Paleodems
Lieberman’s been drummed out of the Democratic Party, the party he refused to abandon on his own.
I wrote here about how difficult it is ordinarily to change party affiliation, quoting Zell Miller’s remark that it’s almost like trying to remove a birthmark. Lieberman seems to have undergone a sort of radical surgery to remove that birthmark against his will.
Today, people such as Lieberman–Democrats who are foreign policy hawks– must align themselves more closely to Republicans than Democrats on those issues, leaving them open to charges of party disloyalty. But ’twas not ever thus. One only has to think of such Democratic luminaries as FDR, Harry Truman, and JFK to realize how different mainstream Democratic thought on these issues used to be.
But that was before the watershed experience of Vietnam, which changed the Democratic Party. Following that era there originated the term “Scoop Jackson Democrats,” after Henry M. (“Scoop”) Jackson, a Democratic Senator who was hawkish in the mold of Harry Truman. He’s also considered by some to be the father of neoconservatism, although he remained a Democrat his entire life.
I hereby propose a new term for Democrats who remain in the party but are hawkish on security and foreign policy matters: paleodems. It lacks the heavy baggage of “neocon,” and it’s more descriptive as well, because such people are not conservative in most senses of the word (nor am I, by the way). It also retains a reference to the Democratic Party, reflecting the 20th century history and tradition of that party as muscular on defense.
Of course, I may be too late, because paleodems are becoming an endangered species. If extinction occurs, the “paleo” prefix becomes even more apropos.
A historical note of interest on Scoop Jackson himself, with some resonances to today:
Coincidentally, Jackson in 1970, like Lieberman in 2006, faced a primary challenge from left-wing Democrats unhappy with his support for a controversial war; Jackson fended off Spokane lawyer Carl Maxey in a fiercely-contested primary, and went on to win the general election by a record margin.
Hmmm.
I like.
New age and nostalgia, all in one.
The Democrats have gone from the party of John F. Kennedy to the party of Lee Harvey Oswald.
The Democrats have gone from the party of Robert F. Kennedy to the party of Sirhan Sirhan.
“I hereby propose a new term for Democrats who remain in the party but are hawkish on security and foreign policy matters: paleodems.”
I think stuck on stupid would be better.
It’s interesting that Scoop won so well.
Stuck on Stupid is throwing out the one man with the creds to actually win an election where everyone gets to vote.
He was the single Democrat in 2003 that I heard Republicans say they could vote for… I’ve heard more than one popular “conservative” blogger muse about Guiliani and Lieberman for 2008.
I guess the Democrats would rather lose. But it’s all good, because when they do they can just blame it on how stupid everyone else is.
A Guiliani-Lieberman ticket might be just the thing.
As a conservative, non Democrat, some advice:
Paleodems? Ancient dems? I do like it, kinda musical, though you are then open to parody, to be drawn by lefty cartoonists as hairy, beetle-browed throwbacks.
αυγή. Dawn. Eodems. Dawn democrats. Nicer sentiment, truer too, though maybe not as pleasant to the ear.
I was a Democrat for longer than Kos has been in this world but people like him ran me out of my party and now they are going after a loyal liberal like Lieberman. Back stabbers.
With the notable exceptions of JFK and LBJ, Dems have always been against stupid, pointless wars.
Eodem… very nice. It sounds sort of Biblical.
The Dems will eventually go the way of the Dodo, if they don’t wise up.
Libertarian, anyone?!
Well, it ain’t over until the fat lady votes, is it? Old Joe may well come out on top as an Independent, assuming he can raise the money to run. A major terrorist plot to blow up planes was just foiled and the Lamonts of the left are telling the American people that we should not be engaging the forces of islamofacism whenever and wherever they are found. Some will vote for Joe just to keep the likes of lamont out.
With the notable exceptions of JFK and LBJ, Dems have always been against stupid, pointless wars.
Let’s see, Democrats, Woodrow Wilson in particular supported US entrance into WW1, one of the stupidest and most pointless wars ever fought and opposed the US Civil War, one of the most important and probably necessary. Seems like your assertion needs a little work.
” With the notable exceptions of JFK and LBJ, Dems have always been against stupid, pointless wars.”
Oh, and is FDR now a Republican?
I don’t squint at Revisionism.. still..
When they came for Joe Lieberman I said nothing. When they came for me………………
“” With the notable exceptions of JFK and LBJ, Dems have always been against stupid, pointless wars.”
Quiz: What do the following people have in common?
Baucus (D-MT)Bayh (D-IN)Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)Cantwell (D-WA)Carnahan (D-MO)Carper (D-DE)Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)Daschle (D-SD)Dodd (D-CT)Dorgan (D-ND)Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)Harkin (D-IA)Hollings (D-SC)Johnson (D-SD)Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)Landrieu (D-LA)Lieberman (D-CT)Lincoln (D-AR)Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)Nelson (D-NE)Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Can anybody guess?
“Can anybody guess?”
Let me see, Harry…those would be the Democrats that voted FOR the “stupid, pointless” Iraq War?
Thats the one! Give the man a cigar!
Now all but Joe must pretend they either werent fully informed or try to have people forget their vote entirely.
A friendly MSM is always helpful in any case.