Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Lieberman’s Loss: What It Means

Sen. Joe Lieberman's August 8 defeat in Connecticut's Democratic primary by a little-known anti-war candidate marks a major setback to...

Sen. Joe Lieberman‘s August 8 defeat in Connecticut’s Democratic primary by a little-known anti-war candidate marks a major setback to neoconservative hopes of maintaining “bipartisan” support for the Bush administration’s aggressive foreign policies, particularly in the Middle East.

Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2000, received strong support from prominent neoconservatives-especially those who had led the push to invade Iraq-in the closing days of his primary battle, when it became clear that challenger Ned Lamont was on the verge of victory.

“What drives so many Democrats crazy about Lieberman is not simply his support for the Iraq War,” complained Weekly Standard editor and Project for the New American Century cofounder William Kristol. “It’s that he’s unashamedly pro-American.”

Lieberman, who was backed in the primary by both Bill and Sen. Hillary Clinton, among other prominent establishment Democrats, did not do as poorly as polls predicted, losing to Lamont by a 48-52% margin.

That relatively narrow margin of defeat clearly encouraged him to announce that he plans to run as an Independent against Lamont and the Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger, in November’s general election.

Connecticut is strongly Democratic, and Lieberman’s hopes rest on wooing a sufficient number of conservative Democrats and Independents to his side to overcome the backing of the state and national party organizations for Lamont, a multimillionaire heir and businessman who has never before run for statewide office. Whether Lieberman can succeed-particularly in light of the strong anti-incumbent mood in the country-is a matter of much speculation.

Most analysts attributed Lamont’s remarkable victory-it marked only the third time in 25 years that a challenger defeated an incumbent senator in a primary election-to a combination of grassroots Democrats’ revulsion toward President George W. Bush and the Iraq War and Lieberman’s failure to pay attention to his constituents’ concerns.

“There was a personal sense among Connecticut Democrats that his national agenda is what matters to him and not Connecticut,” a former state party chairman told the Washington Post earlier this week.

Nonetheless, Lamont’s victory was hailed by critics of both Lieberman and Bush’s foreign policy as a potential watershed for both the Democratic Party and the anti-war movement.

“[Lamont’s] victory represents a growing voter revolt against the failed policies and politics of the Bush administration and its congressional enablers, particularly the debacle in Iraq,” according to Robert Borosage, codirector of the Campaign for America’s Future, which works to advance a left-leaning agenda.

“After [Lieberman’s] defeat, Democrats will show more backbone in challenging the current disastrous course, and more Republicans will look for ways to distance themselves from the president,” he wrote on TomPaine.com on August 9.

In particular, Lieberman’s defeat is likely to pull several leading Democrats-including Senators Clinton and Joseph Biden, both presidential aspirants who have long resisted setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq-closer to the growing number of their congressional colleagues who favor a relatively quick pullout beginning no later than the end of 2006. According to a CNN poll released on Wednesday, 61% of U.S. voters also support that position.

As noted by former Connecticut Republican Sen. Lowell Weicker, who supported Lamont against Lieberman, the primary was a “referendum on the Iraq War-not just for Connecticut but for the whole country.”

That is precisely the concern of neoconservatives like Kristol and other backers of the Iraq War who see in Lieberman’s defeat not only the possible collapse of dwindling public support for the war, but also the loss of the leading champion for their foreign policy ideas in the Democratic Party. Such ideas have been channeled mainly through the Democratic Leadership Council, of which Lieberman is a longtime member and former chairman.

To them, Lieberman is the lineal descendant of Washington State Sen. Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson, in whose office some of today’s most influential neoconservatives got their start, including former Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard Perle, Bush’s top Middle East adviser Elliott Abrams, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney, as well as Kristol.

Reliably liberal on civil and women’s rights and on the environment and closely tied to conservative labor unions, Jackson, like Lieberman today, was the standard-bearer of what became the neoconservative wing of the Democratic Party-staunchly pro-Israel, a steadfast supporter of ever-higher defense budgets, and a strong believer in what was euphemistically called “peace through strength.”

“Until yesterday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman was the most prominent representative of the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party,” wrote Clifford May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy (FDD), a hardline pro-Israel group for which Lieberman has served as a “distinguished adviser.” May continued: “Today, that wing is down to its last few feathers.”

On Middle East issues, Lieberman has long favored close alignment with Israel, although, unlike hardline neoconservatives, he has leaned more toward the Labor Party than to the right-wing Likud. In April, he became the first prominent Democrat to voice support for an eventual U.S. military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Lieberman’s association with FDD is typical of a number of “bipartisan” organizations he helped create or sponsor that have been dominated by neoconservatives. In 2002, for example, he became honorary co-chair of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq , an advocacy group created just a few months before the U.S. invasion by Kristol, Perle, former CIA director James Woolsey, and Eliot Cohen, among other prominent neoconservatives. In 1998, he cosponsored with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) the Iraq Liberation Act, which made the ouster of Saddam Hussein official U.S. policy.

Since 2004, Lieberman has served as co-chair of the Committee on the Present Danger, another influential, mainly neoconservative group created, in Lieberman’s words, to “form a bipartisan citizens’ army, which is ready to fight a war of ideas against our Islamist terrorist enemies, and to send a clear signal that their strategy to deceive, demoralize, and divide America will not succeed.” Other board members include Woolsey, Perle, Cohen, and Gaffney.

As the Iraq War became increasingly unpopular over the past year, Lieberman, to the frustration and fury of many of his party colleagues, served as the administration’s chief Democratic defender.

In a column published in the Wall Street Journal last fall that was subsequently cited repeatedly by top administration officials, including Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, Lieberman criticized fellow Democrats who favored withdrawal, arguing that “we undermine the president’s credibility at our nation’s peril.”

Indeed, so favorably was Lieberman regarded in the White House that as Bush departed after giving his 2005 State of the Union Address, he embraced Lieberman, planting a friendly kiss on his cheek. For Lieberman, taunted by critics in recent years as “Bush’s favorite Democrat,” it may have been the political kiss of death.

Jim Lobe is a Right Web contributing writer and the Washington, DC bureau chief for the Inter Press Service, which published a version of this article.



Jim Lobe, "Lieberman's Loss: What It Means," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, August 12, 2006).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.

Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.

The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.

Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”

Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.

Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.

Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.

A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.

Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.

The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.

Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.

To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.

The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.