The New Republic recently endorsed Joe Lieberman for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Many no doubt assumed the endorsement was dictated by very specific powers-that-be (who may be known by the initials M.P.), and those suspicions seem borne out - in a very enlightened way! - by an online debate between TNR staffers about the wisdom of the endorsement.

Many good arguments are made by all, but I was flabbergasted by the following statement by Christopher Orr. In arguing against the editorial decision to ascribe great weight to Lieberman's stances on the Iraq war and free trade, the unfortunate Mr. Orr asked:

How exactly is it that support for the Iraq war and free trade are now seen as TNR litmus tests but opposition to corporate malfeasance and irresponsible tax breaks for the rich aren't?

Let's try to explain this clearly:

A candidate's attitude towards the Iraq war* is (at least in the minds of many, many voters, and not without good reason) a good proxy for that candidate's attitude towards the war on terrorism and more generally towards matters of national security. And preventing Americans from being murdered in large numbers by murderous fanatics just might be - work with me on this! - more important than "opposition to corporate malfeasance and irresponsible tax breaks for the rich."

* (This is also the case regarding free trade, albeit to a much, much lesser extent - so I won't contest the point.)

Now, it is certainly debatable whether one's views on the Iraq war should truly be taken as a valid proxy for the war on terrorism, or even national security more generally. The TNR editorial in question understood that and argued in favor of that correlation (well, in my opinion - but more on that in another post). The point is that if you assume the correlation (or even any relationship between the two), Orr's question is as fatuous as I made it sound in the prior paragraph. And even if you don't agree that there is any relationship between the two positions (as Jonathan Chait argued earlier in the same debate), Orr's question is nonsensical on its face ("How exactly" did the Iraq war become a litmus test? Read the editorial - it tells you how!).
And finally, even if you opposed the Iraq war, shouldn't that be close to a litmus test in and of itself, per Howard Dean's fans - isn't an unnecessary war a very important thing to oppose? Or is Orr's attitude that Democrats should let bygones be bygones over a war, but supporting capital-gains tax cuts should be unforgiveable? What does that tell you about the priority of national security? (In this respect, Howard Dean takes national-security matters far more seriously than many of his rivals.)

In any event, Orr's question could barely be a more perfect illustration of the difficulties Democrats face in November. The biggest divide in American politics now isn't between Republicans and Democrats. It's between those who believe that the current environment forces matters of national security to the top of any list of priorities, and those who do not. And if you don't, that fact will come across.

And based on current polls, any Democratic candidate who does not agree with the primary position of national security will face a nearly insurmountable obstacle in November - which makes it all the more amusing that Orr would argue against TNR's selection of Lieberman based in part on concerns of electoral viability (and not just in the primary).

Jonathan Chait and Peter Beinart clearly understand all of this: perhaps they need to sit Mr. Orr down for an intervention.