Peretz: The Peace Democrats are Back
By pennconservative Posted in 2006 | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
From the diaries . . .
Martin Peretz, editor in chief of the New Republic, takes a look at what a Lamont victory in Connecticut will mean for his party...and he's scared.
If Mr. Lieberman goes down, the thought-enforcers of the left will target other centrists as if the center was the locus of a terrible heresy, an emphasis on national strength. Of course, they cannot touch Hillary Clinton, who lists rightward and then leftward so dexterously that she eludes positioning. Not so Mr. Lieberman. He does not camouflage his opinions. He does not play for safety, which is why he is now unsafe.
Now Mr. Lamont's views are also not camouflaged. They are just simpleminded. Here, for instance, is his take on what should be done about Iran's nuclear-weapons venture: "We should work diplomatically and aggressively to give them reasons why they don't need to build a bomb, to give them incentives. We have to engage in very aggressive diplomacy. I'd like to bring in allies when we can. I'd like to use carrots as well as sticks to see if we can change the nature of the debate." Oh, I see. He thinks the problem is that they do not understand, and so we should explain things to them, and then they will do the right thing. It is a fortunate world that Mr. Lamont lives in, but it is not the real one. Anyway, this sort of plying is precisely what has been going on for years, and to no good effect. Mr. Lamont continues that "Lieberman is the one who keeps talking about keeping the military option on the table." And what is so plainly wrong with that? Would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be more agreeable if he thought that we had disposed of the military option in favor of more country club behavior?
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?
The Lamont ascendancy, if that is what it is, means nothing other than that the left is trying, and in places succeeding, to take back the Democratic Party. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters have stumped for Mr. Lamont. As I say, we have been here before. Ned Lamont is Karl Rove's dream come true. If he, and others of his stripe, carry the day, the Democratic party will lose the future, and deservedly.
I'm not one of these people that condemns what the wacky left is doing by challenging Lieberman over his proximity to the present. Contrary to what many seem to think, this is exactly what primaries are for. If the Democratic party wants to be the "cut and run" or appeasement party, then fine. These things are supposed to get resolved in primaries.
That being said, Republicans should be ecstatic if Lamont wins, because it will convince the Democrats that their anti-war, weak-on-defense message resonates with the people. Unfortantely for them, all races are not Democratic primaries in Connecticut with the whole world watching.
You sound like Howard Dean. Do you really think that if the national party started dumping resources into strongly Democratic areas, that it would do anything but cost us the opportunity to dump those resources into swing areas?
If Republicans in the northeast don't like their local party structure, and if in particular conservatives don't like that their parties keep putting up Snowes, Chafees, and Jeffordses, it's up to THEM to fix it, not Ken Mehlman.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
and here's the difference in a nutshell.
impressions to the contrary notwithstanding, the republicans for a very long time--thanks initially to richard viguerie--have done a very good job of harnessing whatever was available at the current moment in time in terms of technology, and their donation base among small donors versus the fat cats has always exceeded the reliance on fat cats. even the moveon.org crowd is basically fat cat in its origins: soros. so all the commentary today about the kos kids/netroots stuff is falsely predicated on a concept of grass roots that is fundamentally incorrect in its implied suggestion that what the lamont phenomenon represents is technology serving the increased voice of the little guy.
the dean phenomenon propelled him to the party chairmanship and, yes, dean has committed the party to devoting financial resources to places where they lose and is probably a waste of money in the short term. but we have no idea what the long term benefit may be. it may turn out to be a very smart thing to do.
the republicans have done an altogether different thing. they have simply looked at new york and new england and said "you're on your own." they have aided and abetted the local parties in putting offices up for sale. this is basically how bloomberg became mayor of new york. and, on top of this, they still come to the 10022 zip code to raise all their money, then refuse to spend any of it where they raise it.
you are of course right in saying that disaffected conservatives should right their own ship. i agree with that completely. but what i am saying is that the local party structure in new york and new england proactively discourages such conservatives from participating in the party process. it has been taken over by party innies who are mostly career politicians who have no interest at all in philosophical and ideological concerns.
that's not the case with the democrats. it's very obvious that in connecticut in particular, democrat career innies stand to lose a great deal if lamont unseats lieberman, and yet the party has allowed the nedheads to participate fully.
