Lieberman and Deja-Vu All Over Again

I’ve not written about the acrimonious Democratic primary election being held in Connecticut tomorrow, but I’ve been following the story in an off-hand sort of way. Some bloggers, on the other hand, probably should have renamed their blogs along the lines of “IHateJoeLieberman.com” given that their focus has been almost entirely on defeating Senator Lieberman. If you follow the previous link, and if you’ve not been following this brouhaha, you might be a bit perplexed when you read “About That Graphic.” In other words, what graphic? Here’s the story, along with the PhotoShopped graphic originally posted, but since removed, on the Huffington Post. Amazing stuff, especially coming from the all-inclusive and oh-so-sensitive Left. But, I digress.

At any rate, here are the two best articles I’ve read concerning Senator Lieberman, one by Martin Peretz, in today’s WSJ, and the other by Robert Kagan in yesterday’s WaPo. First, Mr. Peretz:

Finally, the contest in Connecticut tomorrow is about two views of the world. Mr. Lamont's view is that there are very few antagonists whom we cannot mollify or conciliate. Let's call this process by its correct name: appeasement. The Greenwich entrepreneur might call it "incentivization." Mr. Lieberman's view is that there are actually enemies who, intoxicated by millennial delusions, are not open to rational and reciprocal arbitration. Why should they be? After all, they inhabit a universe of inevitability, rather like Nazis and communists, but with a religious overgloss. Such armed doctrines, in Mr. Lieberman's view, need to be confronted and overwhelmed.

Almost every Democrat feels obliged to offer fraternal solidarity to Israel, and Mr. Lamont is no exception. But here, too, he blithely assumes that the Palestinians could be easily conciliated. All that it would have needed was President Bush's attention. Mr. Lamont has repeated the accusation, disproved by the "road map" and Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza, that Mr. Bush paid little or even no attention to the festering conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. And has Mr. Lamont noticed that the Palestinians are now ruled, and by their own choice, by Hamas? Is Hamas, too, just a few good arguments away from peace?

Now Mr. Kagan:

If Lieberman loses, it will not even be because he supported the war. Almost every leading Democratic politician and foreign policymaker, and many a liberal columnist, supported the war. Nor will he lose because he opposes withdrawing troops from Iraq this year. Most top Democratic policymakers agree that early withdrawal would be a mistake. Nor, finally, is it because he has been too chummy with President Bush. Lieberman has offered his share of criticism of the administration's handling of the Iraq war and of many other administration policies.

No, Lieberman's sin is of a different order. Lieberman stands condemned today because he didn't recant. He didn't say he was wrong. He didn't turn on his former allies and condemn them. He didn't claim to be the victim of a hoax. He didn't try to pretend that he never supported the war in the first place. He didn't claim to be led into support for the war by a group of writers and intellectuals whom he can now denounce. He didn't go through a public show of agonizing and phony soul-baring and apologizing in the hopes of resuscitating his reputation, as have some noted "public intellectuals."

Jane Hamsher (she who I didn’t name in one of my links, above) has written that Senator Lieberman is better-liked and has more support among Republicans than Democrats. That may or may not be true, but “better-liked” is the wrong term. Republicans respect Senator Lieberman, and respect is a term that is completely foreign to Ms. Hamsher and other people of her ilk. Hamsher and her Buds prefer to vilify the opposition…after all, Rethuglicans are eeevil, ya know. And Lieberman, because of his support of the war, failure to recant same, and the fact he’s actually said a few good things about Dubya has revealed himself to be unworthy eeeevil.

Tomorrow’s election is the most closely watched primary in recent memory, and the results will be most interesting, no matter who wins. If Lamont wins, it’s a victory for the 21^st century variant of the “peace candidate.” If Lieberman wins, it’s a repudiation of the appease-niks, if I may coin a term. Either way, the country as a whole, and the Right, specifically, wins. A Lieberman victory will send the netroots back to the drawing board; a Lamont victory will turn the Democrat party upside down and will more than likely get us more candidates in the Lamont mold, a la McGovern. And McGovern-clone candidates will be very good news for Republicans, if not in this year’s congressional elections, but most certainly in 2008. Interesting stuff.

I meant to link this yesterday, but forgot. Victor Davis Hanson writes of the parallels between the appeasement of the 1930s and today. Excellent stuff, as usual.

But nevertheless it is still surreal to reread the fantasies of Chamberlain, Daladier, and Pope Pius, or the stump speeches by Charles Lindbergh (“Their [the Jews’] greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government”) or Father Coughlin (“Many people are beginning to wonder whom they should fear most — the Roosevelt-Churchill combination or the Hitler-Mussolini combination.”) — and it is even more baffling to consider that such men ever had any influence.

Not any longer.

Our present generation too is on the brink of moral insanity. That has never been more evident than in the last three weeks, as the West has proven utterly unable to distinguish between an attacked democracy that seeks to strike back at terrorist combatants, and terrorist aggressors who seek to kill civilians.

Mr. Hanson is right-as-rain, as Mom used to say. It remains to be seen if we’ll actually learn from history or be doomed to repeat it. “Doomed” is the operative word, here. The 21^st century is a helluva lot more dangerous than the previous century. We had the luxury of time to undo the mistakes made in the late ‘30s (although the outcome was far from sure in 1940-41); today’s weapons of mass destruction, and the means to deliver those weapons severely limit our options to undo mistakes. We’ll have to live with those mistakes, if push comes to shove. It won’t be pleasant.

Have a nice day!