The war-is-peace Democrat;

or, kissing Lieberman goodbye.


Children's shoes on display in Majdanek death camp (Lublin, Poland) photo: terrette

In Connecticut, Bill Clinton is going to campaign for Lieberman against the challenger for his senate seat, Ned Lamont, a Democrat who opposes the unfettered U.S. occupation of Iraq. It does not surprise me that Bush once actually kissed Lieberman, but when Clinton goes to work to support Bush's war and the war-is-peace Democrat Lieberman, the public has a fine measure of how harmoniously most representatives of the two factions of the business-and-war party are singing the same tune on the most pressing issues of the nation, leaving mostly wedge issues and ethics scandals to bicker over in an effort to save the appearance of political integrity.

David Greenberg of the Boston Globe explains Lieberman's troubles with the Democrats (that is, anyone remaining in the party who stands left of the war-is-peace Clintons and their like):

First, deep trends in American politics have led both the Democrats and the Republicans to grow more ideologically uniform over the last generation, making it harder for dissenters to remain viable within their parties. Second, Lieberman--despite liberal stands on such issues as abortion rights and the environment that have tethered him to the Democrats--has in effect nominated himself for excommunication by spurning liberals not only on the war but ... consistently tak[ing] conservative positions over the years on social issues, where he calls for more religion in public life; on regulatory issues, where he favored leniency toward the accounting firms during the Enron crisis; and above all in foreign affairs, where he has even chided liberals for criticizing Bush's governance during "wartime." (full article)

If it is indeed Lieberman's view that during wartime leaders cannot be criticized without the critical themselves be blamed for 'not supporting the troops,' Connecticut voters should spare themselves the possible treason their present and future criticism of an idiotic enterprise in Iraq would imply by voting Lieberman out of office as soon as possible. The 'war'--that is, the military-supported, taxpayper-funded, anti-democractic, privatizing occupation of Iraq--is not likely to end soon. Given this fact, since Lieberman feels citizens must choose between counterproductive and costly initiatives of violence abroad, on the one hand, and, on the other, the essential tool of a democractic society--the capacity to have reasoned criticism of publicly elected leadership taken seriously--then let Lieberman embrace his false distinction all the way to bitter defeat, and let us savor the nation's remnants of democracy. May his defeat be a warning for Hillary Clinton and all other war-is-peace Democrats who plan on posturing over matters of national security in hopes of gaining political support from the misinformed.