 3-way tank.
Posted by: Samuel Knight | Jul 21, 2006 1:46:13 PM
Good notes, I agree w/ what's been said. Samuel Knight, one correction--congressman Ben Chandler in KY, congressperson Stephanie Herseth in SD, Barack Obama in the Dem. primary & later general election (which was a real race until the Rep self-destructed), and governors Tim Kaine and Jon Corzine all qualify as blogosphere wins (and there are 2 or 3 others I'm forgetting); it's just that in all 5 of those cases, there was no establishment opposition, only Republican opposition. This may be the first case of Blogosphere vs. Cocktail Party circuit, which may explain the anger.
But it *is* bizarre. Were these people up in arms about Pat Toomey challenging Specter in '04? About Laffey challenging Chaffee this year?
Posted by: Greg M. | Jul 21, 2006 1:56:20 PM
Greg M,
The other two you are missing are Tester in MT and Webb in VA...
Tester was against the party establishment and he destroyed the insider candidate...they are just trying to stem the tide that is coming.
I mean, if anyone who can appeal to the voters can just waltz in and have access to office...what the hell?![/sarcasm]
Posted by: Nazgul35 | Jul 21, 2006 2:17:27 PM
This primary against Joe Lieberman, a truly great man, is a travesty! You people have no idea what you are doing. What kind of sick, twisted worldview do you hold?
Joe is fighting back on the Internet with his own blog now. You're all gonna be sorry.
Posted by: Joe | Jul 21, 2006 2:21:27 PM
Whatever Lieberman's sins were originally, when he announced the independent campaign (on the Lieberman for Lieberman for Joe for Lieberman party) he made it clear that he is exactly what a democratic system is supposed to prevent: a leader who sees his post as an entitlement, rather than a gift from the people. That alone should be reason enough to vote for Lamont.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Jul 21, 2006 2:25:58 PM
SomeCallMeTim:
But, really, the interesting thing about the current anti-TNR/DLC groups, the anti-Iraq War groups, and the anti-Lieberman groups, is that they are all pretty representative of the Establishment class. Kos has a JD from BU, Atrios a PhD from Brown, etc. What you're really seeing is something like an unacknowledged (and maybe an unconscious) struggle between parts of the Establishment.
[...]
Put it this way: as between GHWB (anti-Iraq war) and GWB (pro-Iraq war), the former is more representative of what we long thought of as the Establishment.
Um... so let me get this straight:
1) Going to BU or Brown makes someone automatically "part of the Establishment"?
2) Atrios, Kos, and the rest of the left/pro-Lamont blogosphere are part of George H.W. Bush's crowd?
Those are certainly... strikingly original opinions.
Clearly, a lot of people still don't understand what the blogs are all about.
Posted by: Maximus | Jul 21, 2006 2:28:57 PM
I agree completely, Samuel. Lieberman has a very Jacob Javits* feel about him now. If Lieberman loses the primary, he's damaged goods, and that's that. The CT republicans will back the republican, and the democrats will back the democrat. That doesn't leave much left for Joe.
* The generally quite popular Javits lost the 1980 republican primary in NY to Al D'Amato and ran an indy campaign. He got crushed in the 3 way.
Posted by: Geeno | Jul 21, 2006 2:30:45 PM
is that they are all pretty representative of the Establishment class. Kos has a JD from BU, Atrios a PhD from Brown, etc.
This is quite the novel theory, I must admit. Getting a JD makes one part of the "establishment"? Or a PhD?
So any advanced degree makes you establishment? Or just those from Northeastern universities? Do some advanced degrees mean more than others? My buddy who has a PhD in philosophy from Harvard, is he now establishment? And where are they now that he needs a job?
Or is it just holders of advanced degrees who blog? So advanced degree holders have a provisional membership in the "establishment", but only if they head on over to blogspot and activate it?
Posted by: kos | Jul 21, 2006 2:39:05 PM
the entire concept of a primary challenge against Lieberman a simply illegitimate form of opposition.
I wonder how they feel about a challenge to Zell Miller?
Posted by: Adrock | Jul 21, 2006 2:49:54 PM
Worse than that kos.
You gave a Brown grad with a JD access to your FP.
It is an Establishment clique you have formed.
Heh.
Posted by: Armando | Jul 21, 2006 2:53:28 PM
Geeno,
The only thing I wonder about in the 3-way (should it happen), would be that Schlessinger looks so incredibly weak right now. If the CT GOP can't get him off the ballot, I can't help but to think that a lot of CT Republican voters would be willing and able to pull the lever for Lieberman. That said, I still think the Javits analogy is on target, and losing the primary would have a devastating impact on his standing in the general.
Posted by: Rich C | Jul 21, 2006 2:57:18 PM
Maximus, kos:
I seem to have said this badly. I'll try to be more substantive later, but just to clarify:
1. It wasn't meant as a criticism, but as a complement. Not clear that matters to either of you; it could be that the notion of not being anti-Establishment (or whatever) is what's offensive.
2. The JD, the PhD, and sainted "Brown," are all pretty standard Establishment indicia of "people who should be treated seriously." There are, as Atrios sometimes notes, lots of reasons to think these are silly reasons to categorize people as serious. But they're still pretty standard indicia.
3. As many people, including kos (I think), have noted, the "netroots" (or that part of it which is easiest ot see) is not very radical. Indeed, my own sense has always been that the netroots arose as a response to the radicalness of the Bush Administration and the apparent blindness of the national media and the opinion makers to that fact.
I take the netroots as opposing the Iraq war on something like realist grounds--because it was stupid. I take the netroots as opposing the Padilla policy on the grounds that it was an outrageous deviation from what you would usually consider standard policy (and constitutional behavior) towards a citizen. I take the netroots as opposed to Alito and Roberts not because they might not be sufficiently aggressive in moving the law forward, but because they might roll the law backwards.
All these strike me as what I would once have thought of as pretty standard Establishment perspectives. Or, maybe better, I take the netroots' reaction to the Bush Administration and the DLC/TNR block to be one of defending what was previously the common understanding of what America is, and how it should behave. And I think that's why you see unexpected commonalities popping out from places like Scowcroft, George Will, etc.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jul 21, 2006 3:11:59 PM
Good points, good corrections, Greg M and Nazagul, there have been several campaigns in which the bloggers have organized and helped a progressive candidate win.
What strikes me as different in this case is that Lamont appears to have been launched almost alone by the bloggers, in the other cases it was part of a broader effort.
Albeit bloggers both in and outside of CT - the national bloggers raked in the cash and buzz, but it appears the state folks really nailed Lieberman on the ground there.
But good corrections, I was, uhh, err, wrong.... God I hate writing that.
Posted by: Samuel Knight | Jul 21, 2006 3:15:32 PM
What I find most interesting about this is that the pro-Lieberman forces are assigning power to the blogosphere that it simply does not have. The money and the attention that have come from the blogosphere aren't exactly chicken feed but they also aren't sufficient to sway the voters of Connecticut unless they want to be swayed.
Frankly, the real problem here is Lieberman. He's out of touch with his constituents and he's been running a truly awful, amateurish campaign. If he were not, all the blogosphere money and attention in the world wouldn't have gotten Lamont to more than, say 20% or so.
An incumbent Senator, particularly one with national stature, simply does not lose a primary campaign if he has the kind of field operation and connection to his constituents that he damn well ought to have. Lieberman doesn't; he's paying the price.
Posted by: PaulB | Jul 21, 2006 3:42:29 PM
SomeCallMeTim:
I think you miss one key difference. Class.
Kos has a Brown JD, and paid for it via the GI Bill after military service, for example. Read through the TNR folks background, and you find a ton of trust fund kiddies. In this corner we have the legacy Brown students, and in the other the scholarship kids.
I used to call the Dean campaign the "Second Son's Rebellion". In the Middle Ages, they usually followed primogeniture, where the eldest son got everything, and the rest got bupkus. When we stopped into the coffee house in Iowa on our way to campaign, you could tell the Dean people from the Kerry people, not by their education (very similar), but by their clothes and cars. Army surplus jacket? Dean. Brooks Brothers? Kerry. Beater driven cross country? Dean. Hertz midsize rental with the GIS option, rented at the airport? Kerry.
What has happened is that for years the entree into politicas has been the Mommy and Daddy subsidy. You needed that for the connections, and simply to afford to take the crappy pay entry level politics offered. So the scholarship kids went private sector to pay off their debt, while the rich kids played politics. Politics was a game for the top 10% and their progeny.
With the internet, all of those top 40% but not top 10% folks can get in. The scholarship kids. The state school students. I'm not just talking present students, I'm talking the mid level professionals who have been able to hop in at 35, having previously been closed out as a kid just getting out of school.
That's where the split is. Class. By disintermediating politics, technology has leveled and widened the playing field. And when the commoners scrap with the nobility, it always gets ugly.
Posted by: John | Jul 21, 2006 3:58:12 PM
I think another reason why the DC Establishment (Dem. Division) has been so shaken by Ned Lamont's challenge to Sen. Leiberman's life tenure in his Senate seat is that aside from the reasons Ezra and JMM cited, a Lieberman defeat - especially if perceived to be at the hands of the dreaded "netroots"- would serve to bring the issue of the Iraq War front-and-center back into the national campaign spotlight. And, that, I think, more than the prospect of an Insider getting the boot in a primary, is what probably has given the DLC and its gang the bad case of the vapors.
Marshall Wittman kinda-sorta gets the idea: in his otherwise inane fulmination about the Lieberman primary-challenge, he brings up the Vietnam era, and how the radical "challenge" to Hubert Humphrey in the 1968 election killed the Democrats, and handed Richard Nixon the Presidency. Presumably because the American public were so turned off by the violent dirty-hippie anti-war/counterculture crowd, that the Decent Centrist Liberal (HHH) didn't stand a chance against the "patriotic" pro-war Republican.
Now I think The Moose is full of bull on this point: the times, and the polity, are vastly different then-and-now: but there is a (very small) kernel of truth in his analysis. The Republicans are going to have very very little in the way of positives to run on in the November mid-terms. Karl Rove's plan to make "national security" the linchpin of GOP re-election efforts can't really succeed without a demon/enemy/bogeyman for the voters to have to vote against, and I suppose that the thought of them having (Decent Centrist Liberal) Joe Lieberman held up as a martyr to the deranged, slavering radicals of the Evil Netroots (cut-and-run, terrorist-loving, Bush-deranged peacenik nuts the lot) can't make the DC Establishment feel good.
Posted by: Jay C | Jul 21, 2006 3:59:42 PM
SCMT,
I think that you're working from a different view of what "establishment" means. For you, IMO, it means people who are highly educated and possessing political views that are not on the extreme liberal side. Only wingnuts accuse all the lefty bloggers of being extremists, and I agree that most of the lefty blogosphere is pretty center-left.
But for many of us, the "establishment" consists of people who are a part of the clubby, incestuous world of DC think-tanks, publications and punditry. Not all of them went to Ivy-league schools. In that setting it's not nearly as important as it is to understand that congressional staffers, writers for political publications and DC columnists are simply better than the am ha'eretz out in flyover country. Better able to understand all the important stuff that goes into running a country, and better able to make all these hard decisions that need to be made. They value chumminess over all else because politics truly is a game to them.
People like Kos drive them nuts because, despite his JD's pedigree, he hasn't done anything to work his way up the ladder, hasn't paid his dues, yet has a circulation in the millions. He hasn't hired a publicist and doesn't just spout the rhetoric of change (they all do that), but actually makes a habit of supporting true outsiders.
There is an extremely small set of people who control the political discourse in their country, and they are all great friends - no matter what "side" we're suposed to think they're on. The liberal blogosphere is getting regular people involved - again without any dues paying - and helping all of us to stay informed without having to resort only to the "official" transcripts.
This is why they hate Howard Dean, because he's spending money to help regular people in Mississippi organize instead of fattening up the insiders' coffers.
