“Centrists” confuse tough talk, murderous stupidity with sound policy

That portion of the Democratic party self-described as “centrist” is suffering an outbreak of ‘roid rage leading them to confuse bluster with strength and sanity with weakness.

In last Sunday’s LA Times, Jonathon Chait described Joe Lieberman’s Democratic opponents as “a pack of crazed, ignorant ideological cannibals;” yesterday, Real Clear Politics proprietor Tom Bevan applauded Chait and other self-described centrists for fighting back against “McGoverns with modems.”

Chait’s central thesis is that although Lieberman was wrong in supporting the war in Iraq and is “a self-righteous suck-up who lends President Bush undeserved credibility,” his Democratic opponents are unhinged for trying to oust him from the Senate because Democrats shouldn’t give the impression that politicians who support breathtakingly stupid wars and undermine the Democratic agenda aren’t welcome to represent the party in Congress.

Bevan agrees, arguing that Democratic activists should lay off any Democrat who supported and still supports the greatest strategic blunder in modern US history because those people have strong national security credentials and opponents of the war don’t.

The argument is moronic on several counts: it assumes that tough talk and the willingness to have large numbers of people killed are the hallmark of sound national security policy regardless the actual outcome, and it ignores the fact that a solid majority of Americans think the war has made the country less safe and an even larger majority think the war was a mistake.

Those majorities represent the actual political center; the Democrats Bevan lauds as centrists are residing, at least on this issue, to the right of most Americans. But Bevan and Chait think it’s a mistake for Democrats who recognize that reality to hold accountable Democrats who don’t.

Bevan also thinks, or pretends to think, that Democrats who opposed the war on Iraq de facto also oppose other, more intelligent national security efforts. He has no basis for thinking so; he cites no evidence to support the notion; his entire case is built around the idea that support for a war most people think was a debilitating mistake is vital to convince Americans that Democrats have a clue about keeping the country safe, and that opposition to the same war paves the road to hell.

He approvingly quotes Evan Bayh as saying “[Democrats] still have a hurdle to cross with the American people in convincing them that we can be both tough and smart when it comes to securing America.” True enough, but maybe there’s a better way to go than making “Centrist Democrats: We’re stupid but we’re tough” the lynchpin of the argument.

The most likely explanation for all this is that Bevan suffers from Weisberg’s Syndrome, victims of which supported the invasion of Iraq, demand apologies from those of us who didn’t and throw hissy fits when the apologies aren’t forthcoming. It is to weep.