Here in Virginia, of course, we have Jim Webb running as the populist, reform, anti-Iraq War, "fair trade," anti-outsourcing candidate against an incumbent who votes 97% of the time with George W. Bush, who never met a lobbyist - or a "free trade" agreement - he doesn't like, who thinks the Iraq War was/is a great idea, and who is totally beholden to special interest group. Does this sound familiar or what?
Why have so many people grown tired of Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, and also of George Allen here in Virginia? One issue is globalization and the export of good American jobs to China, India, etc. Here's Ned Lamont from the debate:
Senator, we just keep exporting jobs. Over the last 18 years, as I said before, we have lost most of our -- 40 percent of our manufacturing jobs, a lot of our defense-related jobs.We are the largest market on the face of this earth. People want to do business with the United States of America. And we should negotiate these trade agreements from the position of strength. Labor agreements, environmental standards, these should be key to what we want to do. We owe it to our workers to give them a level playing field and let them compete around the world. Our workers can compete with anybody. They can compete with anybody if given a fair shot.
Very interesting, and I personally agree with Ned Lamont strongly on this. I also can't help but thinking about the big differences between George Allen and Jim Webb on globalization, trade, and the outsourcing of American jobs. Here's Jim Webb on trade:
In my view, free trade only exists when two countries that have comparative economic and governmental systems are involved - as, for the most part, we can see in our practices with western Europe. For the rest of it, adjustments should be made, unless there are other trade-offs (forgive the pun) that occur elsewhere in a relationship. We are in a situation where workers are losing jobs because of unfair trade practices from foreign governments, and we cannot and should not allow these practices to continue. The first place I would look would be the protections available to our industries in our existing trade laws. We should make it clear to foreign governments that we will not allow them to operate outside of established international trade law to gain an advantage over U.S. companies. Beyond that, I believe it would be fair to re-examine NAFTA and other acts to try and rebalance the playing field.
Sounds to me like Senators Webb and Lamont would work very well together on this issue, and probably a lot of other ones as well. As you read last night's closing statement by Ned Lamont, you might want to ponder whether George Allen or Jim Webb would do a better job in these areas for Virginia and for America. I believe the choice is clear.
As I travel flat out around the state of Connecticut, people tell me one thing. They want their political leaders to stand up, think big ideas, dream big dreams, say what you mean, and mean what you say. And with Ned Lamont as your next Democratic senator, I mean to do just that. It won't take me 18 years to sign onto a bill that says health care is a basic right for each and every American. And I'll vote to roll back the Bush-Cheney-Lieberman energy bill, which provides billions of subsidies to big oil and does so little for conservation, energy independence and the environment.And I will not find common ground with the Bush administration when they are trying to privatize Social Security. I'll fight for Social Security. I'll fight for our constitutional liberties. I believe so strongly that we're stronger as a country when we are true to our basic values and we work in concert with our allies.
And most importantly, I will bring our brave troops home to the heroes' welcome that they deserve. Rather than spending $250 million a day, $250 million a day in Iraq, we're going to invest. We're going to invest in those kids at Harding High School, we're going to invest in grade schools and clean energy and affordable housing and public transportation. We're going to bring our cities back as great as they were 100 years ago.
And, Senator, this is not about anybody's career. This election is about the people. And I don't want you to vote against somebody. I want you to vote for somebody. I want you to vote for your dreams. I want you to vote for your hopes. I want you to vote for your heart.
My name is Ned Lamont, and if you approve this message, I could use your support on August 8th.
Populism, reform, a realization that the war in Iraq was a big mistake, and a belief in fair trade - not so-called "free trade": sounds like a great combination to me. This year, in Connecticut and Virginia, voters can choose between very different Senate candidates in all of these areas. The fundamental question is this: are we happy with the direction the country is taking, or is it time to fundamentally change course? It seems to me that if most people believe the latter, Ned Lamont and Jim Webb win this November. Stay tuned.
Those of us who have worked with Webb over the primary see this depth of vision, but the general voting public has to see it, too. Many of them go to Webb's website and are disappointed not to find more in-depth policy statements. They may not have seen Webb laughing and joking, relaxed as we have, and consider him a little wooden, a view promoted by his primary opponent and now by G. Fleix Allen.
True, Webb is not a natural born politican (thank God), but I really hope he studies Lamont's speeches and picks up on HOW to put his message in a way that taps into the profound voter discontent presently just floating there, waiting to jell into support for the Outsider who offers the new direction, which is, of course, Webb..
It would be impossible really to say what Ned Lamont stands for on defense and foreign policy, except that he is acting as an agent of the leftist blogosphere and the Deaniacs and is opposed to the war in Iraq. Even on that score, Lamont's position is ambiguous, just as Lieberman stated. In fact, Ned Lamont seemed to adopt several positions on Iraq during the debate itself. At one point, Lamont seemed to be embracing simultaneously the Kerry and Levin amendments. At another point, he seemed to embrace the position of Gen Casey, who does not embrace any fixed timetable, although he has spoken of the possibility of beginning to draw down troop levels.
This is why I find James Webb to be an infinitely preferable candidate to Ned Lamont. Webb is an expert on national security affairs and foreign policy. Lamont is a neophyte and it shows. James Webb favors withdrawing from Iraq. However, I am confident that Webb will consider the ramifications of his own proposals on Iraq with regard to: Middle Eastern politics and the current confrontation between Israel and HAMAS; the correlation of forces in the region and Iran's drive for dominance in Iraq and regional geopolitical dominance; policy on Iran and its effort to become a nuclear power; the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and resurgence of the Taliban and al-Qaida there; the overall war against terrorism, specifically the war against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida; and also policy with regard to North Korea, Kim Jong Il, and the situation vis-a-vis the Taepo Dong II and evolving North Korean nuclear weapons technology.
