The Divisions in the Democratic Party

Aug. 9, 2006 — -- After Joe Lieberman's defeat Tuesday night in the Connecticut Democratic primary, the question most political observers are asking is whether the polarization so evident in American politics since the 2000 red state-blue state division is destined to become worse.

Clearly Lieberman's defeat exposes a deep division within the Democratic Party, but it may not be the one the most pundits talked about Tuesday night in assessing the implications of Lieberman's defeat.

The division is not between the anti-war left and the pro-war moderates, as most political commentators reported.

Most Democrats, including most Lieberman voters, are anti-Iraq war, and most Lieberman voters call themselves liberals -- the author included.

The division in the Democratic Party reflected in the Connecticut primary election is, in fact, between progressive Democrats who care about holding the center of American politics to reclaim the Congress and the White House from conservative Republican dominance vs. purist ideological Democrats who care more about one or two issues rather than assessing Democratic leaders by the sum of their work and helping them to win elections and reverse Republican conservative policies.

This could be stated, perhaps oversimplistically, as the division between the pragmatic progressives and the purist left within the Democratic Party. If this sounds familiar to baby boomers, it is.

In the 1960s, the Vietnam War similarly divided the Democratic Party.

Anti-war Democrats -- the writer included -- worked and voted to oust an incumbent Democratic president because he had led the nation into a tragic war in Vietnam.

President Johnson's outstanding liberal record creating the anti-poverty program, the Great Society social programs, and the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 were completely ignored.

The only thing that mattered was the Vietnam War.

Even in the general election, when the great Democratic liberal, then Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, was the nominee against the hated Richard Nixon, the purist anti-war left spoke openly that it would be better to elect Nixon and "purge" the Democratic Party of the impure pro-Vietnam War moderates and lose in 1968 rather than compromise and support Humphrey, who was overly apologetic about Johnson's tragic Vietnam War policies.

Well, the liberal purists of 1968 got a lot more than they bargained for. Beginning with Nixon, the conservative-dominated Republican Party won five out of six presidential elections by landslide margins.

Then came Bill Clinton, standing up to the purist left base of his party on balancing the budget, free trade and NAFTA, and welfare reform.

He won two terms, carrying southern and western states and, despite the Monica Lewinsky scandal, leaving the presidency with one of the highest approval ratings for a second-term president in history.

The two elections of George W. Bush, the first contested and the second more decisive, still leave a divided country, even more polarized now than it was when President Bush won in 2000 with a promise of bringing us together under the banner of "compassionate conservatism."

So the question remains on the day after the Connecticut primary and Lieberman's defeat by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont, can Lieberman continue his campaign running as an Independent Democrat?

Can he prove that there is a broad center-left and center-right coalition in Connecticut that can elect him senator, even if a majority of voters disagree with him on the Iraq war?

Clearly the liberal electorate that voted in the Democratic primary in Connecticut Tuesday night were not able to look beyond the war to Lieberman's undisputed progressive voting record in the Senate and his achievements over the last 40 years.

But there is substantial evidence that Lieberman is well-positioned to hold the center in the general election.

He shows the ability of winning a substantial majority of independent voters (who constitute 44 percent of the Connecticut electorate and who could not vote in the Democratic primary); a good segment of Connecticut's more moderate Republicans, who also could not vote in yesterday's primary; and (one would expect) a large percentage of Democratic voters who are able to look at his entire record, even if they disagree with his support of the decision to invade Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein.

The liberal blogs, to their credit, created intensity and momentum for the victor, Ned Lamont.

And there is great value in the role they can play in broadening participation and support for the Democratic Party at the grass-roots or, as is the more common phrase, the netroots.

The danger, however, remains that certain extremists among the liberal bloggers, who usually use anonymity to protect themselves from accountability, use hate words and character assassination as a surrogate for facts and debating the merits of the issues.

The assault on Lieberman not just during the Lamont campaign but for the last two years by these haters was similar to the Republican counterpart of the politics of personal destruction suffered by Clinton during his presidency.

It is scary for anyone on the liberal side of the spectrum who cares about the essential liberal values of tolerance, fairness, and concern about the truth. It's also time for liberals to stop being complicit by their silence against these ugly extremists, even if they call themselves liberal too.

If Lieberman wins in November, he will prove that a Democrat can be a liberal and a centrist at the same time, and that one can be true to liberal principles while still reaching across the aisle and the spectrum to Republicans, moderates and conservatives to build coalitions to get things done.

If Lieberman wins in November as an Independent Democrat, he will prove that America is ready to reject the hyper-partisan "gotcha" politics of the last 10 years to 15 years, a legacy that stretches back to Watergate and the '60s.

He can prove that not just in Connecticut but across the country general election voters -- as opposed to ideologically driven primary voters -- want their elected officials to focus on solving the problems people care about most, not destroying the political opposition.

If that happens, then his primary defeat can provide the seeds for proving in the long run that the Democratic center can hold and, more than that, win back the Congress, the White House, and perhaps recreate an enduring political majority for years to come.

Lanny Davis, former special counsel to President Clinton from 1996-98, is the author of "Scandal: How 'Gotcha' Politics Is Destroying America," forthcoming from Palgrave in September.