Alone in the wilderness? (GG file photo)
What more can be said about Joe Lieberman and his recent speech that hasn’t been already said by our friends over at the Contentions blog? Writes frequent MTNP radio guest Jennifer Rubin,
Senator Joseph Lieberman spoke last night at the annual Commentary Fund dinner at New York’s University Club, which I attended. Although he termed it a “lecture,” his address was in fact a history lesson, one that–in light of the past week’s events–it appears the country badly needs.
Lieberman reviewed the bipartisan war that both American political parties waged against fascism and then communism in the 20th century. He traced the committment to fighting totalitarianism that ran from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy to Reagan. After a near-collapse during the Carter presidency and abandonment by a series of failed Democratic presidential candidates, that tradition of support for freedom and opposition to tyranny, he contended, was restored and became a mainstay in the Clinton administration. He praised Clinton’s willingness to use American military power in Bosnia to prevent ethnic cleansing in Europe’s midst.
Jen then captures the essense of Lieberman’s talk, and why he remains a Democrat:
With obvious pained disappointed he argued that his once stalwart Democratic party has in fact fallen prey to isolationism and defeatism. He spoke of his decision to endorse John McCain, who, he contends, understands the stakes in Iraq and more generally America’s role in the world. As for his own historic party, he is not yet ready to give up on the notion of a Democratic Party devoted to a muscular defense of American interest and thus remains an “Independent Democrat.”
And gives her overall assessment of where Joe stands in his struggle:
overwhelmingly, I felt a sense of regret that he really is a voice in the wilderness, without bitterness but nevertheless alone, in his struggle to return the Democratic party to its robust national security position.
And of course, the reason that it’s so important to do so is because chances are good that the Democrats will be completely "in charge" of the government at some point, whether soon or in the future, therefore making them stewards of our national defense. When you really think about it, given the realities of the present world situation, to allow one of the two major American political parties to drop the ball on security isn’t something anybody should really want– even the most devoted peaceniks…
