Joe Lieberman: “McCain reflects the legacy of John F. Kennedy”
According to Lieberman, “… the Democratic Party yesterday as protectionist, isolationist, and hyperpartisan.“ When did the Democratic Party become “isolationist”? Hyperpartisan? I fail to see any evidence of this accusation. Simply because Democratic representatives oppose Lieberman’s Middle East policy wish list doesn’t mean they’re “hyperpartisan;” it just means that they’re sane.
Lieberman, who won reelection to the Senate as an independent after losing the 2006 Connecticut Democratic primary, still caucuses with Democrats. But he has endorsed Republican John McCain’s presidential bid, and said yesterday that McCain reflects the legacy of John F. Kennedy.
McCain, he said, is “a reformer, somebody who understands ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country and remembers the other part of the Kennedy inaugural, which said that we will bear any burden, pay any price to assure the survival and sustenance of liberty. That’s John McCain.”
Lieberman also blasted Senator Barack Obama for voting against a resolution to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group and gave Clinton credit for supporting it.
Lieberman has simply entered a state of self inflicted delusion about the U.S.’s role in the Middle East: the U.S. should do anything and everything to protect Israeli interests.
What’s wrong with what Lieberman said?
“It’s not the Bill Clinton-Al Gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government. It’s been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and basically will–and very, very hyperpartisan. So it pains me. I’m a Democrat who came to the party in the era of President John F. Kennedy. It’s a strange turn of the road when I find among the candidates running this year that the one, in my opinion, closest to the Kennedy legacy, the John F. Kennedy legacy, is John S. McCain, a reformer, somebody who understands ‘ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country’ and remembers the other part of the Kennedy inaugural, which said that we will bear any burden, pay any price to assure the survival and sustenance of liberty. That’s John McCain.”
Democrats are now anti-trade (bucking 200 years of economic science), against using US force to support democracies and to prevent genocides (even to the point of denying that the surge worked in reducing violence), want taxpayers to bail out homeowners who made dumb decisions, not interested in reforming public schools through vouchers or charter schools (or even merit pay for great teachers), drag their feet on comprehensive immigration reform (and allowed the far right to hijack the issue), want to continue punting entitlement reform to future generations.
Daniel Henninger, WSJ, 2/28/08:
“By now, the Democratic Party’s ideas are largely generic. Everyone noticed that the Democratic presidential candidates were largely singing from the same script. Health care, public schools, green energy, the eternal shafting of the middle class, the unions, protecting Social Security and Medicare. This common script means that the Democratic primaries are largely an audition. The candidates are reading for a role. The lines are known.
The part, however, is challenging. The Democratic platform may be familiar, but it is also infused with the quality of a dream. Actually, the word “dream” gets used a lot in Democratic rhetoric. What are essentially bureaucratic arrangements, such as health insurance or after-school programs, are promised as “universal.” Meanwhile, “the middle class” is being offered a version of never-never land — total public protection from the traps and betrayals of the private sector, which has been reduced to a kind of Grimm’s Fairy Tale abstraction, the wolves.
If you are selling a dream you need the best possible salesman to make it seem somehow possible. They found him in Barack Obama.”
Shalesh
March 31, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Hi Shalesh. I really enjoyed your response to my little post and you make some great points. As I may disagree with many (but not all) of your assumptions about the Democratic Party, it was not the focus of my post.
What I was focusing on was Lieberman’s refusal to work with a party and his attacks on a party that supports many of the issues that he supports and got him re-elected in a highly contested contest (e.g. union support).
I am not sure what your position on the Iraq War is, but Lieberman has gone off the deep end in terms of MIDDLE EASTERN policy as a whole: he will do anything and justify any action which he sees as beneficial to Israel; not the USA, but Israel.
Lieberman’s Israel bias is well documented and he wants to lead us in a dangerous direction: Iran, Syria, Iraq – all are subject to US action on behalf of Israel, even if those actions DO NOT benefit the US.
Lieberman is sacrificing every issue that he shares with the Dems for a wildly miscalculated Iraq policy.
I’m not sure if this response made much sense (I’m in a bit of a rush), but I’d love to continue this discussion.
robfunk
March 31, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Rob, thanks for your response. I may have conflated your disagreement with Lieberman’s assessment of the Democratic Party with a typical Kos-sac-like view of righteousness. In my opinion, our mission in Iraq should be:
1) No tragedy (civil war or genocide)
2) No Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, or Turkey
3) Pathway to a stable democracy
I view our effort in Iraq now as a humanitarian necessity with withdrawal leading to massive sectarian violence (think the “killing fields” of Cambodia). We shouldn’t leave the Iraqi people to such a fate, and if you listen to the candidates’ (Obama hedging on leaving if there is massive violence) and their advisors’ (Samantha Powers saying Obama would not leave Iraq if there were conclusive signs of progress) conditions for leaving, we won’t leave no matter who is our next President.
If we can prevent a humanitarian tragedy, what difference does it make whether or not we have a pro-Israel bias or not? If we can save those people, we must not take the easy way out. Is this in America’s interest? Yes, I think it is helpful to have another functioning Democracy potentially friendly to the US in the Middle East.
Regarding Iran and Syria, these are state sponsors of terror — Hezbollah being the obvious example. The current government (not the people necessarily) of Iran embraces the “Death to America” chant. I didn’t read the Senate resolution on Iran, but it seems like a no-brainer to me too. If a more liberal government emerges in Iran, a more conciliatory view may be appropriate. We may have missed a chance when Iran helped us in Afghanistan, but that’s what happens when you have Donald “Oops I did it again” Rumsfeld in charge.
Shalesh
March 31, 2008 at 11:33 pm
I’m going to try to lay out my opinion on Iraq as best I can, however, it is an issue that I am constantly re-evaluating (please refer to an earlier post in which I (half-heartedly) asked is McCain was a “Profile in Courage” – ironically (in terms of this post) a term made famous by JFK – for his stubbornness on Iraq in the face of growing public opposition to it.
First, I too am a strong opponent of Hezbollah and totalitarian Islamist movements. This is a point that I think more Democrats should push. As a liberal, I strongly support liberty and freedom around the world. I am NOT a relativist. Although I am relative on some issues, I DO believe in universal values.
However, I think that the Democrats need to articulate and then implement a very different fight against radicalism and oppression – one very different from the failing policies put in place by the neocons. I am more in favor of policies that mirror the Marshal Plan and JFK’s political outreach programs that aim to change through peace and regional choices versus change put in place by force. Would the US be the democracy it is if France had come in, got rid of the Brits, and forced democracy? No.
With Iraq, we had an opportunity to stabilize the country, but because only 60 days of planning went into the reconstruction plans (versus the 2 years that went into the planning for the occupation of Germany) we failed and the Iraqi people lost faith in our intentions within the first 3 months.
The truth is, Iraq is already in civil war – almost all car bombings, mass killings, and kidnappings are between rival tribes, sects, city leaders, etc. Look to the latest battle in Sadr city, which was broken by the Prime Minister to go after Sadr, despite US opposition to such an act. That is clear picture of civil war. The US then picked as side, further cementing the Iraqi people’s feeling of anger.
Al Qaeda. It is true that Al Qaeda is now in Iraq. I am not one of those people that will respond to your point by saying, “but there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invasion” and then walk away from the argument. It is true that Al Qaeda opposed Saddam and had little to no power in Iraq prior to the invasion, but that was then. Now Al Qaeda IS in Iraq and we have to deal with the NOW versus the THEN. This is the strongest and most disturbing point you bring up and that is why I’m going to end my reply on this issue.
It is because of this point that I question what to do in Iraq and the only reason I even question bringing our troops home. But McCain’s plan will not fix this situation.
Honestly, I don’t know how to respond. It’s for this reason that I am currently studying Iraqi policy, etc. It’s a horribly difficult question, but, my feeling as of now, is that as long as it’s a question, no more American soldiers should die in a war we’re not sure about. I know that this is one weak ass response, but it’s all I can give you right now.
I hope you don’t see this response as a waffle, but instead as a reply from a liberal who doesn’t assume, but searches for pragmatic solutions. Pragmatically, what will benefit the country the most in human resources and economically? Getting out of Iraq.
robfunk
April 1, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Thanks Rob, a few clarifications. The US has not opposed Maliki’s crushing of Sadr or other sects. We are in fact supportive and provided air strikes on Sadr strongholds in Basra. Ironically, there’s going to be a lot of that over the coming years. The Sunni Awakening, which was crucial to killing Al Qaeda in Anbar, will one day have to be crushed by or integrated into the Iraqi Army. In US history, our Army had to crush a rebellion in order to have a functioning federal government. (I’m forgetting my high school history and the name of the rebellion.)
I suppose it’s good you waffle. Most Democrats present withdrawal as costless. To me, unless there’s some way to avoid tragedy, withdrawal is SHAMEFUL. If “imposing democracy by the sword” by using our Army to fight side-by-side with the Iraqi Army in crushing the militias saves many lives and speeds Iraq’s stability, what’s wrong with that? Sure, nation-building is extremely costly and may delay domestic spending.
I also like that you’re not a relativist. Recently, I too embraced American exceptionalism (perhaps more so than you) and that’s why I favor a more interventionist (“liberal” in the classic sense of doing something even if it means making mistakes sometimes; this definition is now called “neo-conservative”) foreign policy.
Appreciate your kind comments on the courage of John McCain. While to be a politician is to waffle and flip-flop from time-to-time (and McCain certainly has done so in his long political career), his life more than not is a “Profile of Courage” and of sacrifice to his country.
Would like for you to defend Democratic domestic policy if you have time.
Shalesh
April 2, 2008 at 1:11 pm