Ben Fritz (my friend and former Spinsanity co-editor) has a great post about the nasty rhetorical tactics of Joe Lieberman:
[N]ot only does Joe Lieberman neglect to criticize George W. Bush, he's starting to talk like George Bush. He's specifically picking up one of Bush's worst, most anti-democratic, rhetorical tricks, one we criticized extensively in "All the President's Spin."
Here's Lieberman talking at his primary concession / independent campaign launch speech on Tuesday:
I am disappointed not just because I lost, but because the old politics of partisan polarization won today. For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand.I expect that my opponent will continue to do in the general election what he has done in the primary … partisan polarizing instead of talking about how we can solve people's problems, insults instead of ideas. In other words, more of the same old partisan politics that has assailed Washington today.This is a classic George W. Bush: accuse your opponent of engaging in "partisan polarization" because he disagrees with you. The definition of non-partisanship is of course, agreeing with Joe Lieberman or George W. Bush 100%.
Because Ned Lamont has substantive disagreements with Joe Lieberman -- especially on whether we should have invaded Iraq; how much the President deserves to be criticized for his poor conduct of the war; and whether we should set a timetable to pull out -- he is a partisan.
Bush does this all the time, especially in his first term when he often claiemd he wanted to "change the tone" in Washington. To quote page 114 of "All the President's Spin": "This formulation defined his own agenda as 'what's right for the people' and those who criticized him as 'acrimonious and bitter.' In practice, of course, 'changing the tone' is impossible unless one party simply gives in to the other. As Bush defined it, the standard would prohibit vigorous disagreement between parties -- the essence of democratic debate."
Joe Lieberman should just be honest about his substantive differences with Lamont and run on those. Lieberman is a centrist (right of center on national security, left of center on many domestic issues). So he should run as a centrist against Lamont the liberal. Then let the voters decide. Instead, he portrays his centrism as a holier-than-thou rising above the partisan fray. It's not only dishonest, but in an era when the Republican congressional leadership and President Bush have made have made bipartisanship as quaint as the Geneva Conventions, it's not very politically tenable. I suspect that's why the majority of Connecticut Democrats decided to lean to their left and vote for Lamont, rather than their right for Lieberman.
Update (2:30 PM PST): Wow it didn't take long for Lieberman to start copying even more of Bush's nasty spin tactics. Look what Mr. non-partisan said the very same day that authorities stopped a (seemingly) major terrorist plot:
"If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England," Mr. Lieberman said at a campaign event at lunchtime in Waterbury, Conn. “It will strengthen them and they will strike again.”News flash, Joe: It wasn't insurgents from Iraq who were planning to blow up those planes. It was, according to the NY Times, "mainly British-born Muslims some of Pakistani descent." I highly doubt our staying in or withdrawing from Iraq would deter such terrorists. There's certainly no evidence connecting the two.
Of course, notice Joe didn't exactly say they were connected. He just said a withdrawal from Iraq "will be taken as a tremendous victory" by the alleged terrorists who were arrested today. Of course that could be true. Who knows what they would think. That's not factually wrong. It's just implying a connection where there's no evidence at all.
Why, it almost reminds me of George W. Bush's tendency to imply a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks, even though there was no evidence linking the two, by saying things like "we know that after September the 11, Saddam Huseein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America."
Again, this is a nasty, dishonest, undemocratic rhetorical tactic President Bush uses all the time that we criticized at length in All the President's Spin. Now that the Democratic voters of Connecticut Democrats have rejected him for being too close to W., Lieberman seems determined to prove them right by sinking to the President's level of spin.
Brendan, I have to disagree with one part of your citicism of Lieberman.
His implication that the Islamist would-be bombers would be heartened by an Islamist victory in Iraq, due to a premature US pullout, is not out outragous. And doesn't deserve a "News flash, Joe".
The fact that the would-be bombers and the insurgents are not memebers of the same group, should not hide from us their common interest in the success of radical islam in general.
I certainly think that this is an obvious enough point and I wouldn't criticize anyone for not offering evidence for it.
Suppose someone said, "Supporters of enlightenment values are generally encouraged by the spread of those values." (even though they might not all be members of the same Voltaire fan club.) Would you really require supporting evidence of someone making this statement?
Posted by: DeanT | August 11, 2006 at 01:38 PM
It's not the actual substance, but the implication. It is the same old "Only WE can keep you safe," only the scary part is that this time, HE is now a WE, along with THEM.
If Lieberman were honest about being a "good Democrat", he wouldn't run as an Independent and risk losing the seat.
My gut tells me he will eventually give up, but not before he scorches some earth for the Dems.
Posted by: Raleighite | August 11, 2006 at 02:39 PM
Wow, can Brendan Nyhan BE any more of a hypocrite?
Let's see, it supposed to be "anti-democratic" to claim that your political opponent is partisan and you are non-partisan???
That's what Nyhan and Fritz did for YEARS.
Shorter Nyhan during the Spinsanity years: "We're non-partisan! Those bad people, they're so partisan!"
What a joke. The saddest thing is that Nyhan can't even seem to see that he's been doing this "I'm not partisan - you are!" schtick for YEARS. Utterly pathetic.
Posted by: A.S. | August 11, 2006 at 02:42 PM
DeanT, when is a pullout not premature?
Which groups are part of the radical Islamists in Iraq? The foreigners? Baathists? Other Sunnis? Sadr? Other Shiite militias?
We're going to leave Iraq sooner or later, unless you think our occupation is going to last forever, and whenever we leave, some groups in Iraq and elsewhere are going to celebrate. The point is, who cares what they think? We should do what's best regardless. For all we know, leaving may well make them less resolved to attack the U.S.
Posted by: Bob | August 11, 2006 at 02:44 PM
"His implication that the Islamist would-be bombers would be heartened by an Islamist victory in Iraq, due to a premature US pullout, is not out outragous."
Last time I checked, it is not just the insurgents who are Islamists in Iraq, the new government is largely composed of them as well. In fact, many insurgent commanders ordered their fighters to vote in the last election for the Sunni Islamist list (which is now part of the "unity government" with the Shi'ite Islamists). Our continued presence is hardly bringing less political power to Islamists in Iraq, especially since they had none prior to our entry. Even if we manage to stand this government up and stabilize the country, the Islamists will still win. Right? Am I missing something?
btw: Are supporters of enlightment values encouraged by a constitution that forbids any law that violates the precepts of Sha'riah? What about the supporters of radical Islam?
Posted by: Yuri Guri | August 11, 2006 at 02:47 PM
Brendan--- I didn't notice that this post was a quote of Ben Fritz and not written by you, until now.
I am curious as to how much you agree with Ben, but of course you don't have to explain his post.
Bob ----
"when is a pullout not premature?"
That is a great question, and I don't claim to have the answer.
"Which groups are part of the radical Islamists in Iraq?"
Most of the groups fighting us in Iraq are radical islamists. The Baathists and Sunni militias are the possible exceptions.
"The point is, who cares what they think? We should do what's best regardless. For all we know, leaving may well make them less resolved to attack the U.S."
I think we should do our best to determine what is best and act accordingly. But my point was not that it is important what they think. My point was that Lieberman was justified in making his implication.
What they (radical islamists) think is important only insofar as it affects their recruitment, retention, and diplomacy.
Posted by: DeanT | August 11, 2006 at 03:12 PM
It's not AT ALL likely that terrorists will celebrate American withdrawl from Iraq as a victory. They see Iraq and America as being the same as the Afghanistan and the Soviets. They think they destroyed the Soviet Union this way, and they plan to destroy America the same way.
See "Declaring Victory" in the Sept 06 copy of The Atlantic
Posted by: Consumatopia | August 11, 2006 at 03:59 PM
Yuri Guri ----
Good points. Very good points.
If we fail, it will probably be for those very reasons.
Posted by: DeanT | August 11, 2006 at 05:10 PM
I must say that I usually enjoy reading Mr. Nyhan's website on a regular basis and admire his fairness in pointing out the foibles of those on both the left and the right.
However, I was rather disheartened to read this particular post, particularly this line from Ben Fritz that Brendan approvingly quotes:
"This is a classic George W. Bush: accuse your opponent of engaging in "partisan polarization" because he disagrees with you. The definition of non-partisanship is of course, agreeing with Joe Lieberman or George W. Bush 100%."
Ned Lamont won because of the partisan polarization of the Democratic voting base. Would Fritz or Mr. Nyhan like to deny that Ned Lamont won the primary because of Lieberman's support for the war and his coziness to Bush? Certainly, few voted for Lamont because he was a man with a deep experience in politics who possessed great ideas for the Democratic Party. Add to that, Lamont was backed by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (both of whom he openly embraced), not exactly men known for their middle-of-the-road stances on various political issues. Furthermore, far-left websites such as Moveon.Org and Daily Kos may have played a role in Lamont's victory. All of these factors suggest that Lamont is, in fact, engaging in "partisan polarizing", as Lieberman puts it, and is depending on it to win the election in November.
Lamont's main issue is the war in Iraq, and is running on his opposition to the war because he knows he can depend on that to get votes against Lieberman. Even though Lieberman has voted mostly Democratic on various issues, he supports the war in Iraq and is friendly with Republicans like Bush. If this isn't bipartisan, what is? Yet, Lamont and his supporters are tying the election to one issue and Lieberman's support for the war and friendliness with Republicans, a tactic which Fritz and Nyhan gladly oblige.
And one final thing. Fritz criticizes Lieberman for linking Iraq to the recent foiled attempt by Muslim extremists to blow up airplanes from the UK, adding: " Who knows what they would think. That's not factually wrong. It's just implying a connection where there's no evidence at all."
Yet, Fritz makes some dubious connections of his own, when he says that Lieberman's definition of non-partisanship is agreeing with "George W. Bush 100%". Where did Joe Lieberman ever say, or even suggest, that you have to always agree with George W. Bush on everything to be truly "non-partisan"? Perhaps Fritz inferred that from Lieberman supporting the war in Iraq, his friendliness toward Republicans and Bush, and Joe's admonishing fellow Democrats for criticizing the war in Iraq. But Lieberman has never stated or hinted that you have to agree with Bush on every issue. In fact, Lieberman has criticized Bush himself, such as the president's recent veto of federally funded stem cell research:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=258819
In addition, Fritz's quote from Lieberman's concession speech makes no mention of Bush, or the need to agree with the president 100% in the name of bipartisanship. So, where does Fritz get off saying such a thing? True, Lieberman has stated he believes there shouldn't be criticism of Bush on Iraq and that there should be bipartisan support for the war. But that is not the same thing as saying you should agree with Bush on everything, and doing so is tantamount to being truly bipartisan.
In essence, Fritz (and Nyhan, by approvingly quoting him) is making an assumption about what Lieberman defines as partisanship, even though Lieberman has not stated such a position, neither does the senator's behavior suggest that he possesses such a view. Connecting Lieberman's tactics to that of George W. Bush's adds an especially nasty, partisan tone to Fritz's critique.
Once upon a time, Fritz and Nyhan may have decried such a broad exageration of the viewpoints of an individual. It's a sad time, indeed, when even the authors of "spinsanity" are engaging in the same spin and tactics they once took such pains to expose and criticize.
Posted by: ZacC | August 12, 2006 at 04:35 PM
Whoops.
I do believe I mis-read Fritz's quote. Fritz is not saying that Lieberman believes you should agree 100% with George Bush to be non-partisan; Fritz was actually saying that's what Bush believes. That completely sinks my "one final thing" issue I had above. I apologize to Fritz and Nyhan for such a tremendous blunder. Fritz and Nyhan are not spinning or making assumptions about Lieberman's viewpoints.
Nonetheless, it is rather partisan to compare Lieberman to Bush's tactics. And I still feel that Lamont is engaging in polarizing tactics to win the election.
Posted by: ZacC | August 12, 2006 at 04:59 PM
I was just about to correct you on the misread quote, but you corrected yourself. thanks. As for the rest, I don't think Lieberman's centrist makes him any less partisan than Lamont's liberalism. that's a misunderstanding of the word "partisan" that those trying to make themselves seem above lesser politicians throw around all the time.
Posted by: Ben | August 12, 2006 at 07:47 PM
Hmmmm, I think Ben and Brendan are either confused or blinded by their hypocrisy or both. Lieberman's centralist views clearly make him less partisan exactly because he doesn't militantly toe the Democratic Party line. Partisan strife arises because both sides blindly and adamantly adhere to their left / right roots without regard for the consequences. Someone with centralist views sees value in the middle which usually requires compromise; something Senators Frist and Reid and Congressmen Boehner and Pelosi would never dare recognize, letter alone attempt. If you are going to hold yourselves out as a scientist, political or otherwise, your going to have to learn to at least acknowledge the truth when you stumble upon it.
Posted by: Bob | August 12, 2006 at 10:42 PM
It seems to me that if Lamont's supporters AGREED with Bush, THEN it would be a partisan vote, for a lack of differentiation would leave only the party as a basis on which to vote. This was obviously an issue vote.
Posted by: John | August 13, 2006 at 04:59 PM