Pro-Joe Hysteria Strikes the Financial Times
Nothing is more prone to create hysteria than reality and accountability intruding on a world which has had neither. A good example is the response to a challenge to Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, from political novice, but entrepreneurial veteran, Ned Lamont. On the surface Ned Lamont should not inspire a tremor from the economic elites, he is a wealthy man from a wealthy family, whose business, in fact, centers on the needs of very, very upscale consumers. And yet hysteria is precisely response, to take one example of the kind of hyper-ventilated adolescent prose that his challenge to Lieberman evokes, we need only go to Christopher Caldwell of the Financial Times who serves up a shmorgesboard of smears:
" Discernible through the mist of a confusing campaign in Connecticut are the outlines of a new Democratic party. Voters, goaded by internet ideologues, are on the verge of what looks at first glance like a blunder. In a primary election on August 8, they are probably going to strip Joe Lieberman, the three-term senator who was their vice-presidential candidate in 2000, of the party's nomination. Polls released on Wednesday show Ned Lamont, a political novice, with a 51-47 per cent lead over Mr Lieberman, whom Mr Lamont blames for compromising "on things that are key to the Democratic party and what we stand for"
Caldwell opens with slurs and continues with a rousing defense that Lieberman is "bi-partisan". But let us look at the record of Joe Lieberman, and see where he makes his deals with the otherside. Mr. Caldwell clearly hates voters, who he says are about to "strip" Mr. Lieberman of the nomination. It is not his, but theirs, because it is the people, who in the American Democratic system, are sovereign. There is even a British court case to that effect, which Mr. Caldwell might wish to look up.
One of the first, and most prominent examples, of Lieberman crossing the aisle is in his near apoplectic denunciation of Bill Clinton during the trial in the Senate. So our first example of good sense that Mr. Caldwell defends is – an impeachment over a blow job, a huge waste of the tax payer's money to find consensual sexual behavior as the rational for an investigation that could prove nothing in its own mandate.
But this was only Joseph Lieberman's warm up act. Instead we must now look at a policy where he was not merely one of many, but the driving force, an architect of error and folly. I speak, of course, of the Department of Homeland Security. Let us leave aside the sinister name of the Department itself, and focus instead on the bureaucratic chaos which it created, as exemplified in the series of failures to handle emergencies which were within its reach. The largest of these was the failure to deal with Katrina, a disaster which gave clear warning, and which developed steadily over the course of days.
As Katrina grew to being one of the most powerful storms ever measured in the Atlantic basin, FEMA, moved into the Department of Homeland Security, did very much of nothing. When the storm struck, even though there had been clear warnings that flooding, not winds, was the grave danger, nothing was done to check or buttress levies known to be in poor condition. The result: thousands dead or missing, and an entire city inundated. It was the first time that a city in the United States had been so critically wounded since the turn of the previous century when a massive storm struck Galveston and the great earthquake struck San Francisco.
Clearly a department which cannot handle a disaster repeatedly predicted, and which cannot exert the force of the federal government to minimize recurrence, is one which is a complete waste of money. Particularly when its raison d'etre is to respond to more rapidly developing and unpredictable threats of terrorism.
The next great "bipartisan" act of Joe Lieberman was to embrace the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It was a common mistake, but Lieberman was among those pushing hardest. There are those that err, and there are those that lead others into error. Lieberman was loudly, and enthusiastically, of the second variety.
That Iraq has been a great dry hole in the desert is obvious to any objective observer. That the operations there have been conducted in a manner almost calculated to insure quagmire is a case that any first year law student could make. By almost every measure, the Iraqi economy has barely been dragged up to where it was before the invasion – when 20 years of war, sanctions and bombing had reduced it to a semi-state that was already breaking into pieces.
Finally we can look at the record of the men who Lieberman is wiling to have placed on the US Supreme Court – Justices such as Alito and Roberts, who detect in the American constitution near monarchical powers for the chief executive to decide the meaning of the law, to a degree that it usurps settled powers of the judiciary. Lieberman will say he voted against them, but this is not true, it was cloture that was the crucial vote, and Lieberman voted to allow Alito to go forward.
In summary, the implicit claim from Caldwell is that doing business with the other pole of politics is always moderate, and opposing it is always immoderate. This is hard to believe given the British system, where opposition is the sign of an out of power party with integrity, and to his own recommendations that parties of the right oppose moves by socialist parties. In short, moderation, to Mr. Caldwell, means capitulation to his positions, but not compromise of his to others.
Lieberman's problem is that his judgment is defective, and it is judgment, not intelligence or charisma, which forms the basis of a statesman. Poor judgment – in backing a witch hunt impeachment, in forming a vast wasteful bureaucracy which is manifestly a failure in its mission, in leading the charge for a war of aggression which neither prevented the danger that was claimed, nor provided the stability that was promised, and by being overtly willing to allow extremist justices into the court system – Joseph Lieberman has shown over and over again he does not have the necessary judgment to be labeled "a statesman" or any of the other purple prose phrases attached to him by members of the press.
Instead it is hysterical apologists like Caldwell who are the problem – who refuse to see that repeated failure of judgment is an excellent indicator of repeated failures to come. Nor can they claim the label of being well mannered. Instead, as anyone who watched the debate between Lieberman and Lamont could tell, it was Joseph Lieberman who attacked with vicious insults and undeserved uncollegiality – in marked contrast to his deferential performance against Republican Dick Cheney as a Vice-Presidential candidate.
In short, Mr. Caldwell's assertions are, patently, dishonest and defamatory, beyond mere opinion, and into the realm of inventing or ignoring the facts. We are all, the expression goes, entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own set of facts. His accusation that opposition to Lieberman is anti-Democratic must under a definition of "Democracy" which allows people to ignore the results at the ballot box.
Instead what drives the opposition to Lieberman and support for Ned Lamont, and the record will show I am a long time critic of the first, and a more recent supporter of the second – is the record itself. In large matters, Joe Lieberman has an instinct for the wrong decision, and more over, the boundless energy of anti-genius to pursue it.
If there is an "ideology" at work here, it is the ideology of accountability, and the belief that representatives should reflect the ideas of their constituents. It is the ideology that America should honor its treaty commitments, that it should balance its budget, and promote global stability through multi-lateral means. Mr. Caldwell seems to think that such ideas represent the death of the Democratic Party. Perhaps as a closet monarchist he can be forgiven for not understanding the history of the Democratic Party, and more broadly of the liberal, small "l" movement, which created such institutions as the United Nations, and found among them enthusiastic backers such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and British Prime Minister – and Conservative Party member – Winston Churchill.
Now those were the days of working across the aisle, and one might add, the ocean. That time by men who understood the proportion of the threat they faced, rather than concocting overblown threats which turn out, upon examination, to be the product of forgery and delusion. The record shows that it is George Bush – who Joseph Lieberman has embraced – who is the ideology, and it is his supporters in the press, such as Caldwell, who are uncivil, illogical and manifestly dishonest.
well, i don't know what exactly counts as destruction, but anchorage was pretty devastated by the 1964, as was much of the rest of the population base of the state.
July 22, 2006 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ed Beckmann Disabled Viet Vet
Great rant! I love it when someone speaks so eloquently!
July 22, 2006 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I give this one a 4! (or I would if there was a little box thingy to give it in).
Mike
July 22, 2006 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although I wasn't able to get beyond the subscription firewall on The FT, I did enjoy reading the beginning of the second paragraph, in which Caldwell states that "Lieberman has a reputation as a centrist". That allowed me a small smile, certainly, because Caldwell doesn't seem to understand that the center has moved so far to the right that even lawyer John Dean, who claims to be still a Goldwater Republican, recently claimed that being a Goldwater Republican now puts him to the left of center.
July 22, 2006 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think Nancy Reagan is to the left of Hillary.
July 22, 2006 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Caldell doesn't represent the FT , he's one of a stable of op ed writers from various points on the spectrum. He takes advantage of his weekly spot to mislead British readers who don't follow US politics sufficiently closely to realize they've been
lied to.
I have twice had letters published in the FT the week after one of his columns in which I have pointed out his factual errors (clearly deliberate,but I assumed that writing that would lessen the chance of publication so I didn't).
I'll write to them again about today's set of lies , pointing out that at least one independent analyst ( I think Role Call) calculated that last year Joe had the third
most conservative voting record among Senate Dems, following only Nelson and Landrieu which puts him in the most conservative 10% of those senate dems
and that therefore he is not main stream.
BTW if I were a Conn resident I'd vote for
Joe but I nevertheless resent Caldwell's
mininformation.
July 22, 2006 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Christopher Caldwell is a neocon. Doesn't he work for the Weekly Standard?
It is not surprising that the neocon cabal is coming to Joe's defense.
It is also not surprising that the Coctail Weenie crowd in Washington, the Margaret Carlsons, David Broders are defending Holy Joe. He is a Washington Insider. "One of us" as Sally Quinn would say. They know they can rely on Holy Joe to always repeat the Coctail Weenie crowd talking points.
July 22, 2006 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I did enjoy reading the beginning of the second paragraph, in which Caldwell states that "Lieberman has a reputation as a centrist"."
Centrist in Washington is defined as someone who agrees with David Broder.
60% of the public opposed to the Iraq war is defined as "fringe".
July 22, 2006 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In summary, the implicit claim from Caldwell is that doing business with the other pole of politics is always moderate, and opposing it is always immoderate."
I don't think Caldwell would make that claim. He would not make that claim for a GOP politician. The claim only applies to Dem politicians cooperating with GOP presidents
July 22, 2006 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet Bill Clinton is stumping for Joe Lieberman.. seems to me that the only hysteria is on the part of those former Deaniacs who've become Lamontiacs.
Y'all need to hype yourselves up because you think that will win you a race.. not that it ever has in the past.
I've seen a few articles on the subject, yet Lamont hasn't made full financial disclosure, amazingly enough he decided to file separately instead of the usual joint returns he and his wife have filed for the past five or so years.. I wonder what other not quite so up to the purity test investments would be found if that had full disclosure, and he also refused to provide the full five years disclosures other candidates have provided.. Lamont will only provide for last year.. yet his zealots aren't bothered, purity is only for the opponent, not their own candidate.
Just for a laugh, I thought I'd pass this along to you all, Nick Flynn, a socialist from New Haven is decrying Lamont as being secretly pro-war, and has published a screed on the subject. Of course, Nick the socialist is most likely as clueless and as hypocritical as all of the rest of the far leftist extreme.. he's as disconnected as the lot of you, he's probably got a trust fund that is invested in Halliburton, RJR Nabisco, Big Oil, slave laboring sweatshops and the lot, that supports him in the lifestyle mumsy and daddy got him accustomed to,and of course allows him to subscribe to the Socialist Worker and buy his Che Guevara t-shirts..
Apparently, Neddy Lamont has been gutting his workforce to increase his profits.. he's dumped two-thirds of his employees since 2001, "his wealth is between 90 and 300 million inherited and raised off the labor of others" (that is according to your ever lovin' socialist pal Nick) and Lamont is backed by republican Lowell Weicker, the republican that Lieberman defeated out of the office all those years ago.
July 22, 2006 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another fine post, Stirling. The media cant these days is that bipartisanship such as Lieberman's is good in and of itself. But it should be obvious that the party you're being "bi" with makes all the difference in the world.
Being bipartisan with the Republican Party of Gerald Ford, or even of Bush 41, is not the same thing as being bipartisan with the party of Bush 43, which has been captured by a lunatic fringe that is destroying the country.
Part of the eerie disconnect of reading the MSM these days is its autistic refusal to acknowledge that these are extraordinary political times. In such times bipartisanship and compromise do not equal statesmanship, they equal moral cowardice. They should not be a cause for self-righteousness like Lieberman's but for shame.
Ovid
July 22, 2006 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
nice post, stirling, i quoted you extensively for my "quote of the day" over at skippy.
skippy
July 22, 2006 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let us for the moment be thankful that Claes doesn't write for the FT anymore.
July 22, 2006 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
claes is shlaes, amity shlaes, sorry.
July 22, 2006 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The implicit claim from Caldwell is that doing business with the other pole of politics is always moderate, and opposing it is always immoderate." That's an important point. It describes the slant we hear repeatedly from conservative pundits, but also often from mainstream journalists. Its problem isn't just its obvious irrelevance to the British system that Stirling notes.
I was struck by it in reading (in my alumni mag) about Fight Club Politics: How Partisanship Is Poisoning the House of Representatives, by Juliet Eilperin. She argues that the polarization of American politics is dangerous but bipartisan in its cause. She makes a fine point about how the dominance of the two parties themselves is preserved by redistricting that creates safe seats. But mostly it's about a pressure to vote a party line, as in this quote from Colin Peterson (D-MN): "you’re telling me I should vote against my conscience and vote against my constituents."
