Joe Lieberman & the Hostile Takeover of "Centrism" By David Sirota

Douglas Carpenter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-30-06 01:21 PM
Original message

Joe Lieberman & the Hostile Takeover of "Centrism" By David Sirota

Links to all source material and polling data at
www.workingforchange.com/blog {http://www.workingforchange.com/blog}

reposted by permission of Mr. Sirota

" Joe Lieberman & the Hostile Takeover of "Centrism"
By David Sirota

In my new book Hostile Takeover, I spend a good deal of time showing
how ultra-conservative right-wingers have hijacked the terms
"centrist" and "mainstream" and disconnected them from what's
actually "centrist" and "mainstream" among the public. This is no
small matter (and a topic I have focused on before) - it is a hugely
important and powerful linguistic weapon deviously employed by the
most destructive forces. That's right - today in Washington,
positions that are way to the right of where the American public
stands are regularly called "centrist" or "mainstream." That's no
accident - it is a deliberate strategy employed by Big Money
interests that run the Establishment to effectively marginalize the
vast majority of the population from its own political debate and
political system. It is, in short, a hostile takeover not just of our
government, but of political discourse itself.

How this semantic strategy legitimates right-wing positions and
politicians can best be seen in looking at Sen. Joseph Lieberman
(D-CT), a man incessantly billed by the Washington media - and
himself - as a "centrist." In fact, Lieberman's name has become so
synonymous with Washington's propagandistic definition of "centrism"
that some of the most insulated Establishment spokespeople are using
the term in a pathetic attempt to defend him from grassroots primary
challenger Ned Lamont (D).

As just one example, take Marshall Wittman. This ultra-right-wing
former Christian Coalition official is now employed at the Democratic
Leadership Council, and purports to speak for Democrats. He is one of
the most odious icons of Washington's bought-off bipartisan
Establishment - and has made a name for himself peddling right-wing
talking points, narratives and storylines wholly at odds with actual
facts. Last week was no exception. He told the Los Angeles Times that
the Connecticut primary "is a fight for the soul of the Democratic
Party" because "it will have repercussions for the 2008 presidential
campaign and whether centrists will feel comfortable within the
Democratic Party."

Wittman, a staunch Lieberman shill, is actually correct, though
inadvertently. He's right - this is "a fight for the soul of the
Democratic Party" and it will indicate "whether centrists will feel
comfortable within the Democratic Party." But the actual data shows
that the centrist is not Lieberman, as Wittman purports, but those
opposing Lieberman. And if Lieberman wins the primary, it could mean
that centrists will not feel comfortable in the party, because the
actual data shows Lieberman is the out-of-the-mainstream
arch-right-winger, and the movement that is challenging him
represents the real center.

This is not theoretical rhetoric or cocktail party chatter, as
Wittman and his ilk in the pundit class have become specialists in
peddling. This is cold, hard fact, backed up by cold, hard facts (you
remember - those things so looked down upon inside the Beltway). On
almost every major issue, the data shows that Lieberman is far to the
right of the "center" or "mainstream" of American public opinion.

Take the Iraq War. Lieberman continues to unflinchingly support the
stay-the-course policy of the Bush administration, to the point where
he attacks those who even raise questions about the administration's
Iraq policy as "undermin the president's credibility at our
nation's peril." His out-of-the-mainstream position comes at a time
when every major national poll shows roughly two thirds of Americans
oppose the war and want a change in policy. But it gets worse.
Lieberman has long claimed that because of the Iraq War, "the world
is safer, America is safer." Again, CNN/USA Today polls asked this
very question, and they have consistently shown that the majority of
Americans believe that the Iraq War has made America less safe. In
sum, the cold, hard data shows that despite the rhetoric, Joe
Lieberman is on the fringe extreme, while those like Ned Lamont who
have criticized his position and who want a change in policy are the
real centrists.

How about Social Security? Though Lieberman now desperately claims
he's against privatizing Social Security, he was one of the earliest
and most outspoken Senators giving credence to the concept - credence
that was critical in helping legitimate the concept. As far back as
2000, the New York Times reported that Lieberman was publicly
suggesting "that he could support allowing workers to invest a
portion of their payroll taxes in the private markets." Two 2002
polls - one from the Los Angeles Times and another from NBC News -
both found a strong 55 percent of the public opposed the concept.
After the President in 2005 put the full weight of the White House
behind selling the concept in the most favorable terms possible,
those numbers actually got worse. A CNN/USA Today poll that year
found that "opposition rose to 59 percent." So, on yet another issue,
the cold, hard data shows Lieberman was well outside the "center,"
those who criticized him for his position were representing the real
center - and yet the out-of-touch Washington chattering classes still
billed him as a "centrist" on the issue.

On health care, Lieberman was labeled a "centrist" by the Washington
elite when he ran for President in 2004 for saying things like, "I am
not willing to raise taxes to pay for health insurance." He said this
the same year that, as polling expert Ruy Teixeira notes, major
nationwide polls showed the public supports "by 67 percent to 26
percent, the U.S. government guaranteeing 'health insurance for all
citizens,' even if that meant repealing most of 'recent tax cuts.'"
In fact, "the majority was scarcely diminished (67 percent to 29
percent) by referring not to repealing tax cuts but more directly to
'raising taxes.'" Similarly, "Greenberg Quinlan Rosner/Public Opinion
Strategies found, in January 2004, a 69 percent to 28 percent majority
saying that they would be willing to pay more per year in federal
taxes to assure every American citizen received health care
coverage." Again, the cold, hard data shows Lieberman is well outside
the "center" on health care - while those who criticize him for these
kinds of positions represent the actual center.

This pattern shows up even in the specifics of lower-profile issues.
On prescription drugs, the Washington Post reported in 2000 that
"Lieberman said he was opposed to price controls on drugs." That was
the same year Lieberman, a recipeint of more than $400,000 in drug
industry cash, voted against bipartisan legislation to reinstate the
law that forces drug companies to offer drugs developed at taxpayer
expense at a "fair and reasonable price" - instead of allowing them
to charge Americans the highest prices in the world for those drugs.
It was also the same year the Washington Post billed Lieberman a
"centrist" for his work "lobb hard for pharmaceutical companies
on issues research and development tax credits."

Yet, polls show that a strong majority of the public supports drug
price controls, and doesn't buy the argument that the already-wealthy
drug industry needs federal handouts for R&D. Specifically, a 2004
Harris Poll found "60 percent to 35 percent majority to favor federal
government price controls." In 2005, the nonpartisan Kaiser Family
Foundation noted that polls showed "almost two-thirds of the public
say there should be more government regulation of prescription drug
prices, and 70% of these people continue to support more regulation
of prices even it leads to less research and development of new
drugs." Kaiser also noted that "Most of the public do not believe
that research and development drive the cost of prescription drugs,
instead three-quarters say drug company profit margins or marketing
costs are the largest contributors to the price of prescription drugs
and eight in ten say that drug costs are not justified because
companies charge more for medications than necessary." Yet again, the
data shows Lieberman's position has been way outside the "center" -
while his critics have been representing the real center.

How about corporate-written trade deals? Lieberman remains one of the
most rock-solid supporters of pacts like NAFTA, WTO and China PNTR
that were stripped of labor/wage/human rights/environmental
protections and thus undermined American jobs, wages, and benefits.
He has attacked as - gasp! - "protectionist" anyone (even fellow
Democrats) raising any questions about these trade deals. For this,
Washington pundits fall all over themselves to call him a courageous
"centrist."

Yet, polls consistently show that the centrist position is one that
supports pushing for a serious change of these trade policies. To the
shock and dismay of the bipartisan Washington Establishment that
pushes these sellout trade deals, polls continue to show that a
majority of Americans have long wanted this trade policy reformed.
For instance, as I have previously pointed out, a July 2005 PIPA poll
found 56 percent of Americans said they are "not satisfied with the
way the US government is dealing with the effects of trade on
American jobs, the poor in other countries and the environment" while
90 percent of Americans want trade deals to include strong labor
protections and 93% want strong environmental protections -
protections deliberately removed from the trade deals Lieberman
champions. Similarly, a January 2004 PIPA/University of Maryland poll
found that "a majority is critical of US
government trade policy." USA Today reported in 2004 that even
high-income Americans "have lost much of their enthusiasm for free
trade." A March 2003 EPIC-MRA poll found just 21% of Americans said
they wanted to "continue the NAFTA agreement." A 2002 poll by
Investors Business Daily and the Christian Science Monitor found an
overwhelming 61% of Americans "think U.S. trade policy should have
restrictions on imported foreign goods to protect American jobs." And
a 1999 poll done on the five-year anniversary of the North American
trade deal was even more telling: Only 24 percent of Americans said
they wanted to "continue the NAFTA agreement."

Again, Lieberman's trade position is cited as proof of his "centrism"
when in fact the actual data shows his position is on the fringes of
American public opinion.

The list goes on and on. Lieberman is called a "centrist" for
reflexively voting for bigger and bigger Pentagon budgets. Yet, major
national polls show the "centrist" position among the vast majority of
the public is one that supports "deep cuts in defense spending, a
significant reallocation toward deficit reduction, and increases in
spending on education, job training, reducing reliance on oil, and
veterans." Lieberman is called a "centrist" when he publicly brags
about "co-sponsor the capital gains tax cut which finally passed
in 1997." Yet, the same year he passed that tax cut for the wealthy,
national polls showed that just 10 percent of Americans thought such
a policy should be a priority for Congress. The dishonest labeling
never seems to stop.

What can we learn from all of this? New York Times columnist Paul
Krugman says we can see that in today's Washington "A Democrat is
considered centrist to the extent that he does what Mr. Lieberman
does: lends his support to Republican talking points, even if those
talking points don't correspond at all to what most of the public
wants or believes." Krugman is right - but as I document in my new
book Hostile Takeover it goes even deeper. Washington's definition of
"centrism" is not just about promoting those who capitulate to
Republicans, but more broadly, those who genuflect to the
Establishment and support the hostile takeover of our government.

No matter how far out on the fringe of public opinion you may be, you
are billed as a "centrist, a "moderate" or "in the mainstream" in our
nation's capital if you serve as a mouthpiece for powerful interests
who bathe politicians in cash, lend your support to these interests'
pet causes, perpetuate their dishonest agendas, and keep telling the
public that the Establishment's goals are the public's goals - even
when polls clearly shows they are not. This paradigm is everywhere.
Lieberman keeps getting fawned over as a "moderate"; out-of-touch,
war-mongering neocon pundits in the Beltway are being lauded as
supposedly tough "moderates"; and corporate-funded think tanks
pushing extremist economic and foreign policy agendas are applauded
by pundits as "moderate" saviors. The propaganda is ubiquitous - and
it goes the other way, too.

That's right, in Washington, you are labeled "liberal," "extremist"
or "outside the mainstream" if you actually challenge power, debunk
dishonest agendas with facts, and remind the public that the Beltway
is deliberately ignoring what the vast majority of Americans want
from their government. Moveon still gets slandered as supposedly out
of the mainstream for its opposition to the war - even though polls
show the public is just as vehemently opposed to the war. The
netroots is constantly harangued by Beltway pundits as ultra
"liberal" - even though the positions it supports in trying to get
the Democratic Party to actually stand up for ordinary citizens is
right in the center of public opinion data.

Washington, in short, deliberately tries to marginalize forces of
change by slandering those forces as outside the "center." That
propaganda system, not surprisingly, selects for people who refuse to
challenge power. This explains why we have so many unspectacular,
mealy-mouthed, power-fearing politicians on both sides of the aisle
in Congress (and also why there are more outspoken voices in
statehouses where this propaganda system is less pronounced). But it
also explains why there is so much anger at Washington brewing
throughout the country. After so many years of Washington lying to
people about what the "center" supposedly is, Americans are waking
up. As a 2005 poll by the Feldman Group showed that a whopping 72
percent of Americans now "believe that elected officials in
Washington do not see the nation's problems and opportunities in the
same way they do."

That anger represents electoral opportunity for the political
candidates like Ned Lamont and others who actually look at the data,
reject the Beltway's B.S. and stand up for ordinary citizens. To be
sure, doing that takes guts. Big Money interests have made an art out
of eviscerating those who challenge them, and every pundit on the
cocktail party circuit from Joe Klein to Tom Friedman to David Brooks
has shown their eagerness to dishonestly attack populists that
challenge the Establishment. But rest assured that despite all of
this desperate hot air, the cold, hard data shows the public is ready
to reward the real centrists - the people who have the guts to stand
down the elitsts on the fringe and stand with the vast majority of
America in the real mainstream center. That's the place that supports
political leaders who dare to fight back against the hostile takeover. "
______________

http://www.nedlamont.com

" Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut reproached fellow Democrats for criticizing President Bush during a time of war.

"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril," Lieberman said."

link:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/08/democrats.iraq/?section=cnn_latest

and this interesting comment from Sen. Lieberman while in Baghdad

"Time magazine Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware on Morning Sedition this morning:

I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting."

link:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_11_27_atrios_archive.html#113328407009752558