James Webb shows that it is possible to be strong on defense and to have opposed the invasion of Iraq. He also comes out of the Reagan Democrat tradition, whereas Lamont would appear to reflect the traditions of the Eugene McCarthy-George McGovern-Howard Dean-Russ Feingold wing of the Democratic Party. The late Gene McCarthy was a fine man. McGovern, Dean, and Feinfold are fine men. However, unlike them, I was a Cold War Liberal and would like to see Cold War Liberalism updated to meet the needs of the present era. I think that James Webb is up to that challenge, whereas I don't believe that Lamont comes out of that tradition at all.
PS I'm also a great admirer of "Scoop" Jackson, but - to paraphrase Lieberman from the debate - "Joe Lieberman is no Scoop Jacskon!"
I do not think that Jackson ever would have left the Democratic Party if he had lived, unless he were convinced that "McGovernism" had taken over the Party. Even then, Jackson would not have joined the ultra-Conservatives in today's Republican Party. He would have sympathized with the Reagan Democrats over the weakness of the Democratic Party on Defense and Foreign Policy in the 1980s. He was not happy with Jimmy Carter's foreign policy and most certainly would not have been happy with Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis as nominees. This unhappiness would not have simply derived from his frustration over post-Vietnam Liberalism's weakness and isolation on foreign policy. He also would have been unhappy with modern progressives' so-called Liberalism on cultural and social issues. Jackson was a champion of the labor movement and the working class, regarding himself as embracing the legacy of the New Deal and the Fair Deal. Scoop Jackson also took inspiration form British Laborites such as Hugh Gaitskill and Dennis Healy. He believed in an activist foreign policy in defense of freedom abroad and in defense of the poor, the working class and civil rights here at home. He would not have hidden behind the term "middle class" in standing shoulder to shoulder with Labor and working men and women. However, being a champion of the working class, Scoop Jackson doubtlessly also would have continued to abhor modern Liberals' litmus test mentality on things like guns, religion and abortion. He probably would have found it hard to accept post-Vietnam Liberals' contention that they represent workers, even though those same workers often violently disagree with them on second amendment rights, abortion and religion. At the very least, Jackson would have wanted the Democratic Party to accept different views on these topics.
With regard to Joe Lieberman and Jackson, I think that Scoop Jackson would have wanted Lieberman to pressure the Bush Administration to win a decisive victory in Afghanistan. I think Jackson would have been horrified that we are now bogged down in the same sort of guerrilla war with the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan that so bedeviled the Soviets in their own ill-fated struggle against similar jihadists in that country from the end of the Carter Administration to day of their ignominious withdrawal. I think that Jackson also would have wanted Lieberman to pressure the Bush Administration to formulate a more effective counterinsurgency and counterterrorist strategy in Iraq. I think that Jackson would have agreed with Gens Clark, Zinni and McCaffrey about how difficult it would be to achieve victory, and therefore the advisability of staying out. I think that he would have agreed with them on the need to send more troops, quickly end the looting and establish security in the cities, and show the populace that we were not a force of occupation but rather one of liberation.
Back to Ned Lamont. Having said all of this, I think that Scoop Jackson would have had great difficulty coming to grips with Lamont's alliance with the leftist Blogs (not including Raising Kaine here), particularly DAILY KOS. I think that Scoop Jackson would have great difficulty making common cause with Howard Dean, his brother Jim and DFA, and the legions of Deanias. Meanwhile, he likely would have had the same disdain for the Bush Administration and its corporate backers that FDR had for what he called the economic plutocracy that wished to control the destiny of this country. FDR acknowledged the hatred of the plutocrats and said that he welcomed their hatred. Jackon himself railed against "Big Oil" and Corporate America and would have endlessly attacked the Enrons of today's America. Yet, I think that he would have been horrified by much of what appears on Daily Kos and much of the rhetoric that emanates from DFA and MoveOn.Org.
Why I like James Webb is simple.
--Webb believes in a strong national defense but quite rightly did not support the foolhardy Iraq invasion.
--The Democratic Party desperately needs to reembrace strong national security positions. This, as Webb says, is not the same thing as supporting the Iraq invasion.
--Webb shows the ability to reach out to the white working class, a voting bloc with whom post-Vietnam Liberals have found it quite difficult to communicate.
--Webb is pro-Labor
--Webb supports the same view of Civil Rights that Hubert Humphrey, Mr. Civil Rights, expressed during the debate over the 1964 Civil Rights act. Humphrey wanted a "color blind America" Humphrey did not favor racial quotas. Webb may have been doubtful about Affirmative Action, but so were pre-Vietnam Liberals and so are poor Whites and also Working Class Whites. However, Webb does want to find ways to help the poor, including the Black underclass. He does want a just society, which will provide opportunities for all -- poor Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, etc.
--Webb seems to have a sensible view of immigration reform. As he states, it makes little sense to speak of reform unless we can first secure our borders.
When I think of Webb, I cannot help but think of the 1976 Senate race between Harry F. Byrd, Jr., and Adm Elmo Zumwalt. Zumwalt was pro-defense, in favor of a strong foreign policy, pro-Civil Rights and pro-Labor, in favor of activist government in support of the politically and economically disenfranchised, etc. He was a Scoop Jackson Democrat or, if you prefer, an old Cold War Liberal. I rued the opportunity lost in 1976. I hoped that Chuck Robb might fill those shoes, but was wrong. Well, history is offering us another chance, at least from my perspective, and I plan to take it. I will give Webb mre money, work for him, and vote for him.