So, Lamont won (because, Lieberman said somewhat comically, of the "old politics of partisan polarization." Partisans in a Democratic primary? Forfend!).
Lieberman will run in the general as a third-party candidate. Conventional wisdom before the primary was that Lieberman could easily win a three-way race. Then as Lamont gained, CW shifted a bit, saying if Lieberman got creamed he would be abandoned. But Lieberman didn't get creamed, he lost narrowly. So no one knows what will happen. If Lieberman can persuade a few high-profile Dems to keep supporting him, it could work. But if they all publicly abandon him, he could flame out badly.
I won't get too much into What It All Means. There's been reams of commentary about this race -- more than it warrants, probably, and most of it, especially from the Beltway media establishment, insipid. You can find plenty with a simple search. For a sober and insightful take, check out Mark Schmitt's posts on the subject.
One thing Schmitt says -- echoed in this NYT commentary by Noam Scheiber -- is that Dem candidates can no longer get by on "checklist liberalism," the careful cultivation of the disparate interest groups that make up the left (at least those that happen to concentrate in a given candidate's state). Lieberman said:
I have the support of most of the key inner constituencies, advocacy groups within the Democratic Party: the AFL-CIO, the League of Conservation Voters, Defenders of Wildlife, Human Rights Campaign, NARAL, Planned Parenthood PAC.
It was true, but it wasn't enough. Instead, new-school Dems are looking for partisan fighters, people who want to build a party, a movement, to fight back against the encroaching tide of a radicalized right. Lieberman may have voted the right way on most domestic issues, but he took pot shots at liberals, and supported Republican talking points, too many times. He didn't care about the movement; he cared about the greater glory of Joe Lieberman.
Now, I think the calculus for, say, labor and abortion rights groups really has changed. They should abandon the pretense of bipartisanship. Even if there's the occasional Republican moderate on their side, the fact is that a Republican majority ineluctably damages their cause. They should be working to build a progressive movement, even if that means throwing their weight (and money) behind other causes and occasionally sacrificing one (say, a Lieberman, or a Chafee) for the team.
I tried to argue here that the same may not be true for environmentalism. There are real signs that bipartisan consensus is building around a few key green issues, particularly alternative energy. No party is consistently where I think they should be on the issue, but both are talking it up and competing to offer solutions. And outside Washington, movement is building around global warming, too (see, e.g., Schwarzenegger and Pataki).
But then again, there's this:
Continued Republican House and Senate majorities would likely mean more of the same on climate. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said he would oppose global warming mandates if Republicans control the 110th Congress. "I think the information is not adequate yet for us to do anything meaningful," he said.
So, which is the better move for the environmental movement? Retaining its quasi-independent status as a siloed interest group that occasionally makes endorsements across parties? Or casting its lot fully with a reinvigorated progressive movement and dedicating itself to helping that movement win back power?
A Lieberman loss in November would make the question more important and more difficult than ever for enviros.
Comments
View as Flat
antidoto Posted 1:30 am
09 Aug 2006
Permalink
GoodCheer Posted 5:57 am
09 Aug 2006
It seems to me that what made Lieberman a good man to have in power was the fact that he would lend his support where he felt he was doing the right thing. Just how partisan would Roberts like Washington to be? Does the support of a movement necessitate opposing anything the Republicans say? What if they have a good idea or do something right? Shouldn't we all cry hurrah for Bush when he voices his support for Cape Wind? (don't worry, I gag too)
I generally hold that much of the blame can go to a two party system. It is all too easy, but not inevitable, that all issues be molded to the bipolar nature of our government.
I know I am vastly ignorant of the history and workings of American Government, but it seems to me that political parties, once a candidate has been elected, do nothing but his hands through the promise of support at the next election. And how I love to oversimplify....
I say support your ideals, not your party. That's what I think Lieberman has done, and has suffered the consequences.
Bikes can save us!!
Permalink
tbelford Posted 6:34 am
09 Aug 2006
Parties -- "progressive" or otherwise -- are becoming irrelevant. Why? Because voters are sick of stalemated, fringe group, spiteful (the venom in so much of the anti-Lieberman blogging is appalling), ideologically driven politics. They want pragmatic solutions, which are generally fashioned in the middle of the spectrum. And they recognize that problem-solvers are individual leaders, not parties.
Tom Belford
The Agitator.net
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:11 am
09 Aug 2006
Yesterday, as we were returning to NYC from New England, with tears in our eyes, and Little Dog in my lap baying to the sun setting New Jersey-ward, we were listening to Connecticut NPR, and were surprised they were not slapped down. They interviewed a former Congressman, now a Democratic political consultant, named Moffitt (or something like that; he allowed that he was of Lebanese origin, which perhaps affects matters), who more or less instructed everyone to vote for Lamont.
(Hurray, says Michael; fine by me, say I; but what does either of us really know?)
Mr. Moffitt dreaded just what has happened: that Lamont would win, and Lieberman would refuse to drop out, but would run an independent campaign. Moffitt is more interested in the House, and was predicting that Republicans, who otherwise would stay home in November, will turn out to support Lieberman, and so will also vote for Republican House candidates, against the Democratic candidates that he is working for.
We shall see.
For now, I am glad Lieberman lost. Basically I agree with the NYTimes editors. He had no business kissing W., for whatever reason. Plus, his pro-environment position was seriously weakened by his supporting John Roberts and Sam Alito.
Funny, six years ago, when Al Gore named Joe Lieberman his running mate, we were asking, "Will this be good for the Jews?" Now, that he is scrabbling to regain his Senate seat as an Independent, we are asking, "Will this be good for the environment?"
Permalink
Howell Haus Posted 1:57 am
10 Aug 2006
I contend that our struggling environment is the result of poor leadership, which begins with improper morals. My wife and I witnessed a Sheriff exiting his car and spitting chewing tobacco onto the street yesterday. You might say, big deal? But, what's the message? It pales in comparison to corporate scandals, cronyism, and killing people for resources. And yes people, it's time to wake up and take responsibility for our over consumption, which has led to resource wars, starting with oil.
I believe those that state we're close to the fork in the road. Only we passed it. One path leads to destruction of all species and the environment (the path we're currently on). The other leads to responsible use of alternative energy, huge reductions in consumption, and a return to community, family, and personal responsibility for our actions. This includes fair taxation of all people (haves, have some, have nots), unsubsidized resources, and responsible leadership in government, and civic and religious organizations. Not to leave out, every person on down the line.
When you just talk about resources, the current situation and how our money is spent has never been worse. For example, the money we've spent on Iraq would have jump-started a permanent, alternative-energy future, but instead we're inciting a riot within Islam, and killing people on both sides, civilian and other. I write our leaders constantly to implore them that it's not too late to put this thing in reverse and take the other fork. It's obvious that we need better leaders. Those with backbones and morals who get it. Not like the current Senate that approves of drilling more holes in the Gulf, where dead zones are appearing like flies on `you know what'.
A better quality of life will require rapid cradle to cradle adoption within all economic avenues. It mandates preservation of resources through radically reduced personal consumptions. We must begin teaching things in our schools and churches besides the three R's and hymns, and begin to instill personal values as well. Values like humility, personal responsibility, preservation of all things, humane agriculture and farming, and an all-encompassing view of the effects of our actions and behaviors - clear down to our own bodies and health. We also need to value the efforts of every individual in our society. Without them we are alone to do it ourselves, big job, important, or not. It's a paradigm shift in perspective that starts with me, and you (do you hear me).
I repeat that morals are at fault. Religions of every facet contend that our soul is what matters most. I beg them to consider that what matters most - will save our soul. It begins with moral leadership. And it starts at the very beginning of each life. In each of our homes and businesses. In each of our personal actions and behaviors. In our spending. In our driving. In opening doors and sharing umbrellas with strangers. In feeding and clothing those in need. In waving or saying hi to people you meet on the street. In using a turn signal. In throwing gum in a trash can. In recycling everything we possibly can. In understanding that each of us `can' make a difference, if we'll just make the effort and do it.
The resources to understand the underlying and interconnected fabric of our existence have never been better or more available (library, free?) thanks to internet technology, and a bias-free, non-partisan press (okay, that part's made up). Therein lies the paradox, will we use these tools to infuse, embrace and create a viable, sustainable future, or will we abuse it and face further dilemma? We each must choose, soon. I suggest we choose well, lest we lose all this, and our souls too. I hope to see you out there... on my bike of course... JD
JD & Kelley Howell of
Palm Harbor, FL
write us: (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[26]='\"';l[27]=' 109';l[28]=' 111';l[29]=' 99';l[30]=' 46';l[31]=' 108';l[32]=' 105';l[33]=' 97';l[34]=' 109';l[35]=' 116';l[36]=' 111';l[37]=' 104';l[38]=' 64';l[39]=' 108';l[40]=' 108';l[41]=' 101';l[42]=' 119';l[43]=' 111';l[44]=' 104';l[45]=' 99';l[46]=' 100';l[47]=' 98';l[48]=':';l[49]='o';l[50]='t';l[51]='l';l[52]='i';l[53]='a';l[54]='m';l[55]='\"';l[56]='=';l[57]='f';l[58]='e';l[59]='r';l[60]='h';l[61]='a ';l[62]='
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 4:05 am
10 Aug 2006
Other countries must lead the way. Sujatha Fernandes, in an article in ZNet, suggests that genuine political change is promoted through a politics that puts community organizing at the center of things. The Zapatistas, in Mexico, offer her a political model of sorts:The Other Campaign was launched in San Cristobal de Las Casas in January 1, 2006, a historic date on which the Zapatistas had occupied the city twelve years earlier. Alongside the campaign efforts of political candidates, the Zapatistas took to the road with marches, mobilizations, and mass meetings across the country.
The aim of the Other Campaign is not to tell people to abstain from voting, but rather to point to the limitations of an election where political parties share a consensus on most major issues, and participation is reduced to going to the ballots once every six years. It is to carry the campaign beyond the period of elections to everyday organizing. It is to raise debates over issues such as land reform, neoliberalism, indigenous rights, and free trade, which are not being addressed in the electoral arena. Let me suggest that the issue of a global (ecologically) sustainable society is one of these same issues. It is not an issue that is being addressed in the US electoral arena. Both political parties, in this regard, appear to share a consensus: more occupation of Iraq, more support for war in Lebanon, more increased funding for the world's biggest single corporate fossil-fuel consumer (the US military), more capitalist development, more "free trade" sloganeering, and more corporate protectionism. And remember that unanimous 1997 Senate vote against the Kyoto Protocol?
"Mainstream environmentalism" is too thoroughly plugged into the "lesser of two evils" logic that lends support to the Democratic Party because it is "not as bad as" the Republican Party. As you can see above, all the "mainstream environmentalists" supported Lieberman. And Lieberman-politics, the politics of "bipartisanship," is not going to save the Earth. This situation, needless to say, does not do wonders for the credibility of "mainstream environmentalism." It certainly did little for Lieberman's credibility this week.
Working through "mainstream" political parties appears to be a completely inadequate means of facing the environmental challenges of the 21st century. They do this now, and are captured in the web of alliances of the Democratic Party. This web (for instance) required complete and ultra-conformist support for the agenda of John Kerry.
At the very least, a different approach will have to be taken by environmental organizations wishing to become credible. This approach must: divorce itself from both major political parties, ideally through a third party such as the Green Party (or elsewhere if necessary)rededicate itself to community organizing and stay in touch with the organized communities in order to make sure that the legitimate concerns of said communities are represented legitimately.
Only in such a way will the US be made less predatory. Lamont defeated Lieberman; hurray, but it still won't change very much, and neither will a Democrat victory in November.
http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink
trudyjh Posted 10:34 pm
10 Aug 2006
Permalink
richgilman Posted 1:44 am
11 Aug 2006
Rarely in history has an issue been as important as global warming. Literally millions of lives may be at stake, depending on whether we take quick, serious action or not.
I haven't supported a Republican for president or Congress in decades but I am strongly considering backing McCain because of his leadership on global warming. (For the same reason, I might well vote for Lieberman if I lived in Connecticut, despite my opposition to the war and disgust with much of what he says and does.)
We particularly need a Republican president who is willing to lead on global warming because without further GOP support, meaningful measures are impossible.
Generally though, and I'm not sure how well a lot of people understand this, we need more Dems in both houses of Congress because THE MAJORITY PARTY SETS THE AGENDA. With Dems in the minority, a lot less can be accomplished in the Senate, and absolutely nothing positive gets done in the House. That's why while Chafee and Shays may be relatively good Republicans, it's better to support their opponents.
Rich Gilman
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:30 am
11 Aug 2006
McCain gets a lot of credit for his high-profile, self-promotional gestures a bipartisanism and "maverick" stances, but for now they are symbolism. The question to ask is, what conditions would be necessary for meaningful action on climate change from the federal government? Would McCain in the White House with a Republican majority in Congress, with nothing else changed, do it? I have my doubts.
www.grist.org
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 11:55 am
11 Aug 2006
Well... I am going to tell you who to vote for...
SOMEONE OTHER THAN MCCAIN!
http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink