Alternet is running a story this morning entitled Lamont’s Victory and Lieberman’s Insult to Democracy:
That’s right — Lieberman is announcing he will move forward with plans to abuse loopholes in Connecticut’s election laws, ignore Democratic Party voters who voted in our democratic process for change, and mount a Lieberman for Lieberman Independent bid.
What a load of crap!
Before I get too far in my rant, I should point out that I’m not a Lieberman supporter. I did vote for Lamont, and while I appreciate Lieberman’s not-being-a-left-winger, I agree that his participation in the Terry Schiavo mess was troubling, and he rolls over too easily in the name of compromise.
However, saying that Lieberman’s pursuit of an independent run is “an insult to democracy” is foolish, and a form of rhetoric that one would expect to be uttered by Karl Rove and his crowd.
Lieberman lost the primary. However, the primary is not the election. He lost the race to be the Democratic candidate for Senator for CT. The fact that he wants to serve, and that he knows (rightly or wrongly) that he is the best person for the job, is commendable and shouldn’t stop him for running from office without party support.
Talking about “Lieberman’s insult to democracy” is just as silly as saying that Lamont insulted the party by campaigning for the primary, rather than going along with the party endorsement of Lieberman at the state convention.
I said that a big part of my reason for voting for Lamont was for “entertainment value”. That’s true. You now have distilled down into one race a debate that the Democratic party needs to have with itself: What does the party want to be?
On the one hand, the party could become a bastion of liberalness — a tight group keenly focused on liberal issues and able to gain traction by working together on common issues, and an effective foil to the lockstep army of Republicans across the aisle. In essence, this would be the party of Lamont.
On the other hand, the party could take a “big tent” approach, welcoming in folks with varying viewpoints on different issues, keenly focused on a couple of topics, but much more tolerant of members’ individual views on almost every other subject. In other words, the party of Lieberman.
The former path faces the potential challenge of alienating mainstream America, even including those who feel discomfort and distrust towards the GOP. The Dems would, for better or worse, become the anti-Republicans, possibly directed by some anti-Rove. By having a clear path defined by their doctrines, they could be more effective than the Democratic party of today, but this opens a wide gulf of non-representation which could be filled by a GOP big-tent gambit or the formation of a centrist party.
The latter path has the strength of numbers. If the Democrats could reform themselves into a place where liberals, centrists, and some small-ell-libertarians can feel welcome, gaining a majority would be relatively easy. However, overcoming the wishy-washiness that seemingly plagues the party now could be problematic. As someone who actually prefers an impotent Congress (let the congresscritters play harmlessly in their sandbox, while the country runs along without their interferences) this wouldn’t be a bad thing, except for the existence of the seemingly-juggernaut-like GOP machine.
This debate of what the Democrats want to be when they grow up is a potentially healthy one, I think. Yes, there is the risk that internal dissention among the Dems could lead to nothing more than a big mess, and the distraction could diminish any potential gains the Dems could make in November.
However, if the party can get its act in gear and determine a clear direction this election cycle, it has the opportunity to be in good position to run against the GOP heading into the 2008 elections, when the White House would be in play in addition to both houses of Congress.
Watching this is going to be good fun. And I’m glad that I have a front-row seat for the show in Connecticut.