Martin Peretz Comes Out Swinging
The editor in chief of the New Republic is not holding back:
We have been here before. Left-wing Democrats are once again fielding single-issue “peace candidates,” and the one in Connecticut, like several in the 1970s, is a middle-aged patrician, seeking office de haut en bas, and almost entirely because he can. It’s really quite remarkable how someone like Ned Lamont, from the stock of Morgan partner Thomas Lamont and that most high-born American Stalinist, Corliss Lamont, still sends a chill of “having arrived” up the spines of his suburban supporters simply by asking them to support him. Superficially, one may think of those who thought they were already middle class just by being enthusiasts of Franklin Roosevelt, who descended from the Hudson River Dutch aristocracy. But when FDR ran for, and was elected, president in 1932, he had already been a state senator, assistant secretary of the Navy and governor of New York. He had demonstrated abilities.
At least in this sense, Mr. Lamont comes to this campaign for the U.S. Senate from absolutely nowhere–and it shows in his pulpy statements on public issues. Here is a paradigmatic one: “We need to provide parents and communities the support they need to assure that children start their school day ready to learn.” Of course, he also thinks that U.S. troops should be replaced by the U.N. in Iraq. Does he know anything at all about the history of the idea that he so foolishly rescues from the dust? So what we have in this candidacy is someone, with no public record to speak of but with perhaps a quarter of a billion dollars to his name, who wants to be a senator. Mr. Lamont has almost no experience in public life. He was a cable television entrepreneur, a run-of-the-mill contemporary commercant with unusually easy access to capital.
He’s just warming up:
…Mr. Lamont’s views are…not camouflaged. They are just simpleminded. Here, for instance, is his take on what should be done about Iran’s nuclear-weapons venture: “We should work diplomatically and aggressively to give them reasons why they don’t need to build a bomb, to give them incentives. We have to engage in very aggressive diplomacy. I’d like to bring in allies when we can. I’d like to use carrots as well as sticks to see if we can change the nature of the debate.” Oh, I see. He thinks the problem is that they do not understand, and so we should explain things to them, and then they will do the right thing. It is a fortunate world that Mr. Lamont lives in, but it is not the real one. Anyway, this sort of plying is precisely what has been going on for years, and to no good effect. Mr. Lamont continues that “Lieberman is the one who keeps talking about keeping the military option on the table.” And what is so plainly wrong with that? Would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be more agreeable if he thought that we had disposed of the military option in favor of more country club behavior?
Peretz heads for the home stretch:
…[T]he contest in Connecticut tomorrow is about two views of the world. Mr. Lamont’s view is that there are very few antagonists whom we cannot mollify or conciliate. Let’s call this process by its correct name: appeasement. The Greenwich entrepreneur might call it “incentivization.” Mr. Lieberman’s view is that there are actually enemies who, intoxicated by millennial delusions, are not open to rational and reciprocal arbitration. Why should they be? After all, they inhabit a universe of inevitability, rather like Nazis and communists, but with a religious overgloss. Such armed doctrines, in Mr. Lieberman’s view, need to be confronted and overwhelmed.
Almost every Democrat feels obliged to offer fraternal solidarity to Israel, and Mr. Lamont is no exception. But here, too, he blithely assumes that the Palestinians could be easily conciliated. All that it would have needed was President Bush’s attention. Mr. Lamont has repeated the accusation, disproved by the “road map” and Ariel Sharon’s withdrawal from Gaza, that Mr. Bush paid little or even no attention to the festering conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. And has Mr. Lamont noticed that the Palestinians are now ruled, and by their own choice, by Hamas? Is Hamas, too, just a few good arguments away from peace?
The Lamont ascendancy, if that is what it is, means nothing other than that the left is trying, and in places succeeding, to take back the Democratic Party. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters have stumped for Mr. Lamont. As I say, we have been here before. Ned Lamont is Karl Rove’s dream come true. If he, and others of his stripe, carry the day, the Democratic party will lose the future, and deservedly.
Well, that’s excellent stuff…but I can’t shake the ‘too little, too late’ feeling. Lieberman’s higher-profile supporters should have been fighting like this weeks ago…but perhaps they were, and people just weren’t listening. But are they listening now? We’ll know soon enough…
Even the Israeli peacenik Left is off the peace train. Why? Because the Gaza/Lebanon pullouts and the other numberless concessions of Israel to the Palis and others were exactly the medicine they had prescribed for years. Like the dog who catches the car, they are astounded at the result. More concessions… more “carrots” have demonstrably led to more violence and LESS diplomatic cooperation. Who could have predicted that? But I wish much luck to Lamont. As Peretz observes, this is a replay and not the first. President McGovern can provide details.
So, are you embracing the right’s version of a Michael Moore like diatribe? I mean, do you really want to discuss where the Bush lineage got it’s money? Or is that all of the sudden conspiracy talk? The “N” word that contains a “z” is still bad, right?
This just sounds like a screed by someone on kos talking about Bush and his folks and his great plan to change social security which didn’t happen and blah blah blah. Don’t you typically ridicule such “Bush hatred” (disclaimer: not YOUR phrase)? Why the embrace of “Ned hatred” (disclaimer: MY phrase)?
Mike, Martin Peretz would no doubt be surprised to learn he is of the ‘right’…
Do I hate Ned Lamont? No. Do I think he’s a dishonest lightweight with no business being in the U.S. Senate? You bet…
Yes, a big difference between Bush former Governor of Texas running for President and Lamont former, well, no former pubic experience, running for Senate. But, to be fair to Mike; Bush, Lamont, et al are life-long members of the American aristocracy (as are Kennedy, Kerry, etc, etc).
Would that I lived in CT so I could cast my first ever vote for a Democrat: Joe Lieberman. But I don’t, so I won’t, and will have to be satisfied with watching; which has been enteratining, at least.
MikeBot – please enumerate the accomplishments that Lamont has performed as an elected representative. If not, then your hysterics have no founding in reality.
dmac: I made the same challenge with George W. Bush (accomplishments as governor) a few weeks ago and the results were underwhelming. Regardless, I don’t care if Lamont has any accomplishments or not. What accomplishments did Lieberman have going into office? Very few I would imagine (as that was before I was born I believe). I’ll continue my “let the people vote for who they want. If it turns out who they want sucks, well, that’s the beauty of elections in this country, you get another one in a few years…”
Mark: Sorry, please reread as “champion of the right” (just as Michael Moore might be considered a champion of the left?). The enemy of the enemy and all that jazz.
On a non-related topic, feel free to rip this liberal post by Mr. Mashall apart. It comes very close to my thoughts on the matter in the middle east. The use of the word “project” is interesting. Projects sometimes fail (especially in engineering practice). If this happens, sometimes you have to reengineer it all. That possibility exists. Why does discussing it always get me in trouble?
Mark: Fun with words:
MikeMark,Martin Peretz would no doubt be surprised to learn he is of the ‘right’…Do I hate
Ned LamontGeorge Bush? No. Do I think he’s a dishonest lightweight with no business being in theU.S. Senateoval office? You bet…Mike, Josh Marshall’s post is not about the ‘failure’ of the Zionist project (he says right up front he supports it). It is instead a call for a Palestinian state. I support the same thing, and so does (surprise!) George W. Bush.
In point of fact, it was GWB who became the first president to explicitly call for a Palestinian state as formal U.S. policy….
Who ever said you couldn’t think Bush was a dishonest lightweight? I think you’re wrong, just as you think I’m wrong on Lamont.
The difference is Bush had a record as governor. Lamont has none (oh, some minor city council type thing, where he bragged about (yes, bragged about) voting with the Republicans 80% of the time – pretty rich, considering the charges against Lieberman).
Did you know that Lamont gave money to Lieberman in
20032005? Post-Iraq (“…he gave $500 to the senator in February 2005″ – from Lamont’s own website)? Do you care at all that his reaction to questions about his association with Jane Hamsher was to deny it, despite video evidence of numerous ‘cozy’ encounters with her (video shoots, interviews, rides in her car(!!!))?A small thing, you say? Only if a man’s character is a small thing…
Um, well character questions are certainly legit though it is freighted with excess judgementalism in tone to so frankly state it. It is objectionable enough, I think, that this insipid deception burst from Ned’s lips as a strictly tactical error. His sincere shock at the instant and ferocious nature of the blog repost is perhaps evidence of the truth of his statement but yet more evidence that he is woefully not ready for prime time. Yes, he certainly knew damn good and well who and what Hamsher is but apparently he does know precious little of blogs. But Mike is of course correct. The electoral system is Darwinian; success is that which succeeds. And if today’s success is tomorrows failure, it becomes yesterday’s news. A toast to it.
Mark: Not saying the post is about failure, only that ‘project’ implies failure is a possibility.
Only if avoiding questions about a blogger who in no way affects anyone’s life makes up someone’s character…
Your assumption of course is that you know anything about his character from these actions. If that is so, ok, but I don’t think it says much about his character.
I don’t disagree that Lamont might be a dishonest lightweight, but he was obviously successful in actually keeping his money (Bush had to be bailed out of many bad business decisions prior to being governor).
Neither politician endears me. I understand the left’s point of view regarding Lieberman enabling rightwing policies/appointments. What other choice does the left have besides being extremely partisan when they control exactly 0 of the 3 legislative/executive bodies? How can you expect them to tolerate what they perceive to be someone that enables rightwing policies? Or is that the whole point. The only reason the right cares is because Lamont would block more of their agenda?
I don’t care either way. Only saying I see their point of view. Is your point of view that Lieberman helps the conservative cause? Or do you really care about being a sensible bi-partisan candidate? Or is it about Iraq? What is at stake for you or any other slightly conservative person? Does the far left really scare you that much? I suppose the far right scares me enough to vote Dem, so, that would make sense to me…
“Why does discussing it always get me in trouble…”
You could start with the disasterous discussion you attempted to engage in with others here regarding Israel’s right to exist. I didn’t even bother joining in, it was that ridiculous. You should re – read your postings on the matter, and then decide if you’re up to tackling the subject again, without sounding like someone who’s thisclose to resembling Patrick Buchanan. Now, if you don’t know what I mean by that last reference, then you probably should stay out of that subject matter altogether from now on.
Mark: He and Jane Hamsher could be doing the hibbiddy dibbiddy for all I care. It is of no consequence to whether or not he would be a better candidate. She has a right to her poor use of political “satire” (or whatever other word she thinks the black face picture was, humor?) just as people have the right to stand on corner of Kirkwood and Indiana on the IU campus in Bloomington and shout the phrase “God hates fags” over and over with all sorts of whack posters. Who cares? That has been my point for the past few days. It’s tabloid journalism that doesn’t belong in the political arena. But, sadly, it will continue to be if we let it. Jane is an idiot. You’ve made this point on numerous occasions, but Ned shouldn’t have to answer questions about it. If he avoids those questions by saying he knows nothing about it, I don’t care. Which is the same reason I didn’t care about Clinton’s sex scandals. It does nothing for my views on his character. I guess that’s where we differ though…
After explaining myself I think I now understand your point of view a bit further. If you genuinely feel his avoidance of questions that don’t pertain to him says anything about his character, that’s fine, I just don’t understand why a picture posted on her website matters with regards to the merits of whether or not he is a US Senator. I think your intellectual lightweight charge is far more important regarding his ability.
Don’t get me wrong, the Republic will still stand if Lamont is elected. My point with the Hamsher thing is she’s not just some blogger, she’s someone who has meant a hell of a lot to his campaign, in time, money, and visibility. And Lamont is not just some candidate who happened to be endorsed by blogs, he is a complete creature of the blogosphere (or don’t you remember his very first ad featuring Kos, for cryin’ out loud?)…thus, this isn’t a little white lie, but a fundamentally brazen one…
“You’ve made this point on numerous occasions, but Ned shouldn’t have to answer questions about it. If he avoids those questions by saying he knows nothing about it, I don’t care.”
Now, there’s an intelligent and informed voter for you – he really wants to find out about the person in question here, and not just listen to his TV sound bites. After all, just because Hamsher’s been an integral part of his campaign and has effectively framed his media strategy from the beginning, who cares what she actually thinks or does? Who cares if he says he knows nothing about her, or even remembers meeting her?
Perhaps Mike needs actual visual evidence of the relationship between these two:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/07/31/ned-lamonts-first-video-blog-lets-talk-about-iraq/
But…as Mike says, who cares, really, at the end of the day? What, me worry? Or as the infamous sleazy defense lawyer’s closing arguments went: “who ya gonna believe – me or your lyin’ eyes?”
You have to seriously wonder at this point whether Mike feels the same way about Karl Rove. After all, no one on the Left cares about what he thinks or does, right? And Bush doesn’t even really know him, correct? Nobody cares about their relationship, so why care about this one?
I don’t know why you guys encourage this Mike character. And what ever happened to Peter? He was the good (=rational) liberal.
Peter commented on Friday, I think…but he has been coming by less (or commenting less, at any rate). Peter, did we bore you or what?…
Ok, Mark, this is really long, so if you want to delete it, great, but it’s for dmac specifically…
dmac: I know exactly what you mean. I’ve never been accused of being anything like Pat Buchanan before…I didn’t like it though.
In any event, when I first thought of the phrase “right to exist” I was thinking from a metaphysical sense, not a “legal” sense. I have reread my statements a few times and don’t think there is anything particularly wrong logically with most of it. My main points (or rather, the points I was trying to make) can be summarized thusly:
1. Nobody has the inherent “right” to existence as we all die. [Adding to this, one might argue God can prevent you from existing in the material universe anytime He might choose, but I don't believe in God so cannot make this argument. However, one might note that if we all had the "right" to exist if we wanted to, God would have given us the possibility to be immortals. Supposedly that "right" was taken away the second Adam and Eve sinned. What kind of hogwash is this? Regardless, it is indeed true none of us are immortal and thus do not have the right to exist for any longer than the current moment].
2. Likewise, only 192 nations (probably more now, I can never get the number right) currently exist. Many more have existed in the past. All nations are some sort of amalgamation from previous nations. Some have perished. Others have prospered. If Israel were to perish, it would be no different historically speaking than the fall of the Roman Empire or Soviet Russia or [insert any other historic dismantled government].
3. I don’t believe Jerusalem to be anyone’s holy land [I did not state this previously, but I'll put that on the record]. Since it cannot belong to all three religions at once (for some unknown reason to me) I don’t care who controls the land (especially as an atheist).
4. Tactically, setting up a Jewish nation in the middle of a number of Arab nations was stupid, especially when considering the small size of Israel and the proximity of those that supported it’s creation [weapons included]. The amount of foresight that was preceeded by the creation of Israel doesn’t appear to be that great.
5. Another thing I didn’t say: I don’t believe any nation has a right to tell it’s citizens what religion they ought to believe in. I despise any nation that does so. It is why the Christian Right bothers me and one of the few reasons I vote democrat (usually).
Ok, with all of that being said, I haven’t really said what I think we ought to do in order to rectify the position we have placed ourselves in these past 100 years (Jews began to arrive in large quantities in the region in late 1800s, early 1900s, correct?) There are a number of different options available:
Scenario 1 – Redeploy troops from Iraq and take over Iran and all nations which attacked Israel upon it’s creation. This is the least attractive option as we would lose (in my opinion) and it would be a generally stupid thing to do.
Scenario 2 – Institute draft (talk about what a nation shouldn’t have a “right” to do). Keep troops in Iraq and take over Iran and all nations which attacked Israel upon it’s creation. This is also a poor option, obviously.
Scenario 3 – Continue using diplomacy to come up with some two-state solution. Try to reinstall some sort of legitimacy into the UN. Call for Kofi Anna to step aside. Appoint Jimmy Carter. I’m kidding. Appoint someone. Perhaps have two. One Jew. One Palestinian. You know, to show people everyone is on board to come to some sort of solution. Actually, screw that, grab 100 random Jews from Israel and 100 random Palestinians from their ghettos and have THEM come up with a solution. Put them in a room together with no food/water until they come up with a solution. Tie them up so they can’t attack each other. Seriously though, the people of the countries would have much more to say than the leaders. They stall and try to get EVERYTHING they can out of the deal when I’m guessing all the people want is some stability. Perhaps I’m wrong.
My point is there have to be other ways to resolve this issue. Removing troops from most areas would be a great place to start. Get all the leaders of Arab nations to meet. I mean, how often does this really happen anyhow? You know, a Star Wars style diplomatic discussion (without the pale black robed men, of course)? You would think at some point this would become necessary. The only times we ever do this is after a large war. Why can’t we preempt the war with a large diplomatic meeting with treaties and the whole works without killing each other? I just grow tired of all the jargon and hatred on both sides.
And, yes, the bias in the media towards printing things anti-Israel is quite disturbing, but the bias isn’t the core issue. The core issue is the conflict. The media always does a terrible job. I could write at great length about my feelings on that matter as well, but I think I’ve put my foot far enough into my mouth already.
Ryan: I actually just come here to kill most of my day at work. I’ve been very slow lately (except on a few occasions recently). Most of my posts are random thoughts I try to make into some sort of point, but most are not good. Oh well.
Mark: not bored at all — not by a long stretch — just really busy at work –
Also, I happen to agree with most of the postings about Lieberman — I would vote for him in a heartbeat — a good man and a good Senator, even if we disagree about Iraq –