That's why it's so important for all of us, at least those committed to regular people actually having a voice in politics, to work on building a movement rather than just trying to win a few elections. Things look good for Democrats in November, but even so there's a lot of work to do, much of it within the Democratic party itself.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 21, 2006 4:02:58 PM
RE bloggers: when is someone going to point out that another name for "bloggers" is "voters"?
The stark truth is that bloggers, on both sides are the extreme of the spectrum. More and more it's becoming blogger=extremist.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jul 21, 2006 5:05:44 PM
The stark truth is that bloggers, on both sides are the extreme of the spectrum. More and more it's becoming blogger=extremist.
Kevin Drum? Josh Marshall? Ezra Klein? Glenn Greenwald? Brad DeLong?
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jul 21, 2006 5:16:25 PM
The stark truth is that bloggers, on both sides are the extreme of the spectrum. More and more it's becoming blogger=extremist.
That's pure bullshit, Fred. A more apt remark would be, "More and more it's becoming blogger=specialist." There's a whole world of blogs written from the perspective of a particular profession (e.g. law, various branches of the sciences), which generally only delve into politics when it affects their discipline. And even the political blogs often move into their own specialized niches -- look at Mr. Klein's focus on health care economics, for instance.
Posted by: sglover | Jul 21, 2006 5:18:32 PM
The stark truth is that bloggers, on both sides are the extreme of the spectrum. More and more it's becoming blogger=extremist.
That's pure bullshit, Fred. A more apt remark would be, "More and more it's becoming blogger=specialist." There's a whole world of blogs written from the perspective of a particular profession (e.g. law, various branches of the sciences), which generally only delve into politics when it affects their discipline. And even the political blogs often move into their own specialized niches -- look at Mr. Klein's focus on health care economics, for instance.
Posted by: sglover | Jul 21, 2006 5:19:06 PM
Let's not ever suggest that a self-financed senatorial campaign by a multi-millionaire is an "assault on privilege." And I ask that as someone who supports Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman. I firmly believe that privilege is assaulted when a former welfare recipient runs for Congress as Lynn Woolsey did. Ned Lamont is doing many good things, but assaulting privilege is not among them.
Let me propose another reason Lieberman is so well-liked by the pundits and opinion-shapers in DC. His opinion is their opinion. Most of America liked Clinton and were long tired of and so "over" the Lewinsky issue, but the punditocracy wanted him spanked, so Joe obliged. They wanted the marginalization of war critics and other realists to be bipartisan so Joe obliged. They wanted bipartisan cover for torture, unconstitutional privacy breaches, extraordinary rendition and the other authoritarian, tyrannical elements introduced into American government policy and Joe obliged.
He's extraordinarily obliging to those in power and those who hold the keys to media access and limelight. For such an unteligenic man with such an annoyingly nasal voice, he gets extraordinary tv time. He knows that to continue to be feted on tv (including on Fox) he has to betray the Democracts, but as he said, their are higher loyalties than to one's party. There's one's loyalty to the Beltway.
Posted by: Kija | Jul 21, 2006 6:30:21 PM
kija
you capture a key element- the media likes him. and who the media likes the media gives a pass go to when it comes to critcism. in 2000, a candiate bush was loved by the media- so they gave much of his bullshit compassionate conservatism a pass go. they didn't like a boring, but basically okay gore, so they put him down. the same is true of kerry. i know this because i had the pleasure of being at an event in which this very fact was explained to us by members of our illustrious main stream media. they said that kerry wasn't as 'friendly' and that's why they had problems with him. whereas candidate bush was nicer to them when not answering questions.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 21, 2006 6:58:17 PM
Kija: You usew the tools you have available. If you are putting together an anti-WalMart sign, and all you possibly have is a Wal-Mart bought screwdriver, you use the screw driver.
In our present system, the only way you fight an entrenched incumbent beloved by the DC establishment is someone who can self-finance that shares enough of your values. It would be great to battle out this fight sans the irony (beating a sold-out son of the middle class with scion of the wealthy), but we've already seen in Hackett how the connected will fight in the gutter for control. You can't win.
