How Others See American Politics

I'm not against Lieberman winning another trip to the Senate but I am puzzled that he spends a certain amount of his time stuck in the philosophy of the early nineties and that he takes for granted his incumbency. And I have to admit I'm bewildered by all the people rushing to his aid who seem to be increasingly out of touch with an America growing tired of years of right wing bamboozlement.

I'm not a pacifist. I believe in a strong defense but if we go to war there had better be a good reason for it, and if a president lies about a war that he gets us into, we shouldn't be shy about impeaching that character. Rallying around a president for a war of choice is something I'll never understand. Despite the recent polls, those of us who bother to read know there were no weapons of mass destruction. Every American should be horrified by the behavior of George W. Bush and if that's not the case, at least the Democrats ought to show some leadership. For the record, the window of opportunity in Iraq closed a long time ago.

So it's interesting to see a different perspective from Gary Younge published in The Guardian in the U.K. (hat tip to Mahablog):

Indeed, it is the very presence of this unreliable Democrat in this reliably Democratic seat that has transformed this primary into a national race, for it tests just how much betrayal Democratic voters are prepared to accept before they assert their electoral clout. The big guns have been pouring in. Recently a forgiving Clinton came to back Lieberman; last week Jesse Jackson was down to support Lamont. Liberal-left bloggers backing Lamont have been in overdrive.

Some have described it as a struggle for the heart and soul of the Democratic party, but a more accurate portrayal would be a battle to establish whether the party should have a soul at all. It raises not only the question of what does the party stand for apart from office but also whether it is prepared to adopt an agenda that could actually win office. This race could set the tone for the 2008 presidential elections.

Less then half of those backing Lamont cite the war as the main reason. "It's mostly about the war but not exclusively," says Christine Koskoff at a Lamont meeting at Bristol's Clock and Watch Museum. "It's about Senator Lieberman articulating the agenda of the rightwingers who run this country. The war sums up everything that's wrong."

(snip)

Once again, this is not just about the war. Thanks to money and name recognition, the best guarantee that you will be elected in the US is to be elected already - more than 90% of incumbents are usually returned. Being a congressman is the closest thing to tenure you can get outside of academe. If Lieberman, who has served for three terms, can be ousted by a restless party then who's next? Such is his sense of entitlement that Lieberman has vowed that if he loses the primary he will run in November as an independent - at that point the establishment will probably turn against him.

I don't know what to make of it all. I like the idea of senators being independent but I don't like the idea that somehow they're entitled to tenure and that they're free to ignore increasingly uneasy voters and, if by chance there's a problem with voters, the Democratic establishment will funnel tons of money into the campaign to make sure no upstarts with ideas show up. The country is in trouble. It's a given that many Republicans refuse to see what's going on; hell, throw them a tax cut or a government favor and they're perfectly happy to drive off a cliff.

But it's embarrassing to see Democratic politicians curry favor with each other without looking at an increasingly troubled world or bothering to listen to a large number of voters who have a right to expect better. Perhaps political arrogance is not restricted to the Republican Party these days.