Later today, I'll have an article up on the Lieberman event I attended. There were parts of his talk that didn't make the cut, however, including his applause line that "last year, the Democratic Party of Connecticut liberated me." Much like how we "liberated" Iraq by almost destroying the country and wrecking their future, I guess. But the primary defeat didn't only liberate Lieberman, it changed him. Long before some nerd named Ned got the idea of channeling anti-Lieberman sentiment by challenging him in a primary, it was clear that Holy Joe's rightward shift was only partially about policy. In large part, it was about rejection. The more dislike Lieberman sensed among his traditional liberal base, the more he sought out those who would offer him their approval. Guys like Sean Hannity, like Imus. Everyone needs allies, and the more bitter your interactions with adversaries, the more you rationalize and emphasize your points of commonality with those ready to come to your defense. Part of Lieberman's drift was, of course, the product of an actual argument: His fearful, reactionary, one-size-fits-all hawkishness was at odds with his party. But a fair slice was the psychological response of a leading Democrat who, in a matter of three years, found himself politically friendless and electorally humiliated, and who needed a way to rationalize that fall and embrace a new base of supporters. I've been thinking about this dynamic a bit in context of Obama. Not politically, of course. Whatever his faults, Obama is a sincere progressive, exactly as refreshingly forward-looking on foreign policy as Lieberman is reactionary. More in context of this Ben Smith post, positing the creation of a "Krugman wing" composed of progressives and bitterly opposed to Obama.
