You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
"I am no longer a Democrat."
2006-08-09
by Brendan Loy ("Irish Trojan")

Okay, IÂ’m calling it. ItÂ’s over. Ned Lamont has won the primary. . . . the hard reality is that the voters have spoken, and their message was loud and clear: thereÂ’s no longer room for Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Party. And alas, tonightÂ’s result will reverberate through the November elections and into the 2008 presidential campaign. ItÂ’s really much more than just a single primary in a single state; itÂ’s a shot across the bow of moderate Democrats everywhere. And so, whatever further ramifications this result might have, thereÂ’s one thing it definitely means, one result that is officially cast in stone, as of today:

I am no longer a Democrat.
Hope your resolve lasts.
I’ve been calling myself a Democrat since I was ten years old, . . . In recent years, I’ve seen the “base” of the Democratic Party drifting away from sense and sanity, and at the same time, I’ve felt my own ideological compass pulled somewhat to the right by world events. Yet I remain profoundly uncomfortable with the Republican Party for a variety of reasons, and I’ve never much liked the idea of being an “independent,” considering it — with all due respect to those who wear the label proudly — something of a cop-out in many cases.
You might consider becoming a member of the libertarian wing of the Publican party. We're not all the same, you know. You can be a Publican and be particularly concerned about your civil liberties — which is pretty distinct from the ACLU approach. We're concerned about many of the same issues as Dummycrats; the distinction is that we try not to go overboard on them. Teddy Roosevelt was the original conservationist, for instance, long before it turned into The Environment™.
So IÂ’ve continued to cling to the label of Democrat, and to the hope that the party would somehow save itself from the tired orthodoxies of its interest groups and the execrable excesses of its far-left wing. IÂ’ve shaken my head at the irrational policies and irresponsible rhetoric coming from so many corners of the party, comforting myself with the thought that while Dennis Kucinich may be a nutjob and Al Sharpton may be a charlatan and Howard Dean may be an idiot and Dick Durbin may be, well, a dick, at least thereÂ’s still Joe Lieberman.
The lone voice in the wilderness, the last surviving Jackson Democrat. Notice the divergence between him and his 2000 running mate. That's the evolution of the Democrat party in a nutshell.
Lieberman stood for just about everything good in the Democratic Party, while shunning most of the bad. He was — he is — an honest, decent and rational progressive, a moral but not overly moralistic man, a loyal but not blindly loyal Democrat. He agreed with the party most of the time, but he was willing to disagree when he felt his collegues were wrong. He was also willing to challenge liberal orthodoxies when they needed to be challenged, a rare and crucial trait. . . . But he was — he is — usually right, especially on the big issues, particularly the global war on terrorism and the conflict in Iraq.
The Dems as they are today were made in 1968. The wind that filled their sails came out of Vietnam. Today's party is the McGovern wing, writ large.
Perhaps, I told myself, despite the ascendancy of Nancy Pelosi, the Deaniacs and the Kos Kidz, perhaps Lieberman’s side could still somehow win the struggle for the party’s soul. As long as that hope remained viable, I could continue to be a Democrat. A “Lieberman Democrat,” I called myself, and I was proud.
The Dems are a party that's driven by a vague ideology. They want to be Social Democrats, but Social Democrats are (Second International) Marxists. Marx is still, despite 60 or 70 years of effort on the part of the educational establishment, held in low regard in this country. That Marxist undercurrent has become more evident with the rise of the McGovern kiddies and grandkiddies. We're the world's leading exemplar of capitalism, and they're the anticapitalist counterstream. Anticapitalism translates into anti-Americanism. That's why the abhorrence for flag displays and other patriotic symbolism. Beneath the surface of Social Democracy there's the idea of the managed state, which isn't the ideal of individual liberty and personal accomplishment.
But now the voters have spoken. Lieberman may still consider himself a Democrat — he says that, if elected as an independent, he’ll vote to organize with the Dems, and I believe him — but the Democrats don’t consider Lieberman a Democrat anymore. That’s the cold, hard truth of today’s results. He’s been kicked out of the “big tent” because his loyalty wasn’t blind enough, because his conscience wasn’t pliable enough.
They weren't quite able to do the Yezhov thing on him, but he's become a Trotskyite.
HeÂ’s been replaced by the shiny new millionaire who said all the right things to win over the hearts and minds of the netroots. The war in Iraq is wrong, wrong, wrong; President Bush is bad, bad, bad; and Joe Lieberman is a traitor, a traitor, a traitor. ThatÂ’s the undeniable message that Democratic voters from my home state have sent out across the land this fateful day.
He's been read out of the party, purged. Unless he wins in November, of course. Then it'll be all in the past.
Well, if thereÂ’s no room in the Democratic Party for Joe Lieberman, then thereÂ’s no room in it for me. So IÂ’m done. IÂ’m out. See ya later. Sayonara.
Posted by:Mike

#28  #23 Dave - Moore publicly threatens the Hildebeast?

He'd better stay out of parks at night and triple his bodyguards.

Just sayin', 's all....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2006-08-09 23:11  

#27  LH's cringing in pain - his entire worldview as an accepted member of the Donk party was rejected. Give him a couple days to recover
Posted by: Frank G   2006-08-09 23:08  

#26  As someone who is fed up with both parties (I've never been a registered Democrat OR Republican, and won't change any time soon), this nation has lost its political underpinning and needs to make some significant changes. The Looney Left is taking one party to the dung heap. The spendthrift Republicans are undermining their party to the point of collapse. Both parties need to grow up and stop acting like two-year-olds. Unfortunately, I don't see much hope for that. I'm beginning to think my only option is to buy 40 acres in the mountains and a couple of truck-loads of ammunition.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2006-08-09 22:57  

#25  My reading on the Social Democrats is similar to that of LH.

Love the connection between marital counseling, divorce and your present conflict with your party ;-)
Posted by: Steve White   2006-08-09 17:21  

#24  Moore is a certified Putz.
Posted by: J. D. Lux   2006-08-09 15:57  

#23  Heh. Michael Moore is feeling his oats after last night's Lieberman loss, and he's got words for poor, helpless Hillary:
"To Hillary, our first best hope for a woman to become president, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you continue to support Bush and his war. I'm sure someone has advised you that a woman can't be elected unless she proves she can kick ass just as crazy as any man. I'm here to tell you that you will never make it through the Democratic primaries unless you start now by strongly opposing the war. It is your only hope. You and Joe have been Bush's biggest Democratic supporters of the war. Last night's voter revolt took place just a few miles from your home in Chappaqua. Did you hear the noise? Can you read the writing on the wall?"
Welcome to your new masters, Hillary... LOL!

Posted by: Dave D.   2006-08-09 15:47  

#22   something up with which I will not put.

You've just got to respect a man who will use that phrase with a straight[-ish] face!
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-08-09 15:44  

#21  cognitive dissonance

Look, im unhappy with last nights result sure, and it may well lead me one step further away from my lifelong allegiance to my party, and thats NOT a happy thought - like when you start to think that counseling WONT help your marriage, and you need to talk to a lawyer.

But thats quite apart from my views on the history of socialism, social democracy, welfare statism etc. The comments i responded to were just ignorant, and flew against both my historical knowledge and my personal experience, and that is something up with which I will not put.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-08-09 15:25  

#20  Capitalism is voluntary collectivism.

Socialism is coerced collectivism.

Libertarians want to minimise the coercion and exortion.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2006-08-09 14:25  

#19  "A good example of a third wayer with genuine Real Social Democrat roots is Tony Blair."

NONSENSE with a capital N.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2006-08-09 14:23  

#18  Methinks that LH is experiencing a little cognitive dissonance. Be gentle.
Posted by: 11A5S   2006-08-09 14:18  

#17  If Leberman wins the election it will be good for the country as it will show that even when presented with the full-left wing agenda American voters said no. Then Lamont will take the heat for being a billionare who bought an election.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2006-08-09 13:56  

#16  Uhh?? LH you OK?

Posted by: TomAnon   2006-08-09 13:29  

#15  "Just face it. The Dems are well and truely screwed."

Either they are, or we all are.

Posted by: Ulavique Crutle3559   2006-08-09 10:41  

#14  In politics, unicorns can win elections.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-08-09 10:11  

#13  Show Trials and Party Purges.

Are we there yet?

Pass the popcorn and drink.
Posted by: Whater Thrineper8264   2006-08-09 10:07  

#12  There is no third way. It's a myth. There is capitalism and there is socialism. One can argue about the merits and relative importance of each, but to say there is another alternative is Unicorn sighting.
Posted by: phil_b   2006-08-09 10:06  

#11  Just face it. The Dems are well and truely screwed.
Posted by: DarthVader   2006-08-09 09:58  

#10  "They want to be Social Democrats, but Social Democrats are (Second International) Marxists. Marx is still, despite 60 or 70 years of effort on the part of the educational establishment, held in low regard in this country. That Marxist undercurrent has become more evident with the rise of the McGovern kiddies and grandkiddies. We're the world's leading exemplar of capitalism, and they're the anticapitalist counterstream. Anticapitalism translates into anti-Americanism. That's why the abhorrence for flag displays and other patriotic symbolism. Beneath the surface of Social Democracy there's the idea of the managed state, which isn't the ideal of individual liberty and personal accomplishment"


Youve got the ass backwards. The Social Democrat - Labor movement wing of the Dem party is the Truman-Humphrey-Scoop Jackson wing. I know, I was there, when the Coalition for a Democratic Majority was formed, and we had BOTH the Podhoretzs and other future Reaganites AND members of YPSL (the Young Peoples Socialist League) and SDUSA (Social Democrats USA). The McGovernites despised the AFL CIO, and not all of them did so just for reasons of foriegn policy. Read the McGovernite leaning Guide to American Politics of those years - its bitter at Nixon, but more so at labor type Dems, its heros are clean, middle class WASPY types from Iowa. Thats where Michael Barone came from, by the way (The almanace - i have no idea if hes from Iowa)

What youre missing is the division within the American left (and the European left too, btw) between anti-communist social democrats (generally, but not always, non-Marxist) and fellow traveler/progressive/democratic socialist types who were sympathetic to communism - some were Marxist/socialist but some were bourgeoie more interested in pacifism/atheism with little real interest in the material advancement of the working class. The class split was 1948, the Truman wing vs the Henry Wallace wing. Now the McGovern movement took BOTH the non-working class elements from the Wallace wing, the more left unions (like the west coast longshore, the drug and hospital workers, and some others) and combine that (in uneasy coalition) with bourgeois "progressive" students, berkeley types, etc who had at best a superficial interest in Marxism, and no interest in the labor movement or working class politics.

That coalion does seem to be back.

But its not the only uneasy coalition. The Podhoretzs and many of the Scoop Jackson Dems became Reaganites, and neocons, as is well known. But they are still, I think, profoundly uneasy in the GOP, and the GOP of George Will and William Buckley is profoundly uneasy with them. The GOP liked them cause they won elections, as paleocons couldnt. With an electoral defeat staring them in the face, they will have problems. They have themselves split into the harder line folks at National Review, and the mainstream neocons at Weekly Standard. The latter are behind McCain, who makes many old line Republicans nervous. We shall see how they do.

The new Democrat movement was an odd combination of Humphrey type Social Democrats (those who never became neocons) and Southern democrats who were never all that pro-Labor, including some newly pragmatic former McGovernites, like the Clintons. Just as "nation-building" splits the GOP, free trade tends to split the new Democrats (the Clintonian wing for it, the old labor types - perhaps best represented recently by Gephardt - are against it) The new democrats captured the Dems by winning - the lossed of the last few years have weakened them.

These are difficult issues, but to analyze them properly one needs to start with a well grounded historical analysis. Not all welfare state advocates were social democrats (see Lloyd George) not all Social Democrats, even in the era of the 2nd international, were Marxists (see Fabians, etc) And even the descendents of the 2nd international have divided in many complex ways, which dont map well to the current debate over american foreign policy. REAL social democrats, were able to see how Communist societies crushed free labor unions. Real Social democrats can see how socially reactionary Islamofascism is. Real Social Democrats can see that China has emerged as a Dickensian capitalist hell.

A good example of a third wayer with genuine Real Social Democrat roots is Tony Blair.

Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-08-09 09:48  

#9  Lieberman is a maniac liberal on every issue. He is a flipflop artist witness his algore fiasco. He does have sanity attacks on national security. This makes him interesting to me but anathema to anti-semites and self-haters in the dhimmicrat party;
Posted by: SamAdamsky   2006-08-09 09:37  

#8  points

1. Teddy Roosevelt was no libertarian. Id be interested in a TR Republican. McCain looks more like that than any libertarians.

2. Jackson (Scoop) was no libertarian either. He was a friend of the Labor movement. I resent that Lieberman was beaten by a billionaire, with the support of Conn coast snobs, but that hardly means Id be comfortable in a party that still despises organized labor.

3. Mr Loys article misses two things. A. Joe isnt finished - hes running as an independent Democrat, and may yet win. B. Theres one bane he doesnt mention - Hilary. She may not be as gentle as Joe, but despite that, or because of that, shes still Kos' worst nightmare.

4. For now, put me down as an independent leaning Democrat. Whether that will change to Democrat leaning independent will depend on the events of the next 2 years.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-08-09 09:24  

#7  twobyfour, great comment. Nailed a number of issues.
Posted by: phil_b   2006-08-09 08:42  

#6  10% of the population never had the balls to fight. They rely on their betters to protect them while they scream and fling feces. Those are who voted for Lamont in the Democratic primary. I predict Lamont will lose the general election, even in a bloodless, pussified state like Connecticut where the Republican candidate could be the idiot bastard of John Kerry.
Posted by: ed   2006-08-09 08:27  

#5  "But it's a great day, a triumphant day, for Islamic terrorists"

Connecticut has its Zapatero moment.
Posted by: no mo uro   2006-08-09 06:25  

#4  This is a sad day for the Democratic Party; in fact, pathetic. It's a sad day for America, too.

But it's a great day, a triumphant day, for Islamic terrorists: for them, Lieberman's defeat is a solid datum that confirms for them that America really is losing the will to fight and that they will-- soon perhaps-- succeed in getting us to slink home from Iraq in defeat, with our tails between our legs.

On this day, weakness and stupidity have triumphed.

Posted by: Dave D.   2006-08-09 06:18  

#3  The MSM will spin this as the end of conservatism, capitalism, etc., and America is poised to finally grow up and be just like Western Europe.

They will have gotten it wrong, of course. This primary just lost the Dems whatever chance it had of winning over the middle in 2006. Doesn't exactly advance their cause.
Posted by: no mo uro   2006-08-09 06:17  

#2  Just read an interesting comment on the Ynetnews in response to the WaPo diatribe about Israel avoiding taking out HA launchers.

First of all:
Journalism is long dead. Esp. American journalism. It's just another business, like any other business that only exists because suckers exist.
Sucker-based businesses probably comprise 60% or more of the US economy.

Secondly:
As an old-style leftist, I'm absolutely disgusted with the New Left - all style, no subtance. And a dusgusting style at that. What used to be a movement for equitable distribution of economic output and political power and social progress has become a weird subculture of neurotics, gays, over-educated idiots, bored and sate European pseudo-intellectuals and their
Yank followers, typically
empty-headed poseurs like Mr. Ricks.

It's got its own "intellectual" fashion waves, such as intellectual sadomasochism in the form of Arab fetishism and Antisemitism in the form of Anti-Zionism. The worst offence one can commit against these new leftists is to bore them.
Holocaust is no longer relevant to them and BORING. Hence, Jews are boring. The Arabs are exciting -they blow themselves up and riot on the streets.


I disagree that 60% of US economy comprising of a sucker-based business, probably 15% would be a more realistic figure and with What used to be a movement for equitable distribution of economic output and political power and social progress--it was always a movement for redistribution of economic output and political power as I had the opportunity to observe its implementation from within. There was nothing equitable about it, nor could I observe any signs of social progress, whatever that is supposed to mean.

Everything else this poster nailed right smack on the head.
Posted by: twobyfour   2006-08-09 04:54  

#1  Welcome to the Real World, Brendan. Yes, being a leftist sucks.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2006-08-09 02:10  

00:00