Chafee is the new Lieberman

Democrats went after Joe Lieberman in Connecticut and now Republicans are targeting Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island, as the AP reports here. The effort is being led by the 36,000-strong Club for Growth, which "spent around $1 million to help challenger Tim Walberg unseat first-term Rep. Joe Schwarz in Michigan's Republican primary on Tuesday". In 2004, the Club actively went after Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania -- his opponent was Pat Toomey, the Club's president. In Rhode Island the Club has tapped Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey.

And yet: Lieberman is a moderate in a liberal state. The man who beat him in last Tuesday's Democratic primary, Ned Lamont, is a liberal who should be able to win the general election. One could argue that there should be a more liberal Democratic senator than Lieberman in a state like Connecticut. But Chafee is a moderate Republican in a liberal state. A conservative candidate will likely not be able to win the general election. Specter at least is a moderate in a moderate state. Given that the other senator from Pennsylvania is arch-conservative Rick Santorum, it made some sense for conservatives to seek to replace him with one of their own. It makes no sense for conservatives to seek to replace Chafee with one of their own in Rhode Island. With Chafee, Republicans at least have a chance of holding on to the seat. With Walberg, they have no chance.

Or does it make sense? From the perspective of ideological purity, it certainly does. Like some on the left, conservatives in this time of Republican unpopularity are looking to purify their ranks and their party. And when ideological purification takes over, whether it's at a right-wing think tank like The Heritage Foundation, at the very heart of the West Wing, or in a liberal state like Rhode Island, the political flexibility required to win at the polls is often ignored. In place of compromise, in place of reality, the fantasy of righteousness, personal and political, takes control.

And one more thing: When ideological purification takes over, the purifiers view the world in terms of good and evil. Whatever is not pure is impure. Whatever is not right is wrong. Whatever is not with us is against us. Whatever is not us is the Other. To conservatives who have already succumbed to the fantasy of righteousness, Chafee is one of the Other. He is not one of us, so he must be one of them. He may be a Republican, but he may as well be a Democrat. There is simply no difference. The Other is a monolithic enemy.

Chafee is more than the new Lieberman. The left has in the past engaged in its own vicious forms of ideological purification, and the recent Democratic primary in Connecticut may be seen as some to be a reflection of more of the same. But, in reality, there seems to be far more of it on the right than on the left. Democrats, often to their electoral harm, emphasize diversity and difference. Republicans, often to their electoral benefit, emphasize unity and sameness. They do not tend to tolerate dissent.

Whatever the spin from the right, Lieberman is the exception, not the Democratic rule. He is a self-styled renegade, the victim of liberal politics in a liberal state, a Democrat who had lost touch with many Democrats. He is not the Other, but Lamont emerged as a more appealing Democrat on the central issue of Iraq.

In contrast, Chafee, Lieberman's colleague from New England, is very much the Republican rule. And the ideological purifiers in his party are looking to take him down. It is simply the Republican thing to do.