Sunday, August 13, 2006

Lessons from Lieberman

Related stories in the papers today basically come down to the same question: what does Joe Lieberman's loss (and, although it's going undiscussed, I'll throw in that of Joe Schwarz as well) bode for the politics of centrism?

In the NYTimes, Kate Zernike profiles the Rhode Island Republican Senate primary, which she calls "the flip side" of the Lamont-Lieberman contest in Connecticut. And in the Washington Post, Dan Balz wonders how the two conflicting streams of thought in American politics ("intensified partisan combat in advance of a critical midterm election" and "growing disaffection among many voters with a national capital seen as stalemated by polarization and distrust between the two political parties") will end up impacting the '08 presidential contest.

Both articles are worth reading, and I think Balz makes some very good points about what the CT race could mean as we move forward.


At 9:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everything I read about centrist/moderates makes me feel that they are happy with the status quo. No worry about jobs, immigration, war, housing, food on the table, just polite discussion on how much better the world would be if everyone followed their lead. I guess from where they sit, it makes sense.

At 9:39 AM, Blogger JBD said...

anon, I can't speak for all centrists/moderates, but I for one am quite unhappy indeed with the status quo. The problem is that nothing happens to change the status quo (on jobs, immigration, war, etc. etc.) because the extremists on either end of the spectrum highjack the discussion and don't allow actual progress to be made. They're so worried about scoring political points that they forget why "we the people" delegate them the power to represent us. That is, they're there to get things done, not just keep themselves there for another few years. No, I'm not happy with the status quo.


Post a Comment

<< Home