The hope, and objective is that enough of the elite non-elitists will get in and flip the campaign finance laws, etc...so the next generation will have the chance closed to them now.
Pure pragmatic hardball, folks.
Posted by: John | Jul 21, 2006 7:21:36 PM
Let's not ever suggest that a self-financed senatorial campaign by a multi-millionaire is an "assault on privilege."
Such a simplistic view of what constitutes "privilege" is part of the problem. I'm pretty good friends with a millionaire - not 300 million like Lamont - and I can tell you that there isn't a politician anywhere that gives a damn what he thinks. He's got assets, but no power. To just declare that he is "privileged" in a similar vein as Lamont or even Lieberman is to fundamentally misunderstand what so many of us are talking about.
Lamont's wealth has not purchased anywhere near the amount of access and power that Lieberman's obsequience has for him.
If we wanted to talk about Lamont's ability to fight a drug charge, or the likelihood that homes in his neighborhood would ever be targeted for having the door busted in, then we could talk about "privilege" and how it relates to Lamont.
It's just like with Kos. If we want to discuss the likelihood of Kos's son being able to attend good schools, always see the doctor when he needs to and find his way to a good college, well that has to do with "privilege" in this society.
But it has nothing to do with political power and the sense of privilege and entitlement that is shared by all of the staffers, pundits, interns, lobbyists, politicians and think-tank members in DC. To confuse these radically different types of privilege is to play the game according to their rules.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 21, 2006 7:23:40 PM
You misunderstand my point. I think Lamont is a good alternative to Lieberman and he has run a strong grassroots campaign. I also like Tom Swan and think Lamont's choice of him to run his campaign indicates a sincere commitment to the grassroots and to progressive values.
However, calling his campaign an assault on privilege is a poor choice of language and one that marginalizes even more those who are truly on the downside of power -- the poor, people of color and the disenfranchised. You could call it an assault on "politics as usual" or on entrenched power, but not on privilege. Privilege is a term of art that has very specific meaning and its misuse not only is overly grandiose in describing the Lamont campaign - it will alienate Lamont's likely support among those who are would be likely Lamont supporters.
Thankffully, most of them are sophisticated enough to recognize that Lamont himself makes no such claim.
Posted by: Kija | Jul 21, 2006 8:11:16 PM
Kevin Drum? Josh Marshall? Ezra Klein? Glenn Greenwald? Brad DeLong?
These people look moderate to you only in contrast to the majority of the others. For everyone of these, I can give you 20 of the others. Try pandagon for instance. Would you like to try to defend those nut-jobs?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jul 21, 2006 8:48:20 PM
And each 'specialist' misses the forest for the trees....focusing only on his pet cause to the exclusion of the rest. It's like the blind men describing the elephant, each so intent on the foreground that the background goes underground.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jul 21, 2006 8:51:23 PM
Fred Jones wrote: "you like to try to defend those nut-jobs?"
Of course. Bring it on.
Posted by: PaulB | Jul 21, 2006 8:55:46 PM
Kija: Of course there's no voice for the "truly poor". The history of western politics has always been about a slow expansion of the full franchise.
When this country was founded, only property holder had the franchise in most places. The President wss lected by the Senate. Women couldn't vote at all. Over time, step by step these things fell.
In the 60's, the boomer kids broke things open and took political opportunity away from the 1-2% mandarins in the back room, and forced the creation of the open primary system. Brokered conventions and blatant fixes were a thing of the past. You could also say technology (TV) drove this expansion of the full franchise...unfortunately it stopped at the top 10%, who slammed the doot behind them.
Now technology (internet) has forced the door wider, so the middle class and up can combine in way that was impossible before, and has it's own power. As I said, roughly the top 40% is now viable. The rest are still locked out. But that doesn't invalidate the importance of the expansion, any more than direct Presidential elections and the dropping of property requirements was utterly invalid because women still couldn't vote.
Each expansion leads into the next expansion.
Posted by: John | Jul 21, 2006 9:13:19 PM
I find their ideological and electoral motivations mere sandrock obscuring a core rage at this affront to tradition and orderly succession. I didn't believe this even a few months ago, but I've been forced to conclude that what scares folks about Lamont is that he represents an assault on privilege...
LOL. Kija is totally on the money; as for Stephen telling us that "pretty good friends with a millionaire - not 300 million like Lamont - and I can tell you that there isn't a politician anywhere that gives a damn what he thinks" let me help you out - penny-anyte millionaires are thick on the ground in Lamont's part of Connecticut, and no one cares, but $300 million is real money. As to poor Ned's lack of access, how about this, from the Kos himself:
Kiki Kennedy, Ted's wife, has been promoting Lamont to her personal circle -- the Lamonts and Kennedys apparently have long had a warm relationship.
That would be Ted Jr., not Ted the Senator.
I don't think we need to lose sleep worrying about poor Ned's lack of access to power.
As to Lamont's campaign being "an assault on privilege" - man, I laugh every time I read that. "An assault on privilege". Sorry.
Let me say this - if a political lifer like Dan Malloy (Stamford mayor running for Governor) had stepped up and opposed Lieberman with the support of liberal bloggers, I would not have blinked.
But Lamont looks exactly like a guy who had the odd $300 mil lying about and realized that, although US Senate seats don't come on the market that often, all he needed to do to pick one up on the cheap was to be an anti-war Democrat and get lucky.
I don't see this as any kind of "assault on privilege" - this is much more an entrenchment of privilege.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | Jul 21, 2006 10:01:13 PM
Samuel Knight makes a good point above. If Lamont wins the primary, Lieberman is damaged goods, and will be under great pressure to quit the race. The day after the primary, we'll be looking at an entirely different reality, and Leaverman's bluff at running as a indpendent will ring hollow.
Posted by: global yokel | Jul 21, 2006 10:53:32 PM
Kilja,
"He's extraordinarily obliging to those in power and those who hold the keys to media access and limelight."
Agree completely.
Joe Lieberman always sides with the DC Elite consensus. Name an issue, any issue and you will find Lieberman on the side of WP editorial page, David Broder, Cokie Roberts and the gang.
Lieberman's loyalty is to the Plutocracy. If he has become a neocon it is because much of the DC power elite has become neocon. It is not sincere conviction.
In the 60s DC power elite was pro civil rights, anti Vietnam war. So was Lieberman. Politics of DC elite changed. They became more conservative. So did Lieberman. He always wants to side with the Powers That Be. His scolding of Clinton was to engratiate himself to the DC Coctail Circuit. It had the desired effect. Gore picked him for VP because he thought it would please the press. It did.
Lieberman is one of the most unprincipled politicians alive. He has no convictions except staying on good terms with the Powers That Be.
Posted by: Nan | Jul 21, 2006 11:15:45 PM
I don't think Ned looks anything like that, Tom. Before he ran, he was running around CT looking for anybody else whom he could convince to run against Joe as an antiwar candidate. It's only after he couldn't push anyone into the race that he reluctantly ran.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jul 21, 2006 11:38:20 PM
Tom & Kilja,
You are trying to make sure that this discussion occurs solely upon your definition of "privilege."
"Privilege" is not a term of art, it is a word that has a particular meaning. Like many others, the precise meaning can change depending upon the context.
So Kilja, I can understand your position and I pretty much agree with it. But "politics as usual" doesn't even come close to the level of assumed privilege that the DC establishment accords itself.
I think that what's happening is both of us are worried that the other doesn't take the problem of "privilege" seriously enough. Despite our quibbling over semantics, I imagine that isn't the case.
Tom,
Why so bitter, dude? What did Lamont ever do to you?
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 22, 2006 12:10:09 AM
Tom represents an increasely deranged and hostile Lieberman supporter who finds their own appeasement approach to politics being challenged
Posted by: akaison | Jul 22, 2006 11:00:29 AM
The current hysteria of the Lieberman establishment to Lamont's challenge is almost identical to the hysteria of the Gore-Lieberman establishment to Nader's challenge in the 2000 presidential election.
In both cases, the challengers have offered platforms whose substance is far more progressive than the DLC-diluted centrism of the incumbents. And in both cases, supporters of incumbent power have been deeply offended that idealistic outsiders would dare to actually utilize the machinery of democracy to threaten their entrenched power.
Only difference is, a lot of Democrats who supported Gore-Lieberman in 2000 are supporting Lieberman's ouster in 2006.
Fascinating how things change.
Posted by: Kai | Jul 22, 2006 12:37:41 PM
Kai,
Nader took GOP money to run a dishonest campaign against Gore. He wasn't really running for president, he was running against the Democrat.
Apples and oranges.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 22, 2006 2:30:49 PM
Stephen:
Yes, I've heard these DLC talking points before. Could you please back up these charges with links to non-partisan sources? As I recall, these were corporate media fabrications, but I'm willing to check out your claims.
Frankly, you appear to illustrate my point that the attacks on the Nader campaign have the same lack of substance as the attacks against Lamont. No discussion of policy positions, just loaded technocratic soundbites.
As Michael Lerner wrote in Tikkun magazine in 2004:
Will the resounding commitment of liberals and progressives to the notion of 'Anyone But Bush' do any more than guarantee the re-election of Bush for another four years?The Democrats are in danger of sidelining their most principled voices and once again (as in the Clinton-Gore years) appearing to care more about what's popular than what's principled, with the possible consequence of becoming less popular.
I have no problem with any of their leading contenders, but if, for example, Kerry is perceived to win the nomination not because of what he stands for but rather because he has been judged electable, that itself may become the reason he won't be.
...Instead of speaking to the deep yearning of Americans for a world of kindness and generosity, for moral goodness and spiritual coherence, the Democrats and their supporters have generated (or some might say capitulated to a media-generated) language of technocratic practicality that will dissipate the very support they so desperately seek in the elections of 2004.
The fact is that you cannot win Americans over to an alternative to the radical ideology of the neoconservative Right that has been the foundation of the Bushites' success by providing them with a variety of cautious half-measures lacking any coherent intellectual foundation or vision. The unbearable lightness of the Democrats—their inability to stand for anything at all—has been with us since the 1990s, when Congressional Democrats were unable to construct a liberal or progressive alternative to Gingrich's very effective (though from our standpoint reprehensible) "Contract with America," which boosted Congressional Republicans to majority status in the 1994 elections. Even in 2002 those Democrats managed to take a perfect moment for re-ascendancy and present themselves as the party that had no unifying theme or message.
...If we are trying to decide whether a candidate believes in a coherent worldview that coincides with our own deepest ethical and spiritual truths, we can make that determination ourselves by listening to what they say and have said and done in their public lives. But if we are trying to decide whether they are electable, we give the power to the media and the pollsters to tell us who we should be backing. The result is that many of the candidates who most closely represent the American people's highest ideals can be pushed out of the race, opening up the way for a candidate who fulfills the ideals of those who own and control the media.
And as I wrote in a 2004 post entitled "Make 'em squirm, Ralph!":
The silliest thing about all this is that if Democrats spent as much energy fighting for sensible electoral reform as they spend on trying to prevent Nader from running, the entire problem could be solved and the US could join the rest of the democratic world in having important third parties and fourth parties and fifth parties involved in national politics. The simplest reform to US elections, which would eliminate all this bickering, would be instant runoff voting, in which voters rank candidates in the order of their preference. In other words, imagine if you could vote for Nader as your first choice and Kerry as your second choice. If your first choice weren't one of the top two candidates, then your second choice would get counted. This way, everybody votes for whoever they truly believe in, no votes are cast in vain, and there's no more confused ranting about "spoilers". It could be a novel concept: a "democratic election" rather than a "media charade".So get a grip, Democrats. Stop whining about who's running and start affirming a vision that moves people. Stop giving your voting power to the corporate media and start trusting the higher ideals of the American people. Stop acting too wimpy to compete for votes and start waging political battle built upon ideas and agendas that address the great issues of our time.
