As has been amply noted on dKos, the New Republic's website is currently
following a debate on the magazine's Lieberman endorsement. Many here have lauded TNR for airing their laundry publicly, for acknowledging that there are arguments against their position and for allowing those arguments airtime. But that's just what the narrow thinkers behind TNR want us to believe. In reality, no one in the discussion dissents from the basic rationale for the Lieberman endorsement, which is that TNR's sacred position of responsible liberalism is under attack by Howard Dean. Whether or not Lieberman presents the best choice given that state of affairs is irrelevant, because TNR has already created a dynamic, well amplified by the SCLM, that will be fatal to Democratic hopes in 2004. And TNR doesn't care.
I
attacked Lawrence Kaplan's defense of Lieberman yesterday, so I will largely ignore it now. My beef comes from the whole anti-endorsement camp. Here's Christopher Orr from the most recent edition.
"And whatever marginal effect the endorsement might have had, we threw it away on a candidate with no chance to become the Democratic nominee--even as we lamented the party's apocalyptic prospects should Howard Dean be its representative in November."
So Dean's chances are apocalyptic? That's a little strong, though maybe not so for a magazine that once called Wesley Clark "The Democratic Messiah." However, if you need some proof that Howard Dean has no chance against Bush, perhaps it's enough to witness the united opposition of a powerful wing of the Democratic party: the establishment, headed up by TNR, that dismisses him as a left-wing threat. Once they have established the dynamic whereby Dean is a negation of hawkish liberalism, the general election will be defined as hawk vs. dove. Bring in Tim Russert.
Jonathan Chait, as usual, has some backstabbing to do:
"Have post-Vietnam doves suddenly retaken the party? Hardly. None of the major candidates proposes to reduce the defense budget. All unflinchingly supported the Afghanistan operation. All explicitly reject giving the United Nations veto power over American military intervention. All except Dean have unambiguously committed themselves to winning the peace in Iraq."
So Dean is well away from the other candidates on this one crucial issue, right Jonathan? That would be interesting if he did indeed want to withdraw from Iraq, if he did think the situation was hopeless, and if he opposed any iniative to actually attempt to win the peace. But all of those things are untrue. Dean has committed to winning the peace, perhaps more strongly than the other candidates who have to carry around the baggage, shared with TNR, of being duped into war.
"The editorial rightly notes that Dean has sent a lot of worrisome signals, especially in his inability to muster any passion against the likes of Saddam Hussein."
And so Chait continues to blow Andrew Sullivan's trumpet for him. Howard Dean loves dictators! Howard Dean is ambivalent towards evil! If anyone thought that TNR had the Democratic Party's best interests at heart, let him take note: TNR cares more about its own sensibilities than it does about beating Bush. And that is the greatest gift the New Republic has in its power to grant Bush in 2004.