You'd have to look far in U.S. politics to find a finer public servant than Senator Joseph I. Lieberman.No, you wouldn't. Any one of the men who did better than Joe in the 2004 Democratic primary - aside from being better at getting votes, a crucial skill for a politician - are also better public servants. These, however, are the second and third sentences:
And, having looked far, you still wouldn't find one. For intelligence, integrity, sobriety, and devotion to the public good, Mr. Lieberman tops the charts.Intelligence: Lieberman believed that there were WMDs in Iraq, and continues to support the Bush administration. Aside from the moral and even religious issues (twice-married Joe is always telling us how religious he is), this is just d-u-m-dumb.
Integrity: He constantly runs against his own party, but wants the same party to hand him a Senate seat unopposed. Having been beaten in a fair fight, he's now smearing the party he still claims to represent.
Sobriety: Good to know that a U of T professor isn't above a crack at Ted Kennedy. Maybe someday, when I'm a tenured academic, I can coarsen the debate, too!*
Devotion to the Public Good: If by "public good", you mean "Joe Lieberman", then yes Joe Lieberman is devoted to the public good. Indeed, his devotion to that public good "tops the charts", as Orwin writes.
I'll spare you people because, God help us, we're only three sentences in. The other most offensive line in the piece is this:
Mr. Lieberman is apprehensive about the future of the party, and as his fellow Democrat, so am I. Will it ever grow up and become a post-9/11 party?Unlike Mrs. Lieberman or Orwin, the Democratic party is a post-9/11 party. In point of fact, the Dems are the only post-9/12 party. You see, for people like Lieberman, Orwin, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, the only thing that ever happened of any importance to anyone, anywhere, were the attacks of September 11. The 9/11 attacks, despite being five years distant now, are still apparently the only historical event you need to know about to pontificate about national security, or be a Director of the Munk's Centre.
Knowing, and understanding, that the Iraq war is a collosal mistake, an arrogant blunder, and a national security disaster is apparently irrelevant, because it didn't happen on 9/11.
Men like Orwin and Lieberman refuse to understand that 9/11 is not the sum total of existence, much less the sum total of the national security debate. There was a September 12, and a 13 after that. The Democratic voters of Connecticut understand that questions of national security need to be answered by people who live in the present, and can anticipate the future.
Orwin and Lieberman can only see the horrors of the past, and refuse to admit their part in the horrors of the present. For that reason, if no other, men like them need to be ignored and have their authority stripped from them.
*The other meaning of the word "sobriety" - moderate, serious, temperate - can never, ever, in any way be applied to people who advocated and continue to advocate for the war in Iraq. So I'm actually being charitable here, and assuming that Orwin isn't a total retard.
1 comment:
It seems to be a rule that the only people who are currently supporting Joe Lieberman are the neoconservatives, Cheney, of course, being the most obvious. However, this is exactly the mold that Orwin fits into; as a hardcore Straussian, he is perfectly aligned with the neoconservative movement, and in his course talks about his perceived fallacies of modernism to start the year. Something along the lines of "When I was studying, everyone was on about modernism. I was too cool for modernism, though." That he supports Lieberman is of absolutely no surprise to me.
Post a Comment