In a post titled “Bitter, Party Of One,” Andrew Sullivan links to an article by Peter Beinart about the junior senator from Connecticut, “Independent Democrat” Joe Lieberman, whose 2006 re-election campaign I turned into a personal blog crusade. Indeed, longtime readers will recall that I used Lieberman’s Democratic-primary loss as inspiration to declare myself an independent (as did my mom), creating some great “conversion story” fodder for InstaPundit and others on the Right. (I recall someone using the term “conversion porn,” which is pretty funny, though I can’t find the link now.)
That all feels like a very long time ago now, and seems increasingly misguided in retrospect. Anyway, Beinart writes:
Once upon a time, Joe Lieberman was interesting—not always correct, in my view, but interesting. He was interesting because he thought for himself. On most issues, most senators line up pretty automatically with their party. A few others, the moderates—often Southern or prairie Democrats or Northeastern Republicans—split the difference: If Democrats want to spend $1 billion on some domestic program, and Republicans want to spend nothing, they furrow their brows, beat their breasts and then propose spending $500 million. The moderates generally annoy party activists and impress Washington pundits who view moderation as good in and of itself. But they’re just as conventional as the liberals and conservatives. It’s no more interesting to be predictably purple than it is to be predictably red or blue.
That’s why Lieberman stood out. On domestic issues, he was fairly liberal: supporting abortion rights, a larger social safety net and environmental protection. On foreign policy, he was a fervent hawk. He didn’t split the difference between left and right: He idiosyncratically mixed and matched. He hewed to an older ideological tradition—both pro-welfare and pro-warfare—that flourished in the industrial north before Vietnam. That’s what made Lieberman interesting. And that’s why his declaration last week that he would filibuster a “public option” on health-care reform is so depressing. It’s not just that his arguments make no sense. They show that he’s morphing from an iconoclast into just another right-wing pol. …
For close to a decade, [Lieberman] got nearly perfect scores from the American Public Health Association, which backs a single-payer health-care system, and in lieu of that, the “public option.” Now, all of a sudden, he’s so outraged by a public option that he’s threatening to filibuster any bill that contains it. The arguments he makes on behalf of his new position are remarkably weak: He says the public option will raise costs, even though the Congressional Budget Office has said no such thing, and even though logic suggests that by competing with private insurers, a government plan will actually drive costs down. Some have accused Lieberman of shifting right in order to win backing from the insurance industry in preparation for a 2012 reelection run. But, in fact, he gets relatively little insurance money, and Connecticut politicos mostly think he won’t run.
So why is he doing this? Because he’s bitter. According to former staffers and associates, he was upset by his dismal showing in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary. And he was enraged by the tepid support he got from many party leaders in 2006, when he lost the Democratic primary to an anti-war activist and won reelection as an independent. Gradually, this personal alienation has eaten away at his liberal domestic views. His staff has grown markedly more conservative in recent years, and his closest friends in Congress are now Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham. For Lieberman, the personal has become political, and it has pushed him further to the right.
The irony is that when Lieberman was officially a Democrat, he was ideologically independent—a living manifestation of the Humphrey-Jackson tradition. Now that he’s technically an independent, he’s becoming a standard-issue conservative. For people who believe—as Lieberman himself once did—in progressive health-care reform, it’s a tragic shift. It’s also boring. Another interesting senator bites the dust.
Regardless of what one thinks about health-care reform — I’m honestly not sure if the plans now in Congress will make things somewhat better, roughly maintain the miserable status quo, or make them even worse; and I’m likewise uncertain whether the “public option” will do much good (though it obviously isn’t the end-of-the-world socialist apocalypse the Right would have us believe) — this analysis of Lieberman’s post-2006 shift rings true. And that’s sad.
It’s also ironic: the Left was actually wrong, back in 2006, when they branded Joe as a DINO, a Republican in Democrat’s clothing, etc. He wasn’t those things — yet. He was a conventional Democrat who happened to be a hawk on Iraq, and a dissenter on a few other issues here and there. But he was unmistakably a Democrat, back then.
The Left was also mostly wrong, I think, in declaring that Lieberman’s record, up until that point, proved he had no principles and was just another power-hungry and frequently dishonest attention whore. Maybe there were increasing hints, post-2004, of his whoreish tendencies — hints that I and other Joementum-philes ignored, dismissed or explained away because of Lieberman’s long prior history of being a principled iconoclast. But he certainly had not yet fully morphed into the strange creature he now seems to have become.
What appears to have pushed him over the edge, as Beinart says, is the beating he took in ’06, and the lack of support from his erstwhile allies. Thus, the anti-Lieberman Left has, in a certain sense, created the villain whom they prematurely condemned. Not that I’m blaming them: to the extent that Lieberman has talked himself into abandoning his principles out of personal pique (having doubtless persuaded himself, through mental sophistry, that he’s serving some higher purpose), it’s his fault, not his adversaries’. He, and he alone, is responsible for his own positions, actions and statements — and putting one’s personal feelings about political slights ahead of one’s honest beliefs about the nation’s best interests is indefensible (if all too common) among those whom we, the people, have given the power to govern us.
Still: what has occurred is a fascinating, distressing irony. Lieberman is proving to be a far smaller man than I thought, but it took the over-the-top attacks of overzealous — yet now vindicated! — ideological enemies to fully reveal his pettiness. An odd situation, and a sad one. And a embarrassing one, for me. Sigh.
P.S. Oh: and yes, if he filibusters the health care bill, he should certainly be stripped of his committee assignments and whatnot. That’s clearly a bridge too far, from the Democrats’ perspective. Opposing it on the merits is fine, but filibustering the central piece of Obama’s agenda — the agenda he was elected to enact — would mean that Lieberman is basically a useless “60th vote.” Joe Must Go, if he does that.
I didn’t follow it that closely, but I recall having a negative impression about Lieberman in the 2006 election based on his framing his independent candidacy on the notion that he was simply serving the people’s wishes. From a distance, this looked like so much vanity in light of the people voting for the other guy based on some rather distinct differences (e.g. Iraq War position).
Having said this, from what little I know about him, it seems like Lieberman is mostly a reasonably menschy fellow. Draw up a human continuum from “evil” to “saint” and I’m sure Lieberman still ends up on the saintly side of the median. I guess the problem is that even a pretty decent person has the propensity to go in the wrong direction under the wrong circumstances.
Which is one reason not to get too wrapped up in another’s saintliness. More often than not, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment, at which point, feeling let down, you decide the person was really no good. In Lieberman’s case, it strikes me that would be too harsh. From David Bowie’s classic song “Quicksand”
I’m not a prophet or a stone age man,
Just a mortal with potential of a superman,
I’m living on…
I think you’re basically right, Jazz. He’s not a bad guy. But he’s making some bad decisions right now, having, as I said, “doubtless persuaded himself, through mental sophistry, that he’s serving some higher purpose,” rather than merely serving the cause of his own pique. This is an extremely common phenomenon among human beings, and Joe Lieberman is not immune. I built him up too much in my own mind as being some sort of uber-principled mensch. He’s still more mensch than schmuck, as you say, but his menschiness level is taking a major hit at the moment.
P.S. Oy.
Obama was elected to enact health care reform? No, he was elected to bring change Washington and make nice to the international community. He’s completed half of that mandate, and forgotten the other half.
Health care is just the next shiny thing. It’s no more mandated than is cap-and-trade.
And I believe history will show, his election was more a result of his personal and media attractiveness, than any policy discussed in 2008.
I’m not suggesting that Obama was elected specifically because the voters wanted him to enact health reform — i.e., that his health care plan was the sole proximate cause of his victory — but it was certainly a key plank in his platform, and anyone who was paying attention (which, I concede, is probably a minority of voters, but I think some legal concept like “constructive notice” needs to apply here) knew that if he was elected, he’d push for it.
I agree that Obama’s “election was more a result of his personal and media attractiveness, than any policy discussed in 2008.” I would argue that most elections are decided on the basis of side-issues and irrelevancies. (Bush was elected in 2004 because John Kerry is French-looking and talked about Vietnam too much. Bush was elected in 2000 because Al Gore is stiff and sighed too much and exaggerated and invented in the Internet, though Gore almost won because Bush had a DUI in Maine. Clinton was elected in 1996 because Bob Dole is old and the economy was going strong. Clinton was elected in 1992 because the economy sucked and people were pissed off. Bush Sr. was elected in 1998 because Michael Dukakis rode in a tank. I could go on.) However, the fact remains, it’s a reasonable assumption that an elected candidate will, for the most part, govern the way he said he’d govern. Obama is, for the most part, doing that. Health care is, in broad outlines, an example of this. As someone once said, “elections have consequences.”
“Bush Sr. was elected in 1998 because Michael Dukakis rode in a tank. I could go on.”
You already Did go on. ;> But it’s My recollection that it was in Nineteen Eighty-Eight and he was elected because of your ferocious Support for him in Mrs. Blake’s 2nd-grade class at E. Green School. 🙂
This thread got me remembering Senator Lieberman’s unusual speech at the McCain convention in the Summer of 2008. Not sure if this community discussed it, but I found it unusual in that it was quite the “attack dog” speech, of the variety one might expect a Vice-Presidential candidate to deliver.
Going in, I would have expected Lieberman to be more light-hearted, to acknowledge the irony of a prominent Democrat standing up for McCain, but use that irony to attempt to woo independent voters. Something along the lines of “I understand that there are some ‘ObamaCons’ out there. Well, I am a McCainLib – and here’s why”. Going the attack dog route resulted in a speech without a constituency – his Democrat affiliation confirmed hardcore GOPers suspicion of McCain, attacking Obama probably angered left-leaning folks, and the whole spectacle likely confused the coveted moderates.
Here I defer to the better knowledge of the Connecticutians, but maybe Joe is unhappy that he wasn’t able to kiss and make up with the Democrats after the Iraq War receded to the back pages of the newspaper. According to Wikipedia, he will be 70 when his current term ends in 2012. By Senate standards, he could have easily run 3 more times and still pretty much been middle aged. As it is, he is probably finished, in a career where 70 is almost like “early” retirement.
Who knows what went on behind the scenes to keep Lamont in the graces of the Democrats. But there could have been something. Who’s to say.
“…most elections are decided on the basis of side-issues and irrelevancies.”
You are catastrophically correct, but Obama raised the popularity contest to unprecedented levels.
“Here I defer to the better knowledge of the Connecticutians…”
Jazz, you Overestimate us, but I’ll take up the challenge anyway ;}. Re Lieberman’s re-election prospects: they depend almost entirely on his & the CT Republican Party’s mutual willingness to Formalize their intimate relationship by finally going
to the altarunder the huppa. ;] IOW Joe could win (not Will, but Might) in 2012 IF he is the official Republican Nominee ~ which is Not at all impossible. / By contrast It IS politically impossible for him to become the Dem Party-endorsed candidate again [as he was in ’06, by a 2 to 1 convention margin] — let alone the Dem Nominee in a subsequent primary. / And were he to again run as an “independent” (concocting a New new-party name, since he’s permitted “Connecticut For Lieberman” to be Hijacked by a merry band of Joe-phobics), it seems unlikely the GOP would again nominate a hapless Unknown and pass the word to vote for Joe, which is what Enabled his ’06 victory.Re Ned Lamont: he’s now in a large & growing field of candidates for the Dem nomination for Governor in 2010. Presently he polls a close 2nd among Dems to Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz. (It’s an “open seat” because Gov Jodi Rell (R) isn’t running.)
Re Lieberman’s early retirement: his colleague Chris Dodd is facing a distinct possibility of the same, next year. However, Chris will get the Dem nomination — if he seeks it.
You are catastrophically correct, but Obama raised the popularity contest to unprecedented levels.
My god! Adjectival abuse! Let’s start the impeachment proceedings.
Does this mean we can fire back at those “When Clinton lied, no one died” bumper stickers with, “When Bush lied, he kept in line with the MLA style guide”?
I mean, word usage, grammar and punctuation is important, amirite?!
Yeah, there’s a bit of irony in that last sentence there I suppose. 🙂
no impeachment needed. The linked article is light-hearted, and included only as a joke.
What is not a joke is the (party-independent) expectation that our highest level elections are increasingly devoid of any real policy statements. Also missing is any integrity to tell the truth during campaigns. This kind of paper-doll leadership (again, party independent) is catastrophic.
Joe Lieberman represented one of the few resistors to this dynamic, and I am sad to see he is giving up the fight.
Agree on all counts, ceiliazul.
By the way, with respect to comments #4 and #5, I realized belatedly that there’s another defense against the charge that I’m saying “Obama was elected to enact health care reform.” The phrase I actually used was:
“the central piece of Obama’s agenda — the agenda he was elected to enact”
Note that I didn’t say health care is “the piece he was elected to enact.” I said he was elected to enact the agenda as a whole, and health care is the “central piece” of that agenda. If elections are to mean anything at all, surely they must mean that electing an individual means we choose their “agenda,” broadly defined, over the other guy’s agenda (even if voters’ subjective motivations aren’t always that logical). And, just as surely, health care is “the central piece” — or, at the very least, a central piece — of Obama’s agenda.
fair ‘nuf, Brendan.
FireCongress.