Then I'll consider voting for the Democratic Party again. Until then: Run, Ralph, and make 'em squirm!
Peace.
Posted by: Kai | Jul 22, 2006 3:26:35 PM
They think they're supporting the political system by backing Lieberman. The truth is that they're making the Revolutionists who died for their freedoms roll over in their graves and showing themselves for the Tories they are (my apologies to any contemporary Britons, but I think you know what I mean, here). This is disgusting. It's exactly why we have the whole system to begin with. What ARE people thinking? WAKE UP!!
Posted by: Chailife77 | Jul 22, 2006 4:20:35 PM
Well, Tom McGuire -- you may think we agree, but we don't. Ned Lamont is not assaulting privilege, but he is also not buying a Senate seat for his trophy case. I think he is running out of a sincere desire to serve the public good by replacing a wrong-headed senator whose misguided devotion to the Iraq War brings his judgement into question.
Joe Lieberman is an albatross dragging the Democratic Party down by giving bipartisan voice to Republican talking points. He's also revealed that he is essentially undemocratic (small d) and authoritarian in ideology by his insistence that dissent is unpatriotic and that challenging an incumbent is an outrage against tradition. The primary is where the party holds its members accountable and Lieberman is essentially demanding he be free from accountability to the party. Shame on him!
I merely think that Ezra Klein (not Ned Lamont) is making a grandiose and inappropriate claim on Lamont's behalf. Lynn Woolsey's successful run for Congress was an assault on privilege, Ned Lamont's run for the Senate is not. I understand that tackling an entrenched and medialicious incumbent like Lieberman almost requires a wealthy candidate who can self-finance and I am glad that Lamont is sacrificing the time he could spend increasing his millions to go into pubilc service -- but I still can't call that assaulting privilege. He's opening the windows in the smoke-filled rooms of political fixing. He's taking on the conventional wisdom, assaulting the Beltway mentality, overturning the apple cart, flipping the political pancake, whatever...he's not assaulting privilege.
Posted by: Kija | Jul 22, 2006 6:02:15 PM
Yes, I've heard these DLC talking points before.
You've apparently never read any other comment from me before.
I see how you really like Nader, but unless you are a pundit or part of the Bush Administration, simply wishing a thing does not make it true. Lieberman vs. Lamont is nothing like Nader's egotistical farce of a campaign.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 22, 2006 9:51:30 PM
There's also an (invidious) distinction between "responsible" and "irresponsible" actors, as in "responsible officials" and "irresponsible activists," that's correlated with the other distinctions that structure the Lieberman-Lamont race, but not reducible to them. Who knows how salient it is compared to Iraq, other ideological dimensions, the guild consciousness of the political class, its antipathy to political demands expressed outside established institutions, etc., but it may have at least some force.
This is an empirical question, in principle answerable objectively. In practice, maybe not.
Posted by: KH | Jul 23, 2006 3:29:23 AM
Stephen:
I apologize for the sin of opening my mouth without having read your previous writings.
Nevertheless, calling Nader "egotistical" is about as substantive as calling Dean "angry". In fact, let's just say I yield to that argument and agree that Nader is more egotistical than all the other politicians in Washington DC (come on, do you really believe that?); I still want to know, just out of intellectual curiosity, which parts of his platform you opposed; which parts of his proposed policies did you find less progressive than Gore-Lieberman...?
If your answer is simply that he wasn't "electable", you just handed the power of your vote to the corporate media, since they're the ones who make that call, using words like "electable" and "moderate" to establish the range of permissible political discourse.
Peace.
Posted by: Kai | Jul 23, 2006 6:20:31 AM
Okay, Stephen, let's drop this Nader thing. I believe my point has been amply illustrated. Lamont's opponents in the Lieberman camp prefer to discuss anything other than the substance of Lamont's policy disagreements with Lieberman, just as Nader's critics (see Stephen's comments above) prefer to call Nader names rather than address his platform. Entrenched power is a strnage phenomena; its beneficiaries seldom welcome fundamental challenges to its privilege.
Peace.
Posted by: Kai | Jul 23, 2006 6:38:32 AM
