The "Defining Moment" Fallacy

The Democratic Party, and those who remain optimistic about the party, are of course jubilant about the victory of Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman in the senatorial primary in Connecticut. It is seen as proof positive that the nation has turned the corner on the Iraq war, even calling it an "insurgency" which holds grave implications for Republican incumbents everywhere. Rather than seeing it as a special case, bloggers and the mainstream media view the Lamont victory as a key momentum builder. In so arguing, the pro-Lamont crowd sounds a little like the Bush Administration in its recitation of "corner-turning" events in Iraq itself, such as writing a constitution, capturing Saddam, holding elections, killing Zarqawi, forming a government, and so on. Each of these defining moments turned out, in retrospect, to be a rest stop on the Highway to Hell that is liberated Iraq.

I think Lieberman is a special case in a special state. He went way overboard in his accommodation of Bush, even on social issues like the Schiavo case, and his war hawkishness in many ways was far more aggressive than even moderate members of the Republican Party, such as Chuck Hagel. Politics in Connecticut, as in California, are complicated by its status both as a bastion of liberal, highly educated voters, and as the headquarters of a number of America's largest defense contractors. Lieberman was a man who tried to be all things to all people and corporate interests, and this squishiness in his views, coupled with his Mr. Mumbles presentation, fell victim to a younger, more dynamic, and less sullied challenger.

Whether this translates to a massive alteration in the Senate or Congress is another question altogether. One ironical point is that this great "victory" in Connecticut was of one Democrat over another. Lamont managed a narrow win, and if he succeeds in November (with his vote possibly diluted by Lieberman's egomaniacal independent run), the Democrats in the Senate will simply have held a seat they already own. One might well remember the election in the San Diego area to replace the House seat vacated by Randy Cunningham, where the Democrats were defeated running against a Republican, which is a truer horse race.

In July the Harris Poll found that 50% of American adults believe that the U.S. military discovered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the March, 2003 invasion. Stated another way, half the American adults selected at random and with the the wherewithal to own and operate a telephone maintain an abiding belief in the original justification for the Iraq invasion. Depending on the week, a little over half of all Americans oppose the continuation of the war in Iraq. In 2004, a little over half of American voters decided to return The Decider to the high office he continues, against all logic and common sense, to occupy. Yet Bush remains, most of the time, between 12 and 15% below this 50/50 Golden Mean which seems to define most of American politics. I suspect, at base, his unpopularity derives mainly from the high cost of gasoline and from the increasing sense among America's lumpen proletariat that things are getting worse here as they get better in Asia. Dinner table issues, in other words, and not the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq is a catastrophe of the first water, and it is breaking down the spiritual, financial and military structure of an already beleagured United States, but in the vast reaches of Red State America, the war issue will not be a decisive whisk broom propelling all the Republican officeholders out of Congress. Some Democratic gains, yes. Maybe near parity in the Senate. Not enough, constitutionally, to get rid of the Impostor in the White House. Not enough to make a big difference either way.