In other words, her methodology is simply to count votes and their uniformity, and she's clueless how misleading this can be apart from what they're voting on. If, as is the case, a majority party suddenly shifts the agenda far to one side, that's going to render her simple counts irrelevant. When most Democrats voted in step to authorize presidential power leading up to the war, that didn't make that vote a sign of the party's new-found liberal extremism, say, and when Murtha and Kerry split from the party majority to urge withdrawal, that obviously doesn't mean the parties are compromising. Conversely, when justices come up for a vote amenable to a shift in interpretation of presidential power and the Bill of Rights unprecedented in American history, or when something with as broad popular support and longstanding place in government as social security is on the table, deviations from the opposition are not moderation or conscience.
The alumni mag quotes Elperin: "Democrats are more hostile than I expected, and Republicans are not as upset as I expected.” She sounds clueless.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
July 23, 2006 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
By now, the whole Lieberman-Lamont primary seems to be blown wildly out of proportion by all sorts of people. Why, oh why, is it more than a lively Democratic primary -- something that the laws of the US and of Connecticut provide for -- in which both candidates are energetically using the available political tools (including new ones) to make their case to the Democratic electorate of the state. One can argue about the wisdom of a primary system, which tends to increase the influence of 'party loyalists' and 'true believers' over 'independents' and the citizenship as a whole, but that's the well-established system that Connecticut has. And for heaven's sake: hasn't the Republican party had many similar contests, in which 'true blue' so-called conservatives have challenged more moderate Republicans, and often expelled them.
It's just another primary...neither the second coming, the transformation of American politics, the rise of totally new powers, etc. Lamont, as has been pointed out, appears to be a fairly mainstream entrepreneurial capitalist (i.e., someone both savvy in business and savvy in finding ways to game the goverment), while Lieberman is an established politician whose views are no mystery.
At this point, the twist into which all sorts of commentators are getting their panties has moved from a modestly interesting epiphenomenon to being simply (a) boring, and (b) part of the respective campaigns, fought with other means. Neither bears much attention. Let the registered Democrats of Connecticut vote, and then we can go from there.
July 23, 2006 6:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Newberry I generally enjoy your work her but this is by far the poorest thing you've written here. I sincerely hope you weren't just mailing it in.
"Mr. Caldwell clearly hates voters, who he says are about to "strip" Mr. Lieberman of the nomination. It is not his, but theirs, because it is the people, who in the American Democratic system, are sovereign. There is even a British court case to that effect, which Mr. Caldwell might wish to look up."
Incredibly triumphant & dramtic and also completely pointless. If you have the ability to read that Mr. Caldwell "hates" voters because he said they were going to "strip" Lieberman of the nomination, you are laying claim to discerning abilities not present in oridnary mortals, and of which I'm skeptical that you yourself possess.
Mr. Newberry tells us he is going to give us a ringing indictment of Sen. Lieberman's much ballyhooed "bi-partisan" character in the Senate, yet at the end, Mr. Lieberman's crimes appear to be.
A: Criticizing Bill Clinton's conduct in the Lewinsky affair
B: Supporting the war in Iraq
C: Recommending the formation of the Department of Homeland Security.
On the first front, Mr Newberry states
"One of the first, and most prominent examples, of Lieberman crossing the aisle is in his near apoplectic denunciation of Bill Clinton during the trial in the Senate. So our first example of good sense that Mr. Caldwell defends is – an impeachment over a blow job, a huge waste of the tax payer's money to find consensual sexual behavior as the rational for an investigation that could prove nothing in its own mandate."
Hear Mr. Newberry seems to imply that Joe lieberman himself is responsible for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Yet Joe himself stated that he didn't believe Pres. Clinton's misconduct was worthy of impeachment. Very few serious political anaylsts without a seriously perverse hatred for Sen. Lieberman would in good faith try to pin the impeachment of Pres. Clinton on Sen. Lieberman, least of all Clinton & his people themselves, who far from blaming Joe, seem to think that Joe's criticism of his conduct while rejecting impeachment may have done quiete a bit to save The Clinton Presidency. I trust them more than I trust Mr. Newberry.
The second bi-partisan sin against Joe Lieberman according to Mr. Newberry is that he supported the war in Iraq. Of course, Mr. Newberry is aware enough to mention casually that he was hardly the only Democrat to support it, even up to this point. But somehow Joe REALLY supported it, in fact his love for the Iraq war is so great that somehow his vote to authorize force somehow counts for more than vritually every other Democrat except Russ Feingold, voting for the exact same legislation. It's almost as if his vote counts double or something.
The third & silliest crime Mr. Newberry tries to pin at the feet of Sen. Lieberman is that he recommended the creation of the Dep. of Homeland Security (he was not a serious architect, contrary to Mr. Newberry's claims) This is very bad because the Dep. of Homeland Security is not only inefficient but "it has a creepy name" and has not been effective at doing it's job. So even though Joe Lieberman has no operating role in the Dep. of Homeland Security, despite the fact that the Dep. as it currently exists is fundamentally different from the one Joe (and other Democrats) proposed, the one in which the GOP refused at first but later coopted as a domestic weapon against Democrats. Nay the very creation of the Dep of Homeland Security, it's draconian nature as operated by a GOP administration, it's numerous follies & oversteps & worst of all, it's creepy creepy name, are all the fault of that dreaded Mr. Lieberman for recommending it's creation. That takes guts.
The sad thing is that if there's one politician who has an overwhelming set of justifiable grievances against him, it's Holy Joe. Mr. Newberry could have criticized his "bi-partisanship" for cosponoring legislation from Jesse Helms preventing school counselers from counseling homosexual children. His blatant homphobia for stating that Homosexuality was not an acceptable lifestyle. His perverse habit of building up his own political profile at the expense of other Democrats & The National party as a whole. For using the Wall Street Journal as a forum to bash his own party. His ties to the insurance industry, that he thinks his poisiton in the U.S. senate is an appropriate pulpit from which to wag his finger at violent video games & music. The fact that he's elevated "bi-partisanship" to be a goal in and of itself instead of doing the right thing. Hell, even the fact that he looks too much like Teller from Pen & Teller & I don't like that. Instead we get an irrational 5th grader's essay purportedly blaming Joe Lieberman for Katrina. It's embarassing.
bring your A Game next time Mr. Newberry.
July 23, 2006 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neddy? Are we on a first name basis with Mr. Lamont?
Or is this the time honoured propaganda tactic of applying a diminutive to an adversary, cutting him down from behind, because there's no traction on the issues?
I do so love American propaganda.
July 23, 2006 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
"of Lieberman crossing the aisle is in his near apoplectic denunciation of Bill Clinton during the trial in the Senate."
You are missing the point.
Lieberman was (or pretended to be) outraged over a president lying about his sex life. And yet he has shown no outrage over a president lying the country into a ruinous war, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands, torture, violations of the Geneva convention, illegal wiretapping, war profiteering................I can go on an on. On all these issues instead of being outraged Lieberman has made excuses for Bush.
How do you reconcile his 1998 outrage with his total lack of outrage at Bush's far worse offenses?
July 23, 2006 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Of course, Mr. Newberry is aware enough to mention casually that he was hardly the only Democrat to support it, even up to this point."
Once again, you are missing the point. Joe Lieberman isn't the only Democrat who voted for the Iraq resolution. He is the only Democrat who in Summer 2006 argues;
* The Iraq war was a great idea
* The war is going well
* To question Bush's conduct of the war amounts to near treason
July 23, 2006 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post - I think it's important to emphasize that Caldwell is an opinion writer and his view does not necessary correlate with the FT editorial line. The hysteria is Caldwell's, not the FT's.
And the reason this is important is that the FT is actually a very good paper, right up there with the WSJ in terms of news coverage, but without the WSJ's loony editorial staff.
And the FT also has an encouraging habit of not tolerating bonehead contributors. Gerry Baker got canned soon after he went over the wingnut precipice; Amity Schlaes was dropped soon after a couple of mindblowingly stupid columns on Katrina. And if Caldwell continues to write guff and there's merit to readers' complaints, the FT will cut him loose.
So anyways, in short - don't waste time bashing the FT. They're perfectly capable of dealing with feckless op-ed contributors, just put the evidence before them.
July 24, 2006 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink