[Dean's World] Aziz P: a big tent needs strong poles

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Aziz P:
a big tent needs strong poles
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1155300667.shtml


   A friend with whom I discuss politics from time to time on email asked
   me yesterday:

     instead of standing with the president on some issues (i think you
     said "uncritically"), you feel that joe should have "uncritically"
     followed every single aspect of the democratic "team" platform?

   no, not at all - and in fact there are plenty of Dem politicos who
   take stands opposite to the mainstream and who are in fact celebrated
   for it. Harry Reid is pro-life, and he is Minority leader. Governor
   Brian Schweitzer is pro-gun. Tim Roemer (who recently lost his
   congressional seat to a GOP candidate) is really, really strong on
   defense. Many other Dem politicos voted just like Lieberman -
   including Clinton and Kerry! but also many many others too, all of
   whom never came under fire the way Joe did.

   And here's the single reason why. When any of the rank and file Dems
   disagree with the party on an issue, they say, "I believe in XYZ. I
   know that there is debate on XYZ within the party, and this is my
   position. I think that my belief in XYZ is good for my district
   because ABC..."

   When Joe talks about the issue (and here XYZ is understood to
   primarily be his uncritical acceptance of every single aspect of how
   the President pursues the war on terror - not just the vote for war,
   but also every decision made afterwards, and especially the
   president's nonexistent stance to diplomacy towards our national
   interests in the Middle East. For more on this, [1]read Djerjian),
   Joe's disagreement runs more like this:

   "I, Joe Lieberman, believe in XYZ, and i think it is shameful that my
   fellow Democrats disagree with me, and indicates a deeper problem
   within my party that I am courageously seeking to change. I think that
   the debate on XYZ within the party is harmful to our national interest
   and that the debate needs to stop. I think that my belief in XYZ is
   good for the nation because I am right and the Democrats in general
   are wrong - I am the "right" kind of Democrat and they are the wrong
   kind."

   Now, you may certainly agree that the Democrats are wrong on issue
   XYZ. And you may even agree that the debate on XYZ is harmful to the
   national interest. But what is unconscionable is how Joe uses the rest
   of what is ostensibly his own party as his foil to advance his
   political career. He campaigns as a Democrat at the expense of other
   Democrats. And that's not honorable behavior.

   And neither is it smart behavior. By repeatedly casting his own party
   as in the wrong, every attempt he makes to be "bipartisan" - not just
   Iraq, but also for example on Social Security privatization, where he
   repeated the President's [2]false claim that every year we don't "fix"
   Social Security adds $600 billion to the deficit - gives the President
   political cover for his own agenda, which is in marked contrast to all
   the progressive principles [3]that Joe reliably votes for. I am not
   saying Joe doesn't believe in his votes; I am saying he isn't acting
   to preserve their meaning. He is a tool, and he doesn't realize it,
   and in fact believes himself to be righteous for it.

   What I expect of both parties' politicos is honor. I want both parties
   to be diverse in their views but consistent and united in their
   politics. That is because - when both are correctly in opposition -
   they represent an important check and balance upon the system. I have
   [4]argued before that I am against methods like Instant Runoff Voting
   (which would empower third paries) and abolishing the electoral
   college on these grounds. I am also for [5]repeal of the 17th
   Amendment, as many of you well know.

   So should a Dem politico be an uncritical follower of the mainstream
   platform? No. But should they be 1. honorable and 2. smart? Yes. If
   you want to understand why Democrats voted Lieberman out of office,
   and voted Lamont in, the above is really the key.

   The CT primary wasn't some Rovian plot directed by Daily Kos. This
   wasn't even a revolution. It was a regression to the way things are
   supposed to be - a party should choose its elected reps based on their
   commitment to the party. Only then can those representatives be
   trusted to vote their ideals.

References

   1. http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2006/08/guns_of_august.html
   2. http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/07/paul_krugman_on.html
   3. http://www.adaction.org/lifetimesenconnecticut.html
   4. http://cityofbrass.blogspot.com/2003/10/ddb-tyranny-of-majority-tyranny-of.html
   5. http://cityofbrass.blogspot.com/2003/02/repeal-17th-amendment.html