What a difference two years have made, indeed. Just two short years ago, U.S. military deaths in Iraq were occurring at an average of 2.57 per day, according to icasualties.org. Following the troop surge, which was initiated only last year, that number has dropped to an average of .74 per day, which represents a 71 percent improvement. Injuries, likewise, have dropped nearly 80 percent from two years ago (although the Pentagon has not released all up-to-date statistics). Back in September 2006, Iraq was still the most important political topic discussed and the economy was booming. In other words: no kidding "what a difference two years make."
It was also only two short years ago that the Democratic Party turned on Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), a long-serving lawmaker and Senate committee chairman from Connecticut, in favor of an unknown, inexperienced Greenwich millionaire. This challenger, Ned Lamont, ran a campaign almost solely on a pledge to bring all American troops home from Iraq (as if he would have been commander in chief himself had he been elected). Lamont outspent Lieberman significantly, using his own money, after gaining the Democratic Party nomination. In the general election, Lamont lost to Lieberman — who decided to run as an Independent — by 10 percentage points. Despite having been pressured to withdraw his candidacy and having been abandoned by his democratic colleagues in the Senate — including Sens. Obama (D-Ill.), Biden (D-Del.), Clinton (D-N.Y.), Kennedy (D-Mass.), Kerry (D-Mass.) and Dodd (D-Conn.), among many others — Lieberman still sought to caucus with the Democrats.
Now, Lieberman stands beside his good friend and Republican presidential candidate John McCain (R-Ariz.). Democrats, as should be expected, are furious, having all but lost their 51st vote in the Senate. But many still wonder what is behind Lieberman's lack of party loyalty. Over the past seven years since Sept. 11, 2001, Lieberman has progressively become more hawkish, as have a significant number of other legislators, recognizing America's increasing national-security threats. It should be obvious that this is the main reason Lieberman decided to cross party lines and endorse McCain; of course the fact that his own party abandoned him provides extra incentive.
Instead of being ridiculed for his lack of loyalty to the party establishment or cited for his evolving views on national security, as he was in a recent Daily editorial ("What a difference two years make," Sept. 4), Sen. Lieberman should be commended for his bravery in doing exactly as he believes, despite the consequences. This is, after all, the reason he was reelected to the Senate in 2006 by Connecticut's independent voters.
Strict adherence to party platforms and lack of independent thinking by our elected leaders is exactly the problem with the current state of national politics. Those representatives that act as delegates rather than straw men swaying in the wind of public opinion are our true leaders. Good examples of these are the senators who formed the "Gang of 14" to bring about compromise, as party stalwarts repeatedly clashed horns to no avail. Among this select group were Joseph Lieberman and John McCain, two independent-minded leaders.
The political landscape has shifted significantly since the spring of 2005 when the "Gang of 14" was formed. Lieberman, however, has remained true to his beliefs and position as a democratic independent-minded Senator. This stands in stark contrast to the blatant pandering of Sen. Obama who never swerves from the party line. Sen. McCain, too, is guilty of positioning himself more closely with his party's base as a result of political expediency. Rather than resuming the current left vs. right/Democrat vs. Republican battle, now is the time to embrace independent thinkers like Lieberman rather than targeting them as traitors to their narrowly defined political parties. As such, it was a shame that we missed the opportunity to see and perhaps vote for a transcendent McCain-Lieberman ticket.
--
Forrest Gittleson is a senior majoring in chemical engineering and quantitative economics.
