An Answer To A Question No One Thought To Ask…
…though there are those who would presume to answer for me – Glenn Greenwald, for example:
Those who are most supportive of Lieberman and angry about the challenge he faces are people like David Frum and David Brooks. Why would hard-core Republican neoconservatives be so emotionally attached to defending Democrat Joe Lieberman? Why do pro-Bush, highly conservative Republicans such as blogger Mark Coffey proclaim themselves to be “huge fans” of Lieberman? Because far more than he is a Democrat or a “liberal,” Joe Lieberman is a neoconservative and therefore — on the issues that matter most — is their ideological and political compatriot. In the 1990s, Joe Lieberman’s positions on the dominant issues of the day may have rendered him “moderate to conservative,” but on the issues that matter most now — in light of the ideological realignment we have had in the wake of 9/11 — he is nothing of the sort. He is a neoconservative, and therefore the political enemy of those who oppose that philosophy. Why would opponents of neoconservatism possibly support the re-election of a neconservative?
Much of the criticism directed at the challenge to Joe Lieberman is based on the premise that dissatisfaction with Lieberman is driven merely by one little issue – Iraq. But that argument is at once both factually false and absurd. Lieberman is supportive of the neonconservative agenda almost across the board.
Ahem…Joe Lieberman, ‘supportive of the neonconservative [sic] agenda almost across the board’. Wow…
Well, the temptation is awfully strong to get sidetracked, but the relevant part of Greenwald’s post to THIS post was the following: “Why do pro-Bush, highly conservative Republicans such as blogger Mark Coffey proclaim themselves to be “huge fans” of Lieberman?”
The answer has nothing to do with the ridiculous notion that Joe Lieberman is a neocon just because he supports the war in Iraq. Do I appreciate support from a prominent Democrat for the war? Yes, I do. Hillary has hardly been a diehard opponent of the war, however; am I a ‘huge fan’ of hers? No, I am not, though I appreciate her support as well.
Tying my support (and I only speak for me – nor do I now, nor will I ever, give Greenwald permission to do so) of Lieberman to Iraq is shortsighted. I was a fan of Joe Lieberman before there ever was an Iraq war. I am a fan of Joe Lieberman because of one reason: principle.
It takes a man of principle to take his Orthodox Judaism so seriously that he walked to his senior prom rather than drive on the Sabbath. It took a man of principle to engage in perhaps the only worthwhile candidate debate I have ever seen with Dick Cheney in 2000. It took a man of principle to participate in the great “I Have A Dream” march of MLK’s. It took a man of principle to join the Gang of 14 and forge a bipartisan compromise on Bush’s judicial candidates, when the Republican majority was threatening to go ‘nuclear’ and do away with the filibuster.
Lieberman is not afraid to take an unpopular stance with his fellow Democrats if it is his conviction. He criticized the sleazy behavior of Bill Clinton; he supports the Iraq War. Neither were cold political calculations, but were decisions based on his own, yes, principles. Isn’t that what we want? Is a statesman a mere pollster? Or does a statesman lead, and preferably by example?
Yet despite his willingness to defy party hegemony, Lieberman is no neocon. The mere notion is so absurd that I needn’t prove it, but I will. In 2005, the liberal activist organization Americans for Democratic Action, in its annual rankings of how Congress voted on key legislation dear to the heart of ‘progressives’, which they call the ‘Liberal Quotient’, gave Lieberman a rating of 80 out of a possible 100; in 2004, a 75; in 2003, a 70; in 2002, post-9/11 and the very height of neoconservative influence, an 85(!); and in 2001, a 95.
Those are the years of the Bush presidency, and they show a man who is, by any definition, a solid liberal. Glenn asks, “Why would opponents of neoconservatism possibly support the re-election of a neconservative?”.
I ask Glenn the following: why would you, and Jane Hamsher, and Kos, and so many other influential ‘progressive’ bloggers distort the record of Joe Lieberman? If it’s not intentional, why can’t you see what your hatred of Bush is blinding you to – the fact that you are opposing one of your greatest allies, a man of decency and honor, because he supports George W. Bush on the War in Iraq? Why would you call him a neoconservative, an incredible charge in the face of the ADA numbers? What kind of a neoconservative receives 70-95 ratings on ‘progressive’ votes?
I could go on, but I trust my point is made. I support Joe Lieberman not because he shares my political philosophy – far from it. I support him because he is everything a senator should be, and he is a leader, and leaders, by definition, don’t follow the herd…
UPDATE 11:27 p.m.: Our good friend Fargus chides me in the comments for blurring the distinction between neoconservatism and conservatism, as in the ‘Liberal Quotient’ ratings above. He’s right to do so, I concede; it is true that Joe Lieberman shares some common ground with neoconservatives on foreign affairs, and it is true that foreign affairs define neoconservatism more than domestic ones.
Fair enough. But would it not be just as accurate, and more meaningful, to label Joe Lieberman a ‘progressive’ or a ‘liberal’ based on his voting history? I think this once again points to the difficulty of pinpointing a certain ‘ideology’ on a man who is going to vote his conscience.
In any event, it’s not the voting history, or the label, that gets my support, so much as it is my belief that he is a leader and a man of principle who votes against my own preferences more often than not, but does it with honesty and consistency…
Comrades,
Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher will irrationally defy Joe Leiberman because they cannot abide a man of principle.
Mark, you must understand first and foremost that the basic underpinning of Liberalism is the distinctuion between the ruling classes and the masses they rule. Liberals are the direct decendants of the elitist European dynasties. Liberals are liberals because they believe themelves to be above the hoi paloi. Above the rest of us, and belonging to an enlightened class that needs must rule over everyone else.
Liberals, above all else, look to the effeminate Euroweenies as examples of how to rule, how to govern. They view Joe as something beneath contempt, because he leads by example, rather then by class.
Anything European is to be favoured above anything American. Americans, to the “progressive’s” eye, are just soooo provincial. The EU is to be emulated, and ‘consensus’ is the valued commodity. Joe rocks that boat by rising above the class distinctions and saying… “this is the right thing to do”. I don’t agree with Joe on a great number of things, but I admire him for being honest and speaking from his convictions.
Respects,
Gwedd
And on top of all that, he’s a JEEEEEWWWWW!!!
Mark, you’re my blogfather and I consider you a brother-in-arms, but “highly conservative”? Compared to Greenwald, maybe. I, on the other hand, think of you as a squishy moderate. *shakes head sadly*
I know, I know, the irony is I’m considered a RINO by Republicans and a raging wingnut by Democrats…
There is a difference between “neoconservative” and “conservative,” to be sure. The correlation isn’t necessarily as simple as the “Liberal Quotient” makes it out to be. Maybe if you were talking about “conservative,” to be sure, but not about “neoconservative.” Not trying to imply that you’re ignorant of these differences or anything. Not at all. Only that to talk about the terms interchangeably is a bit misleading.
I feel one of the main reasons they do not like Lieberman is because they can not control him. As has been pointed out, he is an independent thinker and does not always follow the crowd. Because they can not control him, they smear him instead of debating him on the issues. Standard discourse for politics. I predict he will win the primary.
Well, neoconservatism is usually associated with foreign affairs, I’ll grant you…but if you can show me just one more example in the entire House and Senate of a ‘neoconservative’ with those ‘Liberal Quotient’ scores, I’ll…well, I’ll congratulate you…
Continuing along that vein: if Irving Kristol’s definition of a neoconservative as a liberal who has been mugged by reality has any validity, it would appear that Lieberman is in denial of the mugging…
But even if I accepted the premise that Lieberman is a neocon (he certainly shares some traits with them, but I don’t see him in agreement much with the Weekly Standard, do you?), isn’t it also true (and a more apt description) that he is a true ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ in the classic sense?
Hey, I’m not taking sides on this one. I’m not read up enough on it to comment meaningfully, really, one way or the other. I only want to point out, as before, that there are significant differences between neoconservatives and “traditional” conservatives.
Got to say, though, I do love Muffin’s personification of the entire left as one entity that has a hive mind and despises those it can’t control. And here I’d thought I was thinking for myself. Sheesh. It’s only my respect for Mark’s no-swearing policy that holds the more colorful side of my tongue sometimes.
Well, Fargus, you’re right to chide me on not making enough of a distinction between neoconservatism and conservatism; I’m putting a brief update on the post…
That’s written by Max Boot. And who is Max Boot? Among other things, he is a contributing editor to the premier neocon magazine, The Weekly Standard.
So please, Mark, do inform Mr. Boot that it is a “ridiculous notion that Joe Lieberman is a neocon.”
Greenwald’s point — which is correct — is that foreign policy and terrorism-related domestic policy now dictate the post-9/11 political realignment. And Lieberman is one of the foreign policy neocons, which places him on the “right” wrt the issues that have assumed paramountcy.
Fargus,
Thank you for the compliment. I appreciate it. You should go back and read what I said about the left last night on this site. At work I am considered a liberal.
Well, Max Boot’s excerpt there hardly makes your point. I quote:
“…most neocons have switched to the Republican Party. On many issues, they are virtually indistinguishable from other conservatives”.
And did I not point out just how completely distinguishable Lieberman is from other conservatives with his voting record?
But your comment and my update to the post crossed paths – please see the update, where I give ground on the neocon point to reinforce my larger one.
In any event, Max Boot and Glenn Greenwald share one thing in common – neither has a clue why I support Lieberman and both would be wrong to presume to speak for me…
One more point, Mona, since you’ve come to chide me on my misapprehensions of the teachings of Greenwald; if foreign policy and the Iraq War have achieved ‘paramountcy’ (odd wording, that – I should prefer primacy), then isn’t Glenn and Jane’s argument that the opposition to Lieberman is broadbased and not a single-issue thing kind of flushed down the toilet?
And for that matter – what is the ‘whole neocon agenda’ that Lieberman supports? An aggressive, idealistic foreign policy – isn’t that it?
Again, we seem to be back to that single issue – which brings me back to those ADA ratings…
Mark writes:
Mark, I’m sorry, but it does. Whatever else is true, when the contributing editor of THE necon journal singles out only three Dems as being properly associated with the neocon label, and one of them is Joe Lieberman, then whatever else is true it is not “ridiculous” to describe Lieberman as a neocon. Especially not when foreign policy is the issue driving the current political polarization.
And I didn’t read Greenwald as “speaking for” you. It is a simple matter of reasonable inference that when Bush supporters hold particular favor for a Democrat, it is likely to be for the reason that on the issues most important to them, that favored Democrat supports George Bush. (This week’s Weekly Standard has a piece blasting those who are supporting Ned Lamont and trying to defeat Joe Lieberman. Why do you suppose The Weekly Standard so passionately cares about a Democratic primary?)
Well, then, it shows how ridiculous the label is to begin with…I stand by my assertion that he is more properly called a liberal…
In the sense that if standing for a robust foreign policy is enough to put you into the ‘neocon’ category, then the term has little usefulness…
The left is learning pack dog mentality.
22 Senators voted for authorization-to my knowledge only Kerry has recanted. Rather than attack their own party-against hopeless odds, they have targeted the one guy who has defended his vote.
The other 20 sheep are safe, so long as there is not a mass defection, otherwise, they would be on the chopping block.
Joe Lieberman is democrat. If the progressives want to deny him, riducling him for his character and ability to defend his ideals, let them.
He wins the primary with 57%+.
before I keep reading, and in netroot style and spirit I think it’s time for everyone take the blush off of the moniker
In leftist world neonconservative…means Jew Loyaltist…it does and since PC politics rules…I think Glenn Greenwald is bigoted.
Blush off flower.
Because they are scared as crap “Dear Leader” was right—an echo of Hawk Clinton and Gore with real balls— and really all the Dem leaders– and so the base have spent the last six years trying desperately and sort pathetically to forgot/erase (so much for loyalty to the Clintons eh>?)…then ultimately, by caveat…they are revealed to be more concerned with WINNING in politics I.E. POWER vs…the actual welfare of the country.
The far left want’s to take out Joe Lieberman because he IS a free-thinker and thus difficult to “control”, and more importantly, he IS persuasive.
If you look back in history you will see that global regiem changes involve removing the intellectuals from society because they are capable of orchestrating effect revolt and undermining the prupose of those who want to be in power.
The far-left doesn’t want to be part of the democratic party, they want to lead and be in control with their own party. They want totalitarian political rule and they have their sites focused on those who know best how to stop them. Joe Lieberman’s profound understanding of political science, his enormous hand-hold on Conn and New England politics, and his ethical and strongly principled demeanor add up to being a very powerful affront to the far-left’s initial invasion of American politics.
The Progressives want totalitarian political rule and Joe Lieberman is blocking their way. They are making an effort to install a puppet leader in Joe’s place. It is a position without honor for Ned Lamont–first puppet of the progressives.
mtl: If there were democrats similar to Lamont in Democratic primaries of the other 20 senators who voted for the war and if any of those senators said we must trust the president because it’s the American thing to do and if they had similar viewpoints regarding a raped woman’s right to get an abortion at a hospital that is nearest to the rape site, then I think you would have the same backing of those Democratic primary opponents as Lamont has. But, as it turns out, he’s the only one. So, get over it. It’s happening. Lamont will most likely lose. It’s not a big deal.
“THE Neocon Journal?” Mona, you don’t seem to have a good handle on the WSJ, or of their editorial policies. Max Boot has written many books and articles independent of the WSJ over the years, and has never been described as the final arbiter of “all – things neocon.” He’s just one of over a hundred contributing editors at the Journal – try to be more circumspect in the future with your half – baked analysis.
a raped woman’s right to get an abortion at a hospital that is nearest to the rape site
In fairness, this is not about abortion, but rather emergency contraception.
In double fairness, Lieberman’s opinion has nothing to do with the woman’s rights. It’s about the hospital’s rights. This is one of those messy places where two rights are crashing headlong into one another (I would claim it’s because one of them is rather illegitimately called a “right” – you can guess which) and we need to make a choice. It’s amazing to me that the left is so uniformly in favor of ignoring free exercise, but let’s not pretend that Joe’s position is unscrupulous.
Ryan: Sorry, that’s what I should have said, a raped woman’s right to emergency contraception. My apologies. I’ve got a bit of a cold and am in a near drunken state this morning. Tylenol cold nighttime+tylenol PM was a failed experiment…
Thanks for the correction.
I agree that hospital’s ‘rights’ are at play, but to deny something very much similar to an oral contraceptive to someone that was just raped is a silly position for them to take.
I also agree that perhaps my frame is unfair to Joe, but regardless, I think you get the point. If someone similar to Joe were in a hotly contested primary, the same backing would be given to the Lamont-like opponent over the Joe-like incumbent, but there just are no other such races in the other 20 seats that mtl cited. Only a handful of which are actually in play this year…
Sorry Mike but the Catholic Hospital doesn’t think it is a “silly position”. They think it is a mortal sin.
So what if it is a mortal sin? Isn’t that the whole point of Jesus dying? So we can commit sin, repent, then go to heaven anyway? Or does my atheistic mind not grasp something here? At least they could sin on the side of providing some peace of mind for the rape victim, much like they side on the side of providing peace of mind of the victims of people who commit violent crimes when supporting the death penalty.
Um, okay, so your argument is believers should be in favor of sin, since they believe in redemption…interesting…and ridiculous, no?…
Yes, very ridiculous indeed. Just being foolish.
It all boils down to when certain religious organizations are going to accept birth control as a necessary step in the evolution of the human being. It is a great step on the way to controlling our population as well as our hormones (and for women, a way to regulate your cycle, which is always much better than not knowing when it will happen or for how long, etc).
Also, let’s get all extreme and stuff. Let’s say there were an organization that refused to treat children with HIV or some other such virus when a baby is born because they considered it a mortal sin to do so, how would you feel about that? Or let’s say they refused to give TB shots? Morality should not be what dictates medical decisions, the medical community should be. If you’re not going to perform routine medical practices upon a patient’s request you should not be in the medical field.
How is it a mortal sin to kill a fetus if this is what’s in Exodus:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=21&verse=22&version=31&context=verse#en-NIV-2100
Seems the biblical justification against abortion is pretty scant, when viewed through this lens, right? I mean, if a man induces a miscarriage, he’s just got to pay off the dead baby’s father?
Well, I’m certainly not going to debate the Catholic faith with you; I am not now nor have I ever been a Catholic, but clearly, the Catholic Church believes delivering abortions is not in line with their religious mission.
I might also point out that Joe Lieberman just received the endorsement of NARAL to go along with his Planned Parenthood endorsement…
To my knowledge the Catholic Church does not support the death penalty. The Republican party does – but they aren’t running the catholic hospitals in CT.
I stand corrected (recently) on the Catholics and the death penalty. Apparently in ’99 there was a speech in St. Louis calling for us to abolish it. Go Pope John Paul II.
Well, the main legs are my argument are still standing: if you can’t perform a common medical procedure such as giving a day after pill to the few people that come into your clinic per year (how many people are we talking about per year anyway? A few 100?) because they were raped down the street and want to have some sort of peace of mind, then you shouldn’t be practicing medicine.
When anyone starts interpreting the Bible for you, it’s time to head for the hills.
Head for the hills instead of actually responding, right? Cool.