Turning on Lieberman
There are a few columnists out in the MSM I tend to read on a regular basis. Jonathan Chait of the L.A. Times is one of them (not least because he’s also an editor of, and frequent contributor to, The New Republic, one of my daily reads and in my view an outstanding publication).
Chait argued yesterday that Joe Lieberman “should drop out of the race” for Senate in Connecticut. So do many others, of course, but Chait did not sign on to the Lamont bandwagon before the primary, is generally (like Lieberman) hawkish on foreign policy (including Iraq), and works for a magazine (TNR) that has supported Lieberman in the past and that continues to be supportive of many of his views. I wouldn’t call him a Lieberman Democrat, but his argument against Lieberman here is persuasive in part because he hasn’t been anti-Lieberman.
I recommend his entire column, but here’s the core of his argument:
The best rationale for Lieberman’s candidacy all along was that he was an important spokesman for Democrats who take seriously the threat of Islamist radicalism. Unfortunately, Lieberman was never an ideal messenger for that ideology. He has supported capital-gains tax cuts, ultra-loose financial regulations and the crucial vote on the grotesque bankruptcy bill. He has an almost pathological need to be liked by the far right.
Above all, he has maddeningly failed to acknowledge just how badly the Iraq war has turned out, which is different from insisting that we have to fix the mess we created. After all, many hawkish Democrats such as Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware supported the war and don’t want to retreat but fully acknowledge President Bush’s catastrophic management of the occupation.
Not that many of you need another reason, or any more convincing, not to support Lieberman, but, obviously, even some of Lieberman’s former sympathizers are turning on him. I didn’t take sides in the Lieberman-Lamont primary, but I’ve been fairly sympathetic to Lieberman over the years. He’s never really been my kind of Democrat (although at times I’ve shared his hawkishness on foreign policy), but his party, I’ve argued, should have room for him.
And now? Well, the party should still have room for him, if he chooses to remain a Democrat, but it does seem to me that his independent candidacy in Connecticut is counter-productive, an elevation of self above party. Chait: “What’s the point of running to uphold Democratic hawkishness when you’re running against the Democratic Party and its chosen nominee?” A rhetorical question. There is no point beyond the pursuit of Lieberman’s own self-interest. This “has stopped being a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party and become a battle for Lieberman to keep his prestigious job”.
For the good of the Democratic Party, it’s time for Joe Lieberman to step aside.
16 Responses to “Turning on Lieberman”
self above PARTY? How about Country?
Most pols are loyal to self. Some are loyal to country. While parties serve a purpose, I dont see that loyalty to part is a crucial virtue. Was Jeffords loyal to his party? Did we admire him when he wasnt?
Chait is a political pundit, all wrapped up in showing why HIS way forward is better for the Dem party. Thats not Joes agenda anymore, and Im not sure its the agenda of most Conn voters.
Man I have never see a losing politician get more attention than this blog gives Lieberman. The man is out, gone, kaput. Nothing left but wailing, moaning, and, gnashing of teeth.
Why don’t you all just come out and say: “we support Lieberman and thats why we are obsessed with any scrap of information we can dig up, however redundant it may be”.
Because that is exactly what you children are doing.
Liberalhawk.
Jeffords was indeed loyal to his party. His party however was not only unloyal, but downright caustic towards him.
Jeffords voted for Bush’s 2001 tax cut package. True, he has voted often with Democrats but if you want a Republican elected from Vermont that’s what you’re likely to get.
You have the argument completely backwards. Party loyalty should be tertiary concern, but in modern politics it is often the primary concern. The constitution gives no special rights or even any acknowledgment to political parties.
Lieberman is a candidate with a platform. People are supposed to vote for CANDIDATES, not PARTIES. If enough people like Lieberman and his platform and past performance, he will and should win as a so-called independent. Anything else should not matter.
People get too wrapped-up in party politics and miss the big picture including the kind of representative democracy we are supposed to have, which is that individuals REPRESENT constituents, not parties.
Personally, I hope both parties continue to radicalize toward their respective moonbat wings. Then the rest of us can finally vote for candidates that aren’t forced to repay party campaign funding with party loyalty over constituent loyalty.
“This has stopped being a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party and become a battle for Lieberman to keep his prestigious job”.
Lieberman promised 18 years and he would step aside. I guess the desire to hold onto his glory (prestigious job) is outstripping his honoring that promise.
He is no longer a democrat, and that will be proven each time he takes money and support from a very radicalized republican party. Watch him slide over to the right as GOP support/money and November approcahes. With Melman/Cheyney not backing the actual GOP canidate, and roundly praising Lieberman it’s obvious who the GOP canidate really is.
Andy M , you hit it. If candidate Lieberman wants to run, regardless of what any Democrat thinks of him or his positions, he has the right to try. If his positions appeal to the majority of voters then he wins, if the Democrats don’t like it they should choose a different candidate. Personally I would like to see more independent candidates, for too long the Republicans and Democrats have been the only game in town.
Well, why doesn’t that happen more often? Hell, I’d love it if Joe Schwarz ran on an Independent platform for the 7th district of Michigan (where I live). He was defeated by an absolute Christofascist nutcase named Tim Walberg. And only 19% of voters turned out. At least in Lieberman’s case the primary got 50% turnout – a record high. Schwarz has already said kind things about the Democratic candidate, Sharon Renier, and has not endorsed Walberg. Schwarz, like Lieberman, got ALL the party support in the primary. He was a great Congressman, in fact. And I would have cast my first vote for a Republican since 1992 (a Congressional race – not GHW Bush) had Schwarz won. But the Republican primary voters selected a right-wing thug and that’s who we’ll have on the ticket.
But that’s how modern politics goes. The fact of the matter is that there is NO precedent for a candidate to lose a primary and then win in a general election. Jacob Javitts tried it and got creamed. Bemoan the two-party system all you want, but that’s where Lieberman comes from as much as anybody else. If he still calls himself a Democrat – and he does – then he should respect the wishes of the primary system. Otherwise he shouldn’t have run in the Democratic primary in the first place.
And that gets to the heart of the matter. If Lieberman really thought the primary system was an unreflective way of choosing a candidate, then he shouldn’t have run in the primary in the first place. He should have said, “The Democratic Party has no room for me anymore so I’m running as an Independent. I don’t care who wins the Democratic primary because I am running as an Independent no matter what.” Instead, he said, “I’m running in the Democratic primary like I always have…but if I lose, THEN I’ll call myself an Independent Democrat and run in the general election.” By only running as an Independent AFTER he ran and lost the primary, he showed himself to be a sore loser. Hopefully, Connecticut voters will reject him in November.
If the Democrats don’t like what Lieberman has done they can refuse to caucus with him. If the voters think that he was disloyal to the party they can vote for a real Democrat. You can consider what Lieberman has done a fatal flaw in his character but if he has enough support from outside the party by people who feel that neither party represents them then why not? He has been a loyal Democrat for many years, if the liberal wing of the party wants to throw him out for basically one transgression then why should he feel obligated to them? There was a similar situation in Colorado, Ben Nighthorse Campbell was elected as a Democrat, when he got tired of dealing with the Liberals in the party he switched. The Dems were furious but Campbell continued to win elections, the majority of the voters didn’t care about it. That for me is the bottom line, if Lieberman running for office as an independent after failing to win a primary is a serious flaw the voters will reject him, but all of the voters; not just the Democrats, get to make that decision.
Let’s suppose we were interested in what is good for the country. (Yes, yes, I know, we’re discussing a Chait column, but go along with me for a moment.) In that case, we should call for the twit, Ned Lamont, to pull out for the good of the country.
Now then, let’s suppose we are interested in what is good for the Democratic party. Interestingly enough, we come to the same conclusion. The party of Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Barbara Boxer, Jim McDermott, et cetera, et cetera, needs every serious person it can get.
Finally, let’s suppose we are interested in what is good for the Republican party. In that case, we would favor Lamont, for the damage his victory would do to the Democrats.
Since I put country above party, I call for the twit, Ned Lamont, to pull out (and, if he likes, renew his membership in that very democratic country club).
Davebo said:
Jeffords gladly accepted Republican help in the election and then abandoned his party. That doesn’t sound like someone loyal to his party to me. Of course, Benedict Arnold is also considered a loyal figure – to the British.
Elrod,
There are many reasons it doesn’t happen more often and I’ll touch on them briefly.
First of all, both parties are more radical than they ever were and are increasingly “controlled” by their respective wings.
Secondly, both parties have colluded to keep others out of the political game through a variety of tactics ranging from districting to ballot requirements. This is a subject we could spent hours on.
Third, modern campaigns need money. The two parties and their wings are able to generate a lot of cash to fund candidates and organize campaigns. One of the principle reasons, in my view, that “moderate” parties never get off the ground is that moderates don’t donate the cold hard cash that more radical people do. They are more ambivalent than the radicals are and believe they have better things to spend their money on than party candidates.
Finally, the electorate is deeply divided, and I’m not talking about right vs. left. You mentioned the “record high” turnout of 50%. Well there is a divide between those who’ve bought into the two-party system and the majority of Americans who are sick and tired of the politcal BS. There’s a reason voter turnout in this country is so low and Congress is one of the least respected insitutions (of all types) in the USA. The silent majority of Americans have sadly given up on a political process that they see as not representing their interests.
As for respecting the primary system, Lieberman doesn’t have to respect diddly squat. If you show me where in the constitution anyone must “respect the primary system” then I’ll eat crow pie. Fortunately I’ve read the constitution many times and I already know that the “primary system” has nothing to do with democracy or our representative form of government since it’s a creation of the two parties.
I also think it’s ludicrious to suggest that Lieberman should step aside because of the primary loss. A whopping 283,000 voted in the primary out of a total voting population of 2.5 million. Do you really suggest that Lieberman (who’s currently ahead in the polls) drop out because less than 150,000 of the state’s most partisan democrats voted against him and for Lamont? So about 6% of the State’s voters should decide if Lieberman can run AT ALL or not? Lieberman should say FU to the rest of electorate who support him and drop out? Oh the humanity!
Finally, like was said above, the democratic party screwed Lieberman – he owes them nothing.
Davebo,
Here’s an idea you might like: We should pass a law that once you win an election under a political party’s hat, you can never quit. It would be kind of like the mob or Hotel California. What a great idea! After all, loyalty to your party is much more important than loyalty to your constituents or anything else. I think you really hit the nail on the head by directly comparing disloyalty to your politcal party with treason to the United States of America. They really are the same thing after all, and both should be capital offenses. We should make it retroactive so we still hang that traitor Jeffords!
It is up to the voters in Conn. whether Lieberman is
the person who most closely reflects their views. What
party (or lack of) he is in makes no difference; it
is a matter of how he votes and what he supports. I used
to support him, before his agreement to run as Al Gore’s
VP (it would have been a great debate between “Joe Before” and “Joe After”), but I cannot abide his quick
overthrow of long-held beliefs in order to run.
My apologies, my last comment was directed at BrianOfAtlanta who was quoting Davebo. Sorry about the mistake Dave.
How about we junk both party’s and everone run as an independent with equal federal funding to get out their message of why they would be better for the COUNTRY. Is this too radical for the lobbist? No way to influence the politicians with money? No way for a group to control congress? Ah, maybe it won’t work!
Turning on Lieberman? I could have sworn he turned on his constituents when he said that they were helping the enemy by criticizing Bush’s conduct of the war.