Joe Lieberman is trailing in his primary race, and some are warning that his defeat would show that muscular national security leaders are not welcome in the Democratic Party. Democratic Leadership Council pundit Marshall Wittmann recently declared that his loss would feed the perception of a "weak party that will not be trusted to defend America." Lieberman even told New York magazine that "unless the party has room for people like me, unless the party begins to redeem some public confidence on issues of national security, we're not going to elect a Democratic president or Congress ahead." But such claims misinterpret the primary challenge, which could actually enhance the Democratic Party's security standing by clearly distinguishing it from failed Republican policies. In fact, the most devastating thing one can say about the Democrats' recent foreign policy record is that it is too similar to the Bush doctrine.
In Washington, Lieberman's consistent support for the Iraq War and President Bush's foreign policy is depicted as the principled act of a statesman putting national security above politics. Democrats in Connecticut and across the country see something different: a stubborn politician who is simultaneously compromising the nation's security and his party's reputation.
The problem is not only that Lieberman's foreign policy contradicts the views of a majority of his party, but that his advocacy undermines that party. It is not merely voting to invade Iraq that vexes Democrats -- most of the Senate caucus did the same -- but Lieberman's total embrace of the Republican worldview. He never outlined an independent argument on Iraq, opting instead to repeat Bush's talking points. And by offering critiques that play into GOP caricatures, Lieberman adds to the Democratic Party's many self-inflicted security scars.
That is why Democrats were infuriated when Lieberman parroted the Republican canards that Americans criticize the wartime president at "our nation's peril" and that Iraq is constantly making great progress. His famous November 2005 Wall Street Journal op-ed about Iraq nearing a "watershed transformation" into a "modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood" read like a delusional memo from Donald Rumsfeld. It was Democratic cover for White House spin.
Lieberman counters that security policy should be above politics. That is a fine notion, but his actions have actually helped facilitate the fierce politicization of national security. The last two elections have turned on security. Lieberman has allowed himself to be used by the GOP machine to falsely attack Democrats, and not only on Iraq.
In 2002, Lieberman introduced a proposal for a Homeland Security Department to reorganize government preparation for domestic attacks. First Bush opposed the popular idea, but as the midterm elections approached he reversed his stance. Lieberman was not wary about the change of heart. He immediately pursued a bipartisan compromise to pass the bill. But Bush did not want a compromise; he wanted a security issue to run on. Even as Republicans bottled up the bill, Lieberman said he did not believe the White House would try to "keep the issue alive before the election and blame it" on Democrats. He labeled that idea a "conspiracy theory." But that is precisely what happened.
Bush stole the proposal and stifled its passage to politicize the issue for the midterms. He claimed the bill was delayed because "Democrats are not interested in the security of the American people." The same theme was hammered in GOP attack ads, including the misleading charges that helped unseat Senator Max Cleland.
It all worked. Republicans won seats and passed a similar bill after the election. Bush used Lieberman to falsely attack Democrats -- but rather than denounce these tactics, Lieberman would simply return for more abuse over the next four years. As journalist Jeffrey Toobin observed after the 2002 elections, "Intentionally or not, Lieberman spent the fall doing the Republicans' bidding. His stature gave the President's policy on Iraq the shimmer of bipartisanship; his leadership on homeland security led to a political debacle and policy failure for the Democrats."
Make no mistake, Lieberman's political blunders still pale next to his policy mistakes. He stubbornly supports Bush's failed Iraq policy. He still backs the "preemptive doctrine" that rushed the nation into an unnecessary war in Iraq, but that is useless against more significant threats like Iran and North Korea. He clings to neoconservative ambitions of forcing democracy on the Middle East, even as it flounders in Iraq and elects terrorists in the Palestinian territories. Simply put, Lieberman's national security policies are bad for America's security.
Furthermore, by challenging one of their own in a "Blue State," grassroots Democrats demonstrate they are more concerned about public policy than holding a "safe seat." These voters see a failed policy in Iraq that requires urgent change. Unlike the hopelessly complicit Republican majority in Congress, the Democratic Party is showing it will confront its own members on national security.
Just as the road to enhancing the Democratic Party's national security credibility is not paved with pacifism, it cannot trace the tracks of failed hawks, either. Joe Lieberman was never a national security leader for his party; he was simply the right ally at the right time for the Republican leadership. By confiscating Lieberman's Democratic credentials next week, Democratic voters can stop the support of failed foreign policy in their name. No single race will change the nation's Iraq policy, but admitting there is a problem is the first step to recovery.
Ari Melber, a former legislative aide in the U.S. Senate and national staff member on John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign, is a contributor to MoveOn's 50 Ways to Love Your Country (Inner Ocean Publishing).
