Now that Obama has won the election and the Democratic wetdream of a filibuster proof 60 Senator majority is over, attention has turned to the subject of Democrat-turned-Independent-turned-traitor Joe Lieberman. Most on the left are clamoring for the Democrats to exile Lieberman to to Elba. This feeling is perfectly understandable. Lieberman is crazy neo-con hawk that turned refused to accept his defeat in the Connecticut Democratic primary, instead running as an independent, winning on the strength of moderate Republicans. And, most recently, he committed the ultiamte political sin; campaigning for McCain. Even worse, not only did he stump for McCain, in so doing he came out against Obama, offering harsh criticism based on nasty republican talking points.
So, kick the bum out, right? Wrong. Today the media reported that Obama will urge Senator Reid and the other members of the Senate leadership to keep Lieberman in the caucus. I for one was glad to hear it.
Obama ran as a change candidate. Among other things he hoped to change; our politics. Well the current politics - that of Rove and company - is predicated on holding grudges and unceremoniously crushing one's enemies. Frankly, I see the appeal - the thought of Lieberman being publicly shamed brings a smile to my face. But making this fantasy reality would be more of the same. On the contrary, keeping Lieberman around (with an appropriate punishment) makes Obama look magnanimous and adds substance to his claims of change and a new politics. Plus, retaining Lieberman makes sense on a strategic level. In a 100 person body, one vote counts a lot. If moderate Republicans, even just a few, elect to work with Democrats on legislation, Lieberman's vote could be very important - it could be number 60. So, why throw that away all over a grudge. This eventuality reminds me of the old adage 'keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Wise advice. I think Obama recognizes that he may need this guy.
Keeping the personal and political seperate would be a refreshing change of approach as well as a smart one - now that will be change we can believe in.
3 comments:
I agree that it would be wrong to simply boot Lieberman from the Democratic caucus in knee-jerk fashion, the thought of which also brings a smile to my face. I also agree that it makes Obama look "above the fray" to support keeping him in the fold. Lieberman has said that losing his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee would be "unacceptable," and I really think he means it. If they strip him of his chairmanship, then there's really no reason for him to stay in the Democratic caucus, and he might as well "go rogue" and be in a situation where both sides are kissing his ass. There is no way he should keep that chairmanship, though, and I think there are quality arguments to be made though for giving him the boot altogether:
1) Kicking him out of the Democratic caucus will probably not change many of his votes. He will still be hawkish on the wars, military funding (like this asinine missile defense system in Poland) and homeland security. He will still vote as a liberal on most domestic issues, such as a new stimulus package or universal health care. There may be a few procedural votes that don't go the Dems way if they throw him out, and they may get filibustered a few more times, but on the whole, Lieberman's voting patterns are likely to stay the same whether or not he's in the Democratic caucus.
2) Let's not forget just how brazen Lieberman's betrayal has been. All summer long, it was obvious that the Dems were going to pick up seats in the Senate, and that he would no longer be the essential 51st vote. The wind was blowing strongly at the Dems backs, and the polling looked good or great for many Democratic Senate candidates. Further, it was highly unlikely that he would end up being the 60th vote, unless every close race broke for the Dems. Thus, although it was a virtual certainty that his vote in the Senate would no longer be crucial to the Dems, he decided to publicly campaign for John McCain, a deeply flawed, far-right candidate who picked a know-nothing shopaholic for a running mate. He also slammed Obama on several occasions while supporting McCain. And let's not forget that this man is a mere eight years removed from being the Democratic nominee for vice president, and is still an important voice in the Jewish community. He completely sold out the party and the people who made his career in a way that could have been very damaging, had the McCain campaign not been a complete joke.
3) This is exactly the sort of Clintonesque opportunism that Obama purportedly stands against. Lieberman obviously thought it was in his political interests to support McCain, even though he was throwing Obama and his party under the bus. Just as Bill Clinton sold out his party and his purported values on Welfare Reform and NAFTA for political gain, so too did Lieberman make a cynical political calculation. Part of the reason the Hilary Clinton failed in the primary was that she would say anything to get elected - even supporting that silly gas tax holiday. If Obama and the Dems allow Lieberman to make such a shameless break with the principles that the party is supposed to stand for and then welcome him back because they want his vote, that would not be a new politics at all. That would be a prime example of the old Clinton opportunism rearing its ugly head.
Obama should have been agnostic on this whole affair and let Harry Reid and the Senate Dems sort this out. By coming out publicly in Lieberman's favor when many Dems are calling for his head, he puts himself at odds with much of the party. This may score him points with Republicans and Independents, but this sort of forced comity makes the party as a whole look weak, