Bipartisanship Without Ideology is Pathetic
If I think partisanship needs a consistent belief system to be powerful, Lieberman's launch of an independent run for Senate justified almost solely by a whiny call for "bipartisanship" is just a pathetic platform in an age where bipartisanship has meant a disastrous war and logrolling among corporate interests across party lines.
And Lieberman's "bipartisanship" gambit is likely to fail in the end. The problem for Lieberman is that most voters aren't worried about Democrats being too leftwing or partisan.
In fact, a 2005 Democracy Corp poll found that only 27% of Americans thought Democratic leaders "know what they stand for" compared to 55% who see GOP leaders as clearly articulating their positions.
To the extent that Lamont is attacked for having ideas that don't fit the bipartisan deadlock of DC, that will only help Lamont's candidacy. Lieberman's strongest tactic in the primary was saying that he had strong liberal views on a range of areas, so why should Connecticut trade him in over a few political differences? But if Lieberman emphasizes the differences with Lamont, he may be playing to some independents and Republicans but will rapidly lose many of the Democrats who did support him in the primary. Even without Lieberman's new label as primary "loserman", he was running about even with Lamont in general election matchups.
As the purge of Congressman Joe Schwartz in the Michigan GOP primary yesterday shows, the Republicans are not interested in bipartisanship. The GOP is quite clear what their ideological goals are and are just looking for wayward Democrats to support those goals-- but some "principled" bipartisanship like Lieberman is trying to espouse is a bit of a joke, given that the GOP has no interest in deals on anything other than the areas like the war where Lieberman already agrees with GOP ideology.
"Bipartisanship" in DC is now either giving into clear GOP ideological demands or making deals with corporate lobbyists happy to build bipartisan coalitions to support special interests-- but there is no principled bipartisanship for the real reforms needed to help working families in our country. The recent "trifecta" bill of business tax breaks, Paris Hilton tax cuts, and a cynical minimum wage bill that actually cut wages for many tipped workers is the Frankenstein kind of "bipartisan" bill that exists these days.
So if Lieberman wants to stand up for bipartisanship, there is no better mascot for the unprincipled nature of that position than a man who ran as a leader of the Democratic Party, and is now choosing to stab that party in the back by rejecting the decision of its primary voters. Cause that's what bipartisanship means-- every man for himself and for the campaign contributors who protect his incumbency.
Excellent post Nathan. My take is that when Clinton won through triangulation between liberals and conservatives, many democrats saw that as the way to hold on to their seats so many moved toward the right. So many moved to the right that there were really very few democrats left who would openly profess to be liberals or actual democrats. Many wanted to be seen as being to the right of liberals so they were sort of leap-frogging each other to get further and further right. The 2004 campaign was the beginning of the end of that. It became clear that Kerry and the dems stood for nothing. I don't think Kerry had one position that was clear. Just that he wasn't Bush and he wasn't a liberal either.
Triangulation only works when both parties are strong. Right now it's like a 2-legged stool with the far right and the center right. Lamont's victory may be the first signs of rebuilding the third leg of the stool. I really feel that this is a harbinger of great things to come and the reconstruction of the democratic party.
In the end, I blame Clinton's success for the demise of the democratic party. He was a very good president, but he destroyed the foundations of the democratic party.
Raindog
August 9, 2006 6:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
...but, but, but wasn't that old tailgunner Joe and the DLC/TNR talking about how the Democratic Party had to be a big tent and not exclude Joe. I don't get it. Now he is running to take the party back from Lamont and Maxine Waters? Am I missing something or is there a faint smell of hypocrisy in the air?
August 9, 2006 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I strongly agree with your post. I especially liked this comment which is right on target:
"The recent "trifecta" bill of business tax breaks, Paris Hilton tax cuts, and a cynical minimum wage bill that actually cut wages for many tipped workers is the Frankenstein kind of "bipartisan" bill that exists these days."
August 9, 2006 6:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The smell ain't faint, my friend. If anyone can, as Nathan's post described very well, discern any point in Joe Lieberman's campaign besides soothing the hurt feelings of Joe Lieberman, please enlighten me.
August 9, 2006 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say the odor is pervasive and hard to ignore.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
August 9, 2006 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to just mention that there is such an animal as a 'bipartisan.' In 2003 John McCain co-sponsored a Corporate Average Fuel Economy increase along with John Kerry in the Senate. Democrats from Michigan and even Maryland of all places helped bring down the measure. Recently GOP Representative Sherwood Boehlert proposed a CAFE increase in the House as well, to no avail unfortunately.
But Nathan Newman is right. To be a 'bipartisan' Democrat right now is nothing more than to be Bush's prison bitch.
Joe's circuitous upside-down rationales only underline his hypocrisy. His last act in CT will probably be to give the seat to the GOP challenger.
et tu Brute?
In the 2004 primary, Joe's crybaby act toward Gore's endorsement of Dean forced us to realize what kind of a person he was.
Joe demands loyalty from CT Democrats for noble acts of the 1970s, but where's his loyalty to the Party? Joe epitomizes the hubris of incumbency perfectly. Now he's turning into this deluded King Lear figure who thinks that refusing to acknowledge defeat makes him undefeated.
One last note. For two elections in a row, Dems have chosen sweet little puppy dogs as Vice President candidates, then the main man had to play attack dog (not a 'presidential' role) while the VP stood idly by looking cute and/or smiling broadly as Cheney lashed out at Presidential candidate's jugular.
PLEASE - in 2008 lets get bad ass VP.
August 9, 2006 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman resorted to "dark arts", and it should be used against him. He is for bipartisanship, but against voting together with fellow city council members if they happen to be in a different party, he is against the rich (class warrior?), he is overblowing race issue (country club with few minorities? it smacks reverse race baiting).
About triangulation: hard to condemn it in abstraction. Fiscal discipline and "small initiatives" like funding 100,000 cops -- they seemed OK. Welfare reform -- devil is in details. My impression was that when Clinton personally was doing it, he tried to do well under bad circumstances.
I would put it this way: after Democrats abandoned Clinton on gays in the military and health care reform, they got clobbered and Clinton was left with bad option. Triangulation (and bipartisanship) is like tacking: you cannot sail straight against the wind, but when you make so many turns, you are lost without a very good sense of direction.
August 9, 2006 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one should listen to Lieberman's actual words, he has to find some lame reason for being a spoiler. What he really means is "I've had so many people kissing my ring these past two decades I'm just not ready to give it up without a fight."
We should concentrate on explaining how a person willing to sabotage his party's chances of regaining control does not deserve voter's support. If he does get re-elected who will he beholding to? Only his rich corporate backers.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
August 9, 2006 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Being "bi-partisan" with the current Republican Party is like being bi-partisan with Hizbullah. Sure, everyone wants some set of "positive" goals in life, including pathological liars and psycho killers. And good people want a world in which diverse goals, held by diverse people, can be achieved - and so are not partisan in the sense of insisting that only a single, narrowly-defined goal set is worthy.
But the currently Republican Party, like the current Hizbullah, will only accept a single, narrowly-defined goal set - and in both cases we have pathological liars and psycho killers defining that set of goals. No good person should want either party - Republican nor Hizbullah - to have a seat at any table of power.
August 9, 2006 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
One wonders to what degree he will be the GOP stalking horse - Maybe like the Green Party bids in other states, his third party bid will be funded by the far right. I just heard Nader on DemocracyNow blathering on about the Lamont win. It's funny that Lamont stands for pretty much everything Nader is alleged to support, yet Nader seemed sympathetic to the idea of the Leiberman third party - thanks Ralph.
Nader epitomizes partisanship for the sake of partisanship and/or maybe just Quixotic windmill tilting. There it is: Joe is King Lear and Nader's the Man from La Mancha - dreaming Impossible Dreams.
You are right rdf - there's a real campaign issue in his recalcitrance. What kind of a "public servant" is this guy? Where once Joe was a sort of benign, cozy, paternal figure who was difficult to savage, this recently unvieled egomania creates an opening for attack.
August 9, 2006 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
One point: When Mr. Newman says "Bipartisanship without ideology is pathetic" the adjective "pathetic" only partially captures the essential truth. I think "dangerous" and "self-defeating" are essential in the description as well. You know, Mr. Newman wrote in a previous post how partisanship needs an ideological basis and I strongly agree (and of course ideology needs its partisanship as well). This seems like a truism. But if Lieberman really does in the end push forward with his independent bid, it presently seems to be baed on "bipartisanship, mainstream, centrism" without particular content (except reading through the lines, and understanding where his passion and anger is directed, it is clear it is the voters in the Democratic Party and not the Republican rulers who he views as "partisan and extreme".)
August 9, 2006 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish we could find another word to replace "ideology". In my opinion, "liberal ideology" is a bit of an oxymoron. The whole point of liberalism is its adaptability, its welcoming of change and progress and ideology is carved in stone.
What I believe democrats should do is streamline party platform statements that drone on and on with careful explanations of every term and phrase and present three and at the most six cogent goals/ideals/principles that can be driven home over and over again by any democrat at any time.
August 9, 2006 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except as an abuse term, ideology has never meant immutable ideas; what it does reflect is both a shared set of values and a way of analyzing change to allow an effective response.
The Right is very clear about their ideas and ideology and have built strong communities around those ideologies; progressives once were far clearer on their belief systems and it's the weakness in building shared communities of belief and ideas that actually impede adapting to change, since it's harder to argue how to apply old values to new challenges if you don't have some articulated approach to analyzing reality. That is the strength of robust ideology.
Some of this is semantics, since "ideology" is used so often as a term of abuse. But whatever the term, people need a shared framework of values and analysis preceisely to respond effectively to a rapidly changing world.
August 9, 2006 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well I'm not arguing that a shared belief system is bad. What I'm saying is that because "ideology" is used as a perjorative term and is more associated with fascism by the American public, it would be better politically to avoid the word.
Frankly, I think you give republicans and the right too much credit - they have pretty much the same structure as democrats and that's a catering to special interests under the cover of a vague and trite "ideology" which seems to be a love of God and country. The real difference between republicans and democrats as far as party structure is that the republicans concentrated on building a base from the bottom up and the democrats did exactly the opposite. The democats concentrated on national level hiring of staff and consultants and left the scut work either undone, unfinanced or uncoordinated at the local and state levels. When you have Chuck Schumer calling the shots on state elections in Ohio you have more problems than ideology.
The reality of the situation is that eveyone wants to articulate ideology and grand ideas and belief systems, but nobody wants to do the heavy (and expensive) lifting of organizing a sound foundation.
I enjoy all these meta discussions of ideology and demcratic philosophy but I can tell you if people like you who have a national voice don't start pressuring the party to get off its collective ass and do some actual work, we're not going to have a party.
It's the same situation that the unions find themselves in, and we've had this "discussion" in the past - the unions have a very poor public image and need to work on the problem - not crab that people don't understand them or appreciate them. Get some mailers out there, put some ads in the media, develop some news outlets, go door to door with fliers - do something, do anything, but start fighting back.
August 9, 2006 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Bev-- Funny, someone on the first "meta" thread complained that I spend too much time pushing specific "actual work" like health care laws and wage campaigns and they wanted more "meta" posts by me :)
The point is that unions for example are under attack partly because the whole belief system - ideology - that supported collective action by employees has been steadily under attack by the Right. And most liberals are too shy of fighting back, not just on a partisan basis, but on an ideological basis to challenge the "Your On Your Own" ideology of the rightwing (to crib from Jared Bernstein.) I spend most of my day pushing "actual work"-- and think it's desperately needed -- but the blogs should be more about ideas and combatting the right not just with money and volunteers but also with ideas.
August 9, 2006 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Big news!!! According to Rethug political commentators, the only people who oppose the war in Iraq are left-wing Democrats. Well, since the latest poll indicates that 60 percent of the American people oppose the war, does that mean that 60 percent of the American people are left-wing Democrats? Things are looking up, everybody.
August 9, 2006 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except as an abuse term, ideology has never meant immutable ideas; what it does reflect is both a shared set of values and a way of analyzing change to allow an effective response.
I think some of the confusion comes in because an "ideology" is fixed or static. An ideology might not be a single immutable idea, but it is a set constellation of ideas.
Yes, having some shared values and a generalized approach to analyzing problems is good. But can we distinguish between that broad framework and the conclusions drawn by individuals using it? To me, that's the difference between an "ideology" and a "framework." Maybe I've succumbed to the abuse-term-talking-points, but an ideology does more than structure a discussion; it dictates both problems and solutions.
PSA: There is a Users' Help Forum.
August 9, 2006 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bipartisanship as a campaign platform is pretty weak on either side. While a spirit of cooperation sounds good in theory, it's not a meat and potatoes issue to most voters.
Joe kept repeating in his speech Tuesday night that partisanship is preventing Congress from "getting things done." Lamont needs to keep reminding people of what Joe has actually done in concert with the Republicans.
"Joe wants to get things done. Does he mean voting with Republicans to pass the bankruptcy bill, which makes it nearly impossible for families who have been saddled with crippling health care costs to get relief?"
"Joe wants to get things done. Does that mean fighting shoot-em-up video games, and supporting real bombs and bullets aimed at our troops?"
"Joe wants to get things done. Does he mean voting with Republicans to protect big corporations from lawsuits for damages because of faulty and dangerous products?"
"In the 1960s, Joe was fighting with Martin Luther King for civil rights. In the 1990s, he was fighting with Republicans against affirmative action. This is not your father's Joe Lieberman."
Those could probably be better phrased, but the point is clear, I hope. Joe has the advantages of incumbency, but he also has the weakness of a clear voting record. Make him defend it. Poor and middle class Democrats broke strongly for Lieberman in the primary, and it's crucial to convince them that it's against their best interest to return him to the Senate.
August 10, 2006 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink