By Ezra
Jon Chait's column explaining his moral turmoil over Ned Lamont's primary challenge is surprisingly incoherent, particularly given what a clear and systematic thinker Chait usually is. As I see it, the case for Joe Lieberman isn't hard to make: the guy has a generally left-wing voting record but represents a hawkish extreme. I don't consider that acceptable, but given Chait's numerous apologias for John McCain, I don't see why he wouldn't. But instead, this is where Chait finds himself:
In the end, though, I can't quite root for Lieberman to lose his primary. What's holding me back is that the anti-Lieberman campaign has come to stand for much more than Lieberman's sins. It's a test of strength for the new breed of left-wing activists who are flexing their muscles within the party. These are exactly the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They think in simple slogans and refuse to tolerate any ideological dissent.
So Lieberman should win not because the critique of him is wrong, but because his critics think in slogans? How bizarre. If the netroots are right on the merits, and Chait's reluctance to substantively defend Lieberman suggests he thinks they are, then their simplistic sloganeering belies subtle, sophisticated political minds that he might wish to listen to. After all, they're right.
As for the netroots' supposed inability to tolerate ideological dissent, I happen to know that's untrue. Why? Because this guy Jon Chait, a couple paragraphs earlier, smartly explained that "lots of Democrats supported the Iraq war initially and believe now that we can and must win. Moderates such as Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton say this all the time. But you don't see anybody trying to oust them." In other words, the test isn't ideological at all, as evidenced by the netroots' full acceptance of Democrats ideologically indistinguishable from Lieberman. What's activated liberal passions, as diagnosed by Chait, "is that Lieberman, unlike other Democratic hawks, musters little passion for exposing and correcting the massive blunders the Bush administration has committed."
"[E]xposing and correcting the massive blunders the Bush administration has committed." Some litmus test. I see now why we can't let these loose cannons influence the direction of the party.