When you complain about national Republicans writing off whole regions of the country, you're sounding EXACTLY like Howard Dean of the desire to spend lots of money in poor southern states.
My guess is you're probably right on in your criticisms of the state and local party structure in the northeast, but I think you're hurting yourself with your tying this with other complaints. Criticisms of the national party strategy are probably going to be discredited in light of our win streaks, so I suggest you keep those issues separate.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
are full of real Americans with solid morals and ideals not the coalition of liberal elitists and their serfdom of victimhood found in metropolitan areas. A big worry for the Dims is that an increasing number of the serfs are figuring out that freedom lies in the self reliance and morality of the right rather than the secular self loathing of the left.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
In my humble opinion, she would have mounted a primary challenge if she was a real Republican. She has absolutely no support from anyone within the state party. If John Cox decides to run as an independent in the general for President, it doesn't make him a Republican candidate. Besides, if Alan Schlesinger only wants to hold the Iraqi government to what they promised by replacing 50% of our troops by Dec. 2007, and cedes the final decision to George W. Bush on TV despite how unpopular that is, that's not anti-war. (certainly not as much as I would like)
And by the way, I misrepresented Alan's position on border security to you before. His worker visa program isn't meant to provide a speedy track to citizenship, and he's 100% against amnesty for illegals in the U.S. He wants to use troops, satellite technology, et al. I suppose when I saw "workers' visa" on the site, I just assumed it was the Bush plan. After doing the stump trail, I found out he is much tougher on immigration than Bush or I. Not trying to convince you to vote for him, just clearing that up.
Disclaimer: Works for Alan Schlesinger (R-CT). Volunteer, no pay.
It’s downright embarrassing to see Republicans concede any races particularly State-wide ones as we did in Vermont in 1998, Illinois in 2004, and now Connecticut in 2006. We’re the national governing party and we ought to be able to mount a credible candidate in any and every race in the country.
Even if some of these States are so “deep blue” that they’re unlikely to go Republican in the near future, the point is by running credible candidates (hint: NOT Alan Keyes), we lay the foundation for building a competitive party in those areas which sooner or later will lead to winning elections and becoming a governing party that will implement (comparatively more) conservative ideas.
In my own State of Minnesota, for decades the “Independent” Republican Party of Minnesota was basically a joke (our last GOP governor and one of our last GOP Senators both turned RINO and endorsed Kerry IIRC) and we were regarded as one of the “safe” States for Democrats that they could expect to carry by double digits. In the last several elections, that margin has consistently narrowed to the point where we are one of the most competitive States in the nation (now a “purple” State) which has half of our Congressional delegation, our State House, three-fourths of our State-wide constitutional offices and one (hopefully soon to be two) Senate seats held by Republicans (although Coleman’s too much of a statist squish IMO). It didn’t happen overnight but we did make it happen and there’s no reason why other “blue States” cannot do the same IMO.
If it plays out, though, that Ned wins the primary and Lieberman wins the general, what will the Democrats do? They'll have to look to Connecticut and realize that there party can be hijacked by a group of fringe characters. What will they do to correct this?
Then again, I'm heartened that the last time the Democrats were almost hijacked by a group of fringe proletarians, the made the leader of the movement their party chair.
I'm with Thorley Winston on this one. I live in a Chicago suburb and the Keyes campaign, combined with George Ryan as governor, has greatly hurt the GOP here with the "middle voter." Interestingly, George Ryan bowed out of the GOP primary due to the polls showing that he couldn't win, but that his approval ratings with Dem's, which were much higher than with the Rep's, suggested that he would be competitive in the general election. Which helps to explain why the extremely tainted Blagojevich is still favored to win reelection. Like it or not, a McCain type of candidate would clean up here, but not if he was counting on the dysfunctional state GOP.
In response to TW, Illinois has a much deeper problem within its GOP than the nomination of Alan Keyes, who I wouldn agree with you, is not a particularly credible candidate. In 2004, Illinois has 2 things going against it: that the IL GOP is in deep trouble with a scandal plagued GOP and the fact that it was up against Obama, who is a moderate who can pose as a liberal and a liberal who can pose as a moderate. Senator Obama is good enough to win the solidly red downstate vote and continue to win the overwhelmingly blue Cook County with Chicago. Enter Alan Keyes, who hailed from the East Coast, and was widely believed to be a carpetbagger, and who in my opinion ran a terrible campaign. Fast forward to 2006, where the Republican Party of Illinois has failed to heed Phyllis Schafly's advice in 1964 when she encouraged the party to offer a "choice, not an echo" in its nomination of Barry Goldwater. In 2006 liberal Republican Judy Baar Topinka will take on moderate yet kooky Governor Rod Blagojevich in a race that has conservatives saying ho-hum. This of course is partly the fault on the Right for splitting the conservative vote between Jim Oberweis and Bill Brady. The result is a probable loss for the Illinois GOP, which I hope will become our 1964 in order to re emerge as a real force in Illinois politics. In fact, upon my graduation from college this year I am planning on entering the Illinois political scene in the hopes that I can reform the IL Party from the scandal plagued force that it is to the Party that had a long history of electing credible and good Governors and Senators.
"When possible we are bringing terrorists to justice. And when necessary, we are bringing justice to the terrorists."-Secretary Rice
Marty Peretz, a sad relic of a better time
The more I think about it, the more pathetic Peretz was.
your comments are insightful and informative, and i have no problem with them.
however, what's going on in connecticut really represents a far deeper problem for conservatives caused by the republican party.
simply stated, the republican party has abandoned new england and new york. they've written it off. they did it a long time ago. and in the intervening years they've grown recalcitrant about it. in that same time frame, alienated right wingers have lived with zero representation. the local new england republican infrastructure has become arrogant, elitist, incestuous and morally--and often legally as well--corrupt.
the net result is a party that is way behind the curve--and, right now, behind the eight ball. what we're seeing happen in connecticut is exactly how republicans behaved in new york prior to hillary's election as senator there. they've gone all the way from "it'll never happen" (election of hillary in new york; in connecticut, "joementum" will go back to washington, even if he has to run as an independent) to a state of panic that always engulfs those who can't see reality coming until it bites them on the bottom (OMG! ned lamont is going to be the next senator from connecticut!; now let's talk about how marginalized the democrats are becoming!).
what is the response to this? is it taking responsibility for a failed and alienating party that has left the right wing no place to go?
no. instead, it is the usual complacency in the form of comments about how the lamont phenomenon represents a democrat party so marginalized that it can never be a mainstream party again if the lamont model is adopted nationally.
to me this sounds like the whole process of naivete that has already occurred in new england and new york (where, once upon a time, republicans thought "it could never happen") now being repeated at the national level.
the real problem is RINOism. the real problem is the abandonment of conservatives by the republican party. the real problem is a national organization writing off entire regions of the country.
don't tell me the democrat party is too marginalized to be a national force. you didn't see it coming in new york and new england once upon a time, and it will surprise you elsewhere soon enough. at least the democrats are giving all their factions a voice (the nedheads and the lieberman supporters). that's the way a healthy party works; even if they are populated by people with wrongheaded policy aims.
the republicans of new england are only catering to the connected innies.
and in connecticut, who, based on the FACTS, is really more the wacko? the democrats--who have one antiwar candidate--or the republicans, who have TWO?
i for one am tired of reading about how marginalized the democrats have become in places where the republican party is in large part responsible for that phenomenon, because they created a vacuum for left wing radicals by abandoning their right wing.