The Bellwether?

Well, now. As I write this, polls in Connecticut are likely on the verge of closing over one heck of a primary. The nation (and the world, frankly: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2304231,00.html) is watching Celebrity Death Match: Democracy as Lieberman takes on Lamont in an election centering nearly entirely around the war in Iraq.

How easy to say that a Lamont victory is a victory for the blogosphere, for the liberal left, for disaffected Americans nationwide. How wrong. Lieberman's politics, although I don't agree with all of them, show a consistent, smart approach to foreign policy (and the funding thereof, although a lot of his support for the foreign affairs budget stems from funding for Israel), a fundamentally liberal voting record on social issues, and a refusal to give in to one-issue electioneering. Lieberman's a liberal of the educated sort.

It's lucky for the left and the center that Lieberman is considering a run as an independent, not least because trading the influence of Lieberman for Lamont would be a blow to Connecticut's standing in the Senate (I assume here that a Republican would not take Lieberman's empty seat in a final election, but . . .). There are other, more subtle reasons to value his determination to run the race, regardless of his party.

There are not enough independent minds in the US government today. I seriously doubt that Lieberman as an independent will vote any differently than Lieberman as a Democrat, but how refreshing to have a senior member of the Senate cut ties with party affiliation, however nominally.

The second issue does, I admit, center again around Iraq. Lamont's message resonates with voters, but the "get out now" approach to foreign policy is just unrealistic and dangerous. Regardless of the reasons why the US embroiled itself in the Middle East, we did it. They (nearly) all voted for it. We have made a mess, and made a dangerous situation more dangerous, for Iraqis and their neighbors, and for ourselves.

It is irresponsible in the extreme to suggest that troop removal (while continuing training and technical assistance) will have a positive outcome. I can tell you right now that I wouldn't go back to Iraq if the US military wasn't there, and I'd wager there are quite a few aid workers that would agree with me.

We aren't doing the right thing in Iraq right now, but Lamont's proposition won't remedy the situation, either. We need intelligence, strategy, and long-term planning, not rhetoric and name-calling.

So, is this election a bellwether? Is anyone surprised that a New England state would come out anti-war? Does it really show a leftward tilt in the democratic party? Does it even matter, if Lieberman garners a win as an independent? The answer is no.