Appeasing the Quisling from Connecticut

Maha Barbara:

IMO the commenter quoted above exemplifies the “let’s-keep-shooting-ourselves-in-the-foot” faction of progressivism. Consider: We are up against a big, well-funded, and well-organized extremist right-wing faction that has taken over the White House and Congress and is well on the way toward taking over the judiciary. This faction spouts rhetoric about “freedom” and “democracy” but in fact supports radical theories about the Constitution that have put this nation on the road to totalitarianism. The regime in power has gotten us into one pointless and ruinous war and appears to be preparing to get us into another one. They are threatening the health of the planet by ignoring global warming, and the point at which it will be too late to act is fast approaching. They have strengthened their grip on power by corrupting elections and appropriating news media so that citizens can’t learn the truth. They are strangling our economy with profligate spending combined with irresponsible tax cuts, and every second that passes we are deeper and deeper in debt to other nations, like China.

The house is on fire, in other words. Some of us think our first priority is to put the fire out any way we can. We can argue about what wallpaper pattern would look best in the master bedroom some other time.

Barbara's responding to a progressive commenter at Unclaimed Territory who resented the way some Democratic bloggers and some bloggers who are progressives but usually support Democrats aren't open to the idea of third party challenges to Democrats.

The main subject of her post is Kos and his friends, critics, and enemies on the left side of the bandwidth.   But the passage I quoted, which sums up the crisis as stirringly and electrifyingly as a fire alarm in the middle of the night, had me thinking of a less generalized part of the struggle, the part being played by one man, the Quisling from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman.

Quick now, because it can't be said enough.  Joe Lieberman's failure is not that he's not right on Iraq.  His failure isn't even that he's been insufficiently liberal.  His failure is that he has been so eager to ingratiate himself with the Republicans in Congress and President Bush that he has effectively turned himself into an enemy of his own party.

Anyone who wants to know why Democrats, not just anti-war progressives, are so pissed at Lieberman should read this article from the Hartford Courant.  The reporter dismisses the Lamont challenge as an anti-war thing, but it's this little bit from Lieberman himself as he spoke to the Middlesex Chamber of Commerce that's most telling:

"I've been really fed up by the rigid partisanship in Washington, not just about the war," Lieberman told reporters later. Of Lamont, he said, "Part of his attacks on me are that I haven't been partisan enough, haven't been a polarizer enough."

That's it in a nutshell.  The Republican majority in the Senate has shut the Democrats out of everything and Joe thinks the problem is that Democrats like Lamont are too partisan.

Joe is bipartisan.  Ask him.  His definition of bipartisan is the same as the Republicans'.  Democrats need to just do what the Republicans tell them to do.  Go along to get along.

Lieberman promised the crowd he would return to Washington to be effective, not partisan.

Lieberman is an appeaser and an accomodationist.  There doesn't appear to be an issue that will make him stand and fight like a Democrat.  Whenever Harry Reid plans a move his first concern has to be how to keep Lieberman from getting in the way or undermining the Democrats' position.

Lieberman was introduced by David Cohen, the executive vice president of Comcast Corp., who called Lieberman a rarity.

"He is a pro-business Democrat," Cohen said.

Pro-business Democrats aren't rarities.  What are rare are Democrats like Lieberman who are that content to be so totally in the pocket of big business as any Republican.

Last year there was some rumor-mongering going on, speculating that Lieberman's flattering and fawning was designed to get himself a cabinet appointment.  He was goinng to be Bush's next Secretary of Defense, as if Rumsfeld will ever resign.  But what worried me at the time and what worries me now is that Lieberman was and is actually positioning himself to bolt the Democratic Party.

Lieberman seems to be more comfortable with the Republicans, but his attraction to their Party I would bet is based on their holding all the cards.  If he were to join them, he could become chairman of several of important committees.  What he likes and what he wants a share of is their power.

His refusal to promise to support Ned Lamont and not run as an independent if he loses the primary wouldn't infuriate me as much as disappointment me, if Lieberman were another sort of man.  It's natural that someone who has served so long as a United States Senator wouldn't want to give up the job.

And, if he were another sort of man, I might believe that he thinks that his running as an Independent would be in the best interest of the country and the Party.  Better he seem to be a disloyal Democrat than let his seat fall into the hands of a Republican.

Perhaps that's what he's telling himself.

That is most likely what Chuck Schumer is telling himself.

Tom Watson's disappointed with our Senator because Schumer's been talking about supporting Lieberman if he loses the primary and decides to run as an independent.

I think there's a lot of counting unhatched chickens when it comes to Lamont's challenge to Lieberman.  Joe's hurting in the polls, but he's still ahead.  But if he loses I wish Schumer would use his influence to convince Lieberman to do the gracious and loyal thing and back his party's nominee, something Lamont's promised to do if he loses.

But if any Democrat had that kind of influence with Lieberman we wouldn't be talking about needing to get rid of Lieberman.

Any politician with the usual dose of vanity's going to feel hurt and resentful if his party abandons him, and I'm sure Lieberman, who has more than the usual dose, feels he's being abandoned.  I'm sure he can't understand why we're all so mad at him.

So I would say his talk of an independent run falls within the bounds of forgiveable pride.  I would say it if I wasn't talking about Joe Lieberman.

Schumer knows Lieberman better than I do.  I don't know if I agree with Tom and Jane Hamsher that Schumer's possible support of Lieberman over Lamont in the fall is all about maintaining the privileges  of incumbancy.

If I were in Schumer's shoes I would thinking about this.

Connecticut should be a safe seat for the Democrats.  If Lieberman wins, it definitely is.  If he loses and sits it out, it probably is.  But if he loses and runs as an independent two things stand a very good chance of happening, neither one any good.

Lieberman siphons away enough Democratic and independent votes from Lamont that the Republican wins.

Lieberman wins and comes back to the Senate angry at the Democrats and relishing his newfound role as an independent.   The polls are looking good for the Democrats and their chances in November, but if they regain the majority, it won't be by more than a few votes.

An independent Joe Lieberman will be a much courted man by both parties in a nearly evenly divided Senate, and he has more to gain from playing nice with Republicans, whom he already likes and who already like him.

I already think that there's a good chance that whether Lieberman wins with a D or I after his name, he'll arrive in the Senate in January with an R there.

If I were Chuck Schumer, I would be thinking that at least for right now my best plan is to do my damnedest to keep Lieberman feeling happy and beloved in the Democratic fold.

There's a voice in my head saying, So what, who needs him?  Let him go and to hell with him!

But then I think about the crisis Barbara describes so eloquently.

Who needs Lieberman?

Unfortunately, we may.

The Democrats need bodies in the Senate to add to their majority should they get it.  They may need him to win in November to get his body there to make up that majority.  Who wants Dick Cheney casting a lot of deciding votes the next two years?

The most depressing part of politics is that issues and principles usually take a backseat to vanity and ambition.

Right now, as an apologist and fellow traveller with the Republican majority, Lieberman's a problem.

But as a supposed member of a slim Democratic majority he can be just as destructive if he keeps crossing the aisle to help recreate Republican majorities.

The best outcome for progressives would be for Lamont to win in the primary and the election.

As things stand, though, the likely outcomes are that Lieberman wins the primary and the election or that Lieberman loses the primary but wins the election.

If I'm Chuck Schumer I know I can't count on Joe Lieberman to be loyal to the Democratic Party.

But maybe I can make him feel some loyalty to Chuck Schumer.
____________________________________

I'm looking forward to meeting Tom and Jane and Barbara tonight at the Drum Major Institute's benefit honoring Kos, Wynton Marsalis, and labor activist Anna Burger, which you all know about because you've all clicked repeatedly on that bright orange badge in the top left hand corner of the page, right?  I expect to have my head handed to me on this and on everything else all night long.  I'll let you know tomorrow how big a horse's patoot I made of myself.

Comments

[Claire]

Hey Lance, have a good time at the Kos thing.

As for Lieberman, I appreciate your thoughtfulness. My dad worked in the Capitol building for a year or so, working on the visitor center that is being built. He judged a lot of Congress members by the way they walked down the hall. Lieberman, he said, skulked along, hugging the walls. Dad wasn't impressed, not that he was before.

[Matt]

The most depressing part of politics is that issues and principles usually take a backseat to vanity and ambition.

Truer words have ne'er been written.

Have fun tonight!

[burritoboy]

No, Lieberman will not lose the primary and win the election. He may win the primary and then the election.

There's simply very few people in Connecticut who would support Lieberman for being Lieberman - i.e. as an independent candidate. Successful independent candidates come from circumstances where the candidate is so comparatively charismatic and personally appealing or the candidate uniquely connects with the voters that people overlook his independence. (Or occasionally, in instances where an entire voting bloc is transitioning between one party to another - like the White South in 1940s-1980s, for instance).

Lieberman is not charismatic or personally appealing in any significant way.

Lieberman isn't taking his stances out of specific regard for the people or situation of Connecticut. I don't think Lieberman is any more popular than Random Democratic Senator would be.

Nor is the state of CT transitioning between parties.

If Lieberman loses the primary, there are very few people who feel personally obligated to him to continue to vote for him over Lamont (or a Republican candidate).

[sarah]

thanks for being so articulate about lieberman. i've gotten to the point where i can only mutter bad words under my breath when he's mentioned. i'm sending this post to my mom. thanks again.

[DuWayne]

Contrary to my principals I am considering voting dem in November. It would be easy not to living in a voting block that will vote dem but I am not sure my not voting dem because I know I don't need to would be holding to my principles in fact or just in my head.

I have no faith in the two party system. I am not even a fan of a third prty - I would love to see no parties or if we must have them then I want a lot of them, like a Canada lot of them. I keep hearing rhetoric about how the dems could push for public campaign finance - an idea I support. The problem is I do not believe they will ever do it. I do not see them as quite as bad as the republicans but why wiould they have any interest in, any more interest in breaking the republicratic stranglehold these people have had on our democracy for over a century.

I am just not sure what I will do. I know that there is no chance the repubs will ever embrace public financing while the dems aren't likely too but with the same odds of my kids damn guinea pig will spontaneously combust - might. I can hope and pray but it aint friggin likely to happen. The only reason I might vote dem is in the hope that the pig might blow. . .