The Lieberman-Lamont senatorial race in Connecticut illustrates one of the political paradoxes that has bedeviled Democrats for more than two decades: On many issues, the majority of the electorate holds opinions that bring them closer to Democratic candidates than to Republicans. Nevertheless, these same issues have helped Republicans win power, by serving as "
wedge issues" that serve to divide and demoralize Democrats while uniting and energizing Republicans. This is the case with regard to the war in Iraq, but also with other issues ranging from abortion to national health to the environment.
Disenchantment with the war, combined with Lieberman's obstinate support for the Bush administration's foreign policy, is the main reason — in fact, virtually the only reason — why his popularity has fallen with Democrats. Opposition to the war is growing, especially at the grassroots. Yet the party remains internally divided, and these divisions continue to weaken its prospects for political success.
Last week I attended a house party for
Tammy Baldwin, who represents my congressional district in Wisconsin. It happens that Tammy is someone I know personally, and I have great respect not just for her commitment to progressive values but also for her intelligence and candor -- qualities that are in short supply these days among elected officials of both parties. At last week's house party, however, I thought she was somewhat less than candid when I asked her about the implications of the Lamont-Lieberman race. "Do you think the Republicans will be successful in using the war in Iraq as a wedge issue?" I asked. "Are they going to succeed in painting Democrats as soft on national security?"
"Well, of course they'll try," she answered. "As you know, Democrats are not all of one mind with regard to the war." She added that last year's call by John Murtha for a withdrawal of U.S. troops marked a tipping point, in which even Democratic hawks are joining the anti-war camp. And, she pointed out, virtually all of the votes opposing the authorization for Bush to go to war in 2002 came from Democrats, making them the leaders in opposition to the war.
This was true as far as it went, but somewhat selective in its use of statistics. It is true that almost all of the anti-war votes came from Democrats, but nevertheless nearly half of the party voted in favor of authorizing war. In October 2002, 126 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives voted for the resolution authorizing Bush to go to war, while 133 voted against it. In the Senate, 29 voted for the measure and 21 against. On the question of war, the party was almost evenly split, with only a small majority opposing the war. Republicans, by contrast, were almost unamimous in favor, and their votes combined with the votes of pro-war Democrats gave Bush a large margin that he was able to claim as a mandate.
This pattern is remarkably similar to the pattern by which voters are lining up in the Connecticut senate race. A majority of Democrats voted for Lamont in the primary, and a majority of Democrats will probably vote for him in the general election as well. However, Lamont does not have not an overwhelming majority among Democrats. Once again, the party is split, with a substantial fraction still planning to vote for Lieberman, even though he lost the nomination. And while Democrats are split, Republicans are showing remarkable unity. According to a recent survey, almost none of them plan to vote for their own Republican nominee, Alan Schlesinger. Instead, they're swinging their votes to Lieberman. This combination of Republican unity and divided Democrats gives Lieberman 53 percent of likely voters, while Lamont gets 41 percent.
On many of the wedge issues that favor Republicans, a majority of voters support progressive policies in a general sense but are divided about the details. On the issue of abortion, for example, many voters who think it should be legal nevertheless have moral misgivings about it, and anti-abortion activists chip away at the issue by focusing on those misgivings. Similarly, a majority of Americans believe the war in Iraq was a mistake and regard the war as their top political concern, but they are unclear on how they think this mistake should be fixed.
A Gallup survey in June asked Americans to choose between four plans for dealing with the war in Iraq. Those plans, and the support they received, were as follows:
- Withdraw all troops immediately: 19%
- Withdraw all troops by August 2007: 36%
- Withdraw only when Iraqis can take over: 35%
- Send more troops: 6%
Although Americans are united against sending in more troops, these numbers reflect serious divisions. Only 19% of the public supports withdrawing troops
now, and 41% support keeping troops there indefinitely or even expanding the war. Even among Democrats, moreover, Gallup found that only 31% support an immediate withdrawal of troops. This means that a majority still believes that the U.S. military occupation of Iraq is worth continuing, at least for the time being.
In reality, of course, there is no such thing as "immediate" withdrawal. Logistically and politically it can only happen in stages. As long as Democrats remain divided on the question of whether and when withdrawal should occur, however, Republicans will still be able to play the game of divide and conquer. Similarly, if Democratic voters continue to divide their loyalties between Lieberman and Lamont, Republicans — even though they comprise a minority — may succeed in determining the outcome of the election.
Sheldon Rampton works for the Center for Media and Democracy and is the founder of SourceWatch, an online, wiki-based encyclopedia of the people, players and issues shaping the public agenda. He is the co-author, with John Stauber, of several books including Banana Republicans: How the Right Wing is Turning America Into a One-Party State, and The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies and the Mess in Iraq (forthcoming, September 2006).