Thoughtful post.

I think your comments on the way that the politics of the Iraq War will shift between now and 2008 are exactly right. It's not Lamont-Lieberman that's going to drive it, it's the situation on the ground in Iraq and the slow way Americans become aware of it through the media filter.

It's one of the reasons why I, being a massive Edwards partisan, rejoiced back in 2005 when he rejected his previous pro-war vote and apologized for it. Even if he didn't get in on the IPO of antiwar stock, he was buying low and he'd be able to sell high when 2008 came around.

I think it’s possible that after the primary, unleashed from the obligation of being a checklist Democrat, Lieberman may emerge as a very, very conservative figure, one of those real neoconservatives (in the older sense of the word) whose main politics is to obsess over and recoil at what they see as the excesses of the left.

Indeed. Lieberman is a guy who has been undergoing a painfully extended coversion to total neocon wingnuttery. The primary will give him his chance to sever his last ties.

"Democrats started that war."

I think this is the big difference ignored by the talking heads. Democrats were on the defensive in 1968.

It is different this time. It is the GOP that will be on the defensive, if Democrats can stop acting like Lieberman and go on the offensive. This is Bush's war.

"establishment figures have to be noticing that not only did Lieberman put himself in this situation,"

I just don't understand Lieberman's strategy. This should have been an easy win for him. He was holding all the cards. All he had to do was start putting a distance between himself and Bush on Iraq and maybe a few other issues. Give a few speeches critical of Bush. Kinda like what Hillary has been doing. Lieberman would have defeated Lamont in a landslide.

Lieberman did not have to do a 180. He could have continued supporting the war. But he could have gone on Meet the Press, written op-eds demanding resignations and criticizing the Bush war strategy. He could have criticized Bush from the right. Instead he repeated "stay the course" message.

It is almost as if Lieberman wants to lose.

No offense Mark, but this is some pretty self serving revisionism.

If you read any news or publications about the Democratic party in the late 60's, about vietnam, about war protestors, about Eugene & Bobby, about Humphrey, you won't hear anybody saying "Because the Democrats' war is going so bad, Democrats are losing credibility on National Security" If the source of The Democratic parties woes on National Security "credibility", which remember, is usually defined by that age old poll question "Which party/candidate do you trust more to keep America safe" was that THEIR war was going bad, then how come this credibility dipped even further after the sad McGovern campaign, which no matter how annoying it's embarassment warped the fragile psyche of the party for years to come, can't just be written out of the narrative of the party just because it's inconvenient.

McGovern lost for many reasons, primarily cultural ones -- that he was perceived as aligned with and representative of disturbing social trends -- civil rights (affirmative action and busing), feminism (ERA) and the questioning of knee-jerk nationalism (amnesty) and America's right to an imperium.

As well, he was left to hang out and dry by the Party's Old Guard and he himself made campaign mistakes.

McGovern's problems were those of 1972. Our problems today are different, and the results of the McGovern nomination and campaign are not particularly instructive.

I'll certainly second Dustin's sentiments. Mark writes:

"Also, I’m really tired of the Vietnam/Democrats analogy, in which the entire political history of Vietnam is reduced to McGovern’s loss in 1972."

I agree with this entirely. The political history of Vietnam should not be reduced merely to the '72 debacle. Instead, it resulted in the 40 year GOP advantage in national security, and played an enormous part (along with racial issues) in the Democrats having the minority electoral coalition during that time period.

"The national security gap for Democrats first appeared in polls in 1967-68, because LBJ was held responsible for the war itself, not because they were associated with antiwar activists. (See this paper from the Truman Project for more.)"

I've really got to wonder if Mark actually read the linked Truman Project paper, as opposed to just skimming through it looking for supporting evidence.

The paper clearly outlines a conclusion quite different from Mark's - one where a perceived Democratic lack of resolve on national security issues in the post-1968 period has cost the party very dearly.

And FWIW, it's a good paper, well worth reading.

-----

The Iraq war is quite unpopular for entirely justified reasons, much as the Vietnam war was. But the Democrats' positioning on Vietnam planted the seeds of a very bitter electoral harvest that persists to this day. And such a willful misreading of the politics of Vietnam runs a strong risk of leading to another long-term bitter harvest over Iraq.

I understand that the Bradley wing of the party, and the folks participating on blogs in general, can financially withstand another generation in the minority, if that's what it takes to make a moral statement of principles now over the war. However, most of the rest of the folks Democrats represent cannot withstand another generation of right-wing rule.

2006 is going to be a good year for us, in large part because of Iraq. But the willful refusal to examine what our current actions will reap beyond 2006 really chills me.

Dustin, your hardheadedness is sorely misplaced. Listen to the angriest rhetoric of the radical anti-war movement from 1967 to '72. Who were they viciously denouncing? Conservatives? Of course not. They were denouncing liberals. The crucial year was never 1972. It was 1968, when the war split the Democratic Party and destroyed the liberal consensus. McGovern lost big in '72 because the left had split, pushing its working-class centrist elements out of the party.

Now, which party, and which ideology, is being split down the middle by the Iraq war? Which party is experiencing its own 1968 right now? It's conservativism that is being torn into its constituent fractions by the Iraq War. As the pro-War faction shrinks and ultimately evaporates, Democrats have less and less to fear on the national security question. It is the GOP that had better start thinking about what nominating a pro-war figure like McCain could mean in '08, when its own conservative base is already tearing itself apart over the war.

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

Just gotta throw this out there:

Proposed: The reason opnion has turned against the war is not because of the lies or inherent futility or antipathy toward the idea of Pax Americana. It's because of the perception that we're losing. Right now Bush and the GOP are suffering in opnion polls because they are associated with that loss.

Therefore: When the Dems take over and finally--inevitably--pull us out of Iraq, don't they take on the mantle of being the ones who really "lost" the war?

A number of points I agree with, but your point on the 1972 parallel is particularly well made.

Granted Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail should not be regarded as an authoritative source, but Frank Mankiewicz has referred to it as the least factual but most accurate account of the McGovern campaign. And everyone on the McGovern team pointed to the botched VP selection as the moment McGovern tanked. Every other question was secondary to the fact McGovern was seen as flaky, with poor judgement, and was running for POTUS with sloppy-seconds.

And I totally agree that the Dems were hamstrung by the fact one of their own had turned Vietnam into a quagmire. The fact is the Dems weren't so much "weak on national security" (as the GOP would have you believe), but rather were evidently divided at the highest levels and this translated into fatal uncertainty over what the Dems stood for regarding national security.

In 2006, the roles have sort of been reversed; just the anti-war movement is still on the same side. Whilst the GOP (to date) has done a better job of presenting itself as unified, their judgement on matters of national security is in question, and the fissures will open.

So, here's my suggestion for the Dems right now - It's the unity, stupid.

Get behind Harry Reid, and support an immediate and significant withdrawal of the troops. It's a political no-brainer.

I'm partial to Edwards myself. Shame we lost his Senate Seat.

Interesting. Folks in NC say he did nothing for the state as their Senator and they did not vote for him either, as you recall the tkt loss the state of NC.

The lie that Democrats are "weak" on national security does not date to the Viet Nam War. Opposition to that war was bipartisan. It dates to a later time, the time of the Viet Nam Dolchstosslegende in the mid to late 70s. It started with the Panama Canal Treaty and was fueled by the Iranian hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, both of which were used by the Republicans and the corporate press/media to create the illusion that America was losing the Cold War.

I just wanted to highlight this post because I think it is dangerous to formulate strategy and not recognize the power of pro-republican propaganda in America.

Up until now our most senior leaders response to this conservative onslaught has been to agree with some of their premises in order to neutralise their attack and fight back on other fronts. I think we can say that this has been a mistake. Maybe the key is not trying to out hawk the right but to label their ideas as dangerous and their supporters as crazy fools. After all, that approach has the benefit of being in line with reality as opposed to controlling its interpretation. At what point have Republican foreign policy positions not been insane? Commit to a land war in China in 46; Nuke Communist China in 53; Nuke and Invade North Vietnam in 67; Invade Iran in 79?

The answer to a warmonger who calls you a traitor for not supporting a war is not to demure and hesitate, you have to immediatly hit him back; "No sir you are the traitor for dragging America into wars to keep you in office. You are using dead American servicemen to pave your way to the (insert whitehouse, Senate, etc...) I am protecting the honor of the American armed froces from crazy fools like you."

Harsh? Yes it is, but you see the moment he questions your patriotism it is permitted for you to attack his character as well. In fact, by not attacking his character he will win the argument.

This is the problem the Democratic Party has faces since Vietnam, we thought that when it came to foreign policy our Republican opponents, like us, would put America first and politics second. But this has not been the case. They have used foreign policy as an electoral wedge, so much so that they now consider war to be in their electoral interest. When you are dealing with a political opponent that unprincipled you just can not pull your punches and I think Democrats, center, right and left, are all starting to understand this. Thank God.

This is purely anecdotal. As someone who was very active in the Anti-War movement during the Vietnam period, I didn't vote for for about a 20 year period dating from the start of the Vietnam War...in my case, it was anger at the Democratic Party, especially Johnson and Humphrey, over Vietnam and foreign policy more generally.

I'm getting more than a little tired of Senators who cast their votes on policy questions as important as war based on political expediency. Kerry, Clinton, Biden and most other Democrats who supported the war did so to fend off the "weak on national security" narrative. Now look where they are--forced to defend a failed policy that can't even be expressed in a coherent fashion.

All the military objectives have been taken. All the political milestones have been hit. And the result is a failed state, complete disruption of the Middle East, an empowered Iran, enormous loss of American moral authority and an enormous budget deficit.

The political calculations proved to be perverse. This is now Joe's war and Hillary's war, not just Bush's war. Maybe, just maybe, next time you vote for what's right. Outcomes are hard to predict, so there's really no certain downside in doing what's right.

While it is not ONLY his position on the war that's killing him--he's run the worst incumbent campaign I've ever seen--it is at the heart of his troubles.

It's impossible to state a principled reason or a coherent strategy for going forward in Iraq that doesn't amount to an open-ended occupation. Reading him trying to parse this in today's NYT piece on the race is an object lesson for Dem challengers pf republican incumbents on how to frame support for the war--open-ended commitment, with no exit strategy in sight. Bush can get away with this because he doesn't take questions. We've seen what that does to somebody on the campaign trail. Lieberman literally can't take questions while running for office. That hamstrings a candidate for a seat on the Hill.

All these pundits just love the status quo and they love bipartisan types like McCain and Lieberman. But when one party is completely partisan (the republicans), the other party must take a similar stance or they will perish.

Pundits can blather all they want. It's not compromise when the other side won't change its position on an issue or, worse, lies about the intent of a bill. It's capitulation.

Please post this as a diary to the Democrats Table or something. It deserves wider discussion.

sPh

Interesting, you're analysis doesn't stand up against the evidence.

Sure it does. The Kerry/Edward tkt lost the state of NC..are you refuting that?

John Edwards Would Have Won Re-Election to a Second Term in North Carolina in 2004

UM, Edwards did not run for re-election he ran as VP on the Presidential ticket and did not carry his home state for the tkt. I am not speaking about your 'fantasy Fox news poll race for the Senate' I am stating the reality and fact that Edwards did not carry his home state of NC on the 2002 Presidential Dem tkt.  Are you refuting that?

BTW are you a wolverine 'goblue'...leaders and best.?

One of Humphrey's problems was not only could he not break with Johnson but despite imploring by his aids, including my father-in-law, he would not denounce what went on in Chicago.

Also one reason he lost was that a number of McCarthy and Kennedy supporters were so disillusioned they stayed home.

Lastly the Republicans have used to two different themes to beat up on Democrats on Vietnam. The first one mentioned here is McGovern and the anti-war Democrats are basically unAmerican hippies etal and unrepresentative of the "silent majority."

The other theme was that Johnson did not let us win in Vietnam. This theme is echoed everytime you hear a civilian leader say they are going to leave the war to the generals.

The irony of this is that those who favored the war in Iraq, especially the neo-cons, urged Bush reading Eliot Cohen's book "Supreme Command" precisely because he debunks that claim. The neo-cons found current generals too pacific and wanted the Commander-in-Chief to override the military. Unfortunately Bush did not actually read the whole book.

Democrats having been so dependent on the "checklist" of groups they never seem to be sure of what they are for, while the Republicans almost always do. Bush as made it a political truism that he does not waver no matter how inept his policy.

Democrats split over Vietnam and then lost two major segments of their coalition, the South and northern Catholics. Maybe Demcorats should worry less about winning as such and more being for beliefs, and thus they might actually win more.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I'm looking forward to him challenging Chris Matthews to a duel. Or speaking at the 2008 Republican convention in a spittle-flecked rage. That will be about all he has left after he loses the primary.

I believe he voted for a withdrawal - to begin this year.

That seems to me to be as good as "immediate".

And at least half the country appears to hold a similar view.

Here's an interesting piece of Democratic news. Is Clinton travelling in the same direction as Lieberman?

Petey Said:

I've really got to wonder if Mark actually read the linked Truman Project paper, as opposed to just skimming through it looking for supporting evidence.

The paper clearly outlines a conclusion quite different from Mark's - one where a perceived Democratic lack of resolve on national security issues in the post-1968 period has cost the party very dearly.

And FWIW, it's a good paper, well worth reading.

So I did what Petey suggested.  I went over to the Truman Project paper by Loren Griffith, Where We Went Wrong How the Public Lost Faith in Democrats' Ability to Protect Our National Security, and How to Stage a Comeback and read it thoroughly, including the footnotes.  I think Mark Schmitt probably shouldn't have used the paper to buttress his point.  But my reason is that the paper isn't really a very good paper.  It's the kind of pseudo-scholarly work one finds published by advocacy think-tanks, dressing the language of emotion with the trappings of scholarship, using ad hominem attacks, and the kind of unreason which would, if submitted to a college professor result in red ink bespattered all over the place.

Just a couple of examples.  the author of the paper attributes two statements to McGovern: 

McGovern left the impression that if he were elected, America would put its tail between its legs and go home. He called the war in Vietnam "a policy of mass murder," said he would "beg" Hanoi for the return of American POWs, and urged massive cuts in defense spending.

He references this assertion, complete with its direct quotations, not to direct McGovern statement, but to a 2000 New Republic Article by Lawrence Kaplan.  Is Kaplan a reliable source for analysis of the thinking of McGovern?  Kaplan, who criticized Colin Powell for disliking "military intervention because he has problems understanding the world."  In the academic world, integrity requires a higher standard.  One either references the original source of a direct quotation, or provides a statement of the point of view of the secondary source (in this case Kaplan) or provides a context for the quotation of the first instance (McGovern's words):  ideally, the author does all three.

Example two:  He describes (I would say libels) Cyrus Vance and Andrew Young this way:  

Carter picked Cyrus Vance, perceived by some as "the closest thing to a pacifist that the U.S. has ever had as Secretary of State" as his lead diplomat, and Andrew Young, who once suggested, "it may take the destruction of Western civilization to allow the rest of the world to really emerge as a free and brotherly society," as Ambassador to the United Nations.

Who are these "some"?  The reference is to Steven F. Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute.  Is Hayward a person without a point of view?  For that matter is the American Enterprise Institute without a point of view itself?  A look at its Board of Directors suggest not.  It also suggests that many of the interests of the American Enterprise Institute are inimical to those of the Democratic Party.

This is becoming a rant, but at least I hope it is a principled rant.  I close with one last example of why I really dislike essays like Griffith's, and why, yes, I think they need to be carefully read before writers use them to buttress points.  Here's Griffith on Carter, and on Reagan

The narrative of Democratic incompetence spoiled Carter's foreign policy successes, most notably the Camp David Accords.

To be sure, Carter was wise to recognize the security relevance of "soft" foreign policy tools such as human rights promotion (the Bush Administration has lately come around to this view itself). But whatever the wisdom of Carter's policies, their political symbolism was disastrous, feeding into the perception that Democrats shy away from projecting American power and leave our security vulnerable. Because Carter's policies were seen as weak, his symbols began to seem weak as well. Concepts like peace, cooperation, and human rights came under Carter to imply weakness

Reagan's foreign policy was driven by a strong unifying vision, with a clear goal, a clear enemy, and clear prescriptions. Most Americans could still articulate that vision in a few sentences. Nothing of the sort is possible with Clinton's foreign policy.

So we have a Truman Institute author damning Carter (and elsewhere, Clinton) and Lauding Reagan?  Perhaps we need to take a closer look at the Truman Institute itself.  Who are its directors and principals?  What are their credentials?  What do they do in their day jobs?  Would Harry S Truman approve of the uses to which his name is being put? 

End of Rant.  (phew)
 

aMike

Self-hating Democrats

I'd like to make two points:

1.) Lieberman is only one of the worst examples of the type of Democrat who has been perpetuating the party's minority status -- in part by agreeing with and perpetuating the worst Republican-created smears against their own constituencies. Democrats who believe it is more in their interest to bash the people who vote for them than to stand up for those voter's interests by standing up to the Republicans.

These Democrats never ask themselves this question -- why should those "swing" voters I am trying to attract trust that I will stand up for them when I am constantly demonstrating my disdain for, and my unwillingness to stand up for, the people who DO vote for me?

2.) These party leaders, and the liberal pundits who support them, are for the most part yesterday's McGovernites. And they are as elitist, out of touch with, and disdainful of the millions of ordinary Americans who desperately NEED their party to act as a real and effective alternative to the Republican party and its destructive policies as they were clueless about and disdainful of the broader concerns (beyond the war) of middle and working class Americans 30 years ago.

The reason these people see McGovernites everywhere they look is because they aren't looking beyond their own tiny circle or their own class prejudices.

If you are refering to Edwards the Vice President, then your comment is merely snark and not terribly germane to the comments made. As has been pointed out, if he had been as cynical as Lieberman and ran for his senate seat while running for VP, he would have held on to it.

He has more integrity then Lieberman and I admire him for it.

Yes, Edwards did plenty for the "folks" in North Carolina, as well as the rest of the Country.

Ever hear of the Patients Bill of Rights?

Geez.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Fine, don't believe a poll taken of actual voters as they walked out of the ballot booth. But, my guess is, that since there couldn't be a more likely to be correct poll taken, you won't find many who accept your claims.

Ellen has the right of it, I think.  The fight is still going on.  The odd thing of it is that time seems to be proving McGovern was right.  In terms of the culture agenda...equality for blacks, women, gays--the anger on the right masks a kind of fear that it is losing, if it hasn't lost already.  I'd guess the same is true on the immigration/amnesty issue, though the jury is still out on that.

And absolutely!  McGovern was left to hang out and dry.  Our Party will always have an Old Guard.  The faces and names change, but the position persists.  One hopes that today's Old Guard may have learned a few things--enough to prevent it behaving as the Old Old Guard did.

Nice Post, Ellen 

aMike

It does not help that this "political expediency" was just "strategery". Democrats cave in and got clobbered, both in 2002 and 2004.

One should make a Compendium of Misguided Opportunistic Votes. A comprehensive compendium would have a size of Britannica Encyclopaedia, but the list of chief highlights would be instructive.

One case I remember well: a widow of late Sen. Carnahan became junior Senator from MO and was facing special elections, she made all pandering votes commons wisdom and strategery required, including the tax cuts and the war authorization, and was duly defeated in 2002.

A wise kind of political expediency would be to rally behind Sen. Byrd, make a symbolic resolution urging Saddam to "comply", and refuse in blanco war authorization on the grounds of preserving proper Constitutional order guarding against recklessness. In particular, Bush refused to provide any estimate of the cost of war etc.

Similarly with taxes. Bush offered totally bogus numbers and all politicians knew it.

Similarly with bancruptcy reform etc.

The only good outcome is that most probably, manipulated war fever would win seats for GOP anyway, and the gurus of "strategery" would have another argument for pandering to the "center". Now it started to dawn at the more smart of them that this is self-defeating.

USA will not be better than Saddam at torture and intimidation, in fact, we do not come remotedly close when we try. Similarly, riding the wave of war hysteria is not what Democrats are good at. This is the economic theory of comparative advantage in action. Sticking to principles is also sticking to what you do well.

Mark, I realize this was not your main point but thank you for the succinct takedown of Michael Barone--who has long been undeservedly put up on a pedestal by a small but devoted cadre of insider loyalists, notably George Will.

Your commentary on the Lamont-Lieberman race has been the best I've seen.

Being against the Iraq War IS Pro-Israel.

Our invasion and continued presense in Iraq has radicalized the populace which has, in turn, jeopardized Israel's national security. The Iraq war has set back the chances for peace in the Middle East at least a generation.

One could make the argument that if you support staying in Iraq, you are in fact ANTI-Israel. It'd be an interesting frame for someone to try.

You are welcome to your fantasy about AIPAC but Bandar Bush and the purveyors of oil are probably a lot more important.

If the United States withdraws from Iraq the chaos that will ensue should keep both the Iranians and the Saudis busy for some time.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Perhaps a wee quibble, perhaps not.  There very well may have been Republicans arguing to nuke China in 1953 (I remember a very conservative member of the House of Representatives, Dr. Walter Judd, but I don't think he went that far), but I don't think one can lay that charge to the Eisenhower Administration.  Eisenhower had an understanding of the limits of military power (similar to Powell's, but he was the boss and could act on the basis of his understanding).  A saber or two might have been rattled, but none were drawn. 

I hold Ike in a kind of reverence for one contribution specifically, his understanding of the danger of the Military Industrial Complex, and his taking the opportunity to address the nation about the matter.  That speech needs resurrection.

aMike

You guys are right. Dems need to vote on what they believe, defend their votes with pride and attack Republicans for their reprehensible behavior. When they cave because they are worried about what people will say about them on Fox News then we have all lost.

Your link is to a blog news hub portal...interesting site..but not quite the piece I think you wanted to link to?

BTW..how about sending me a pvt msg on how you do use that site.

"that acting from principle is not just right but also an effective electoral strategy, that people will vote for someone they think is principled even if they disagree with some of that person's positions."

This is such nonsense. I am tired of people telling me I should support a politician because he is principled even though his "principles" are contrary to my principles.

Bush is principled. Cheney is principled. They stick to their principles. Their principles are repugnant to me. They are not my principles. I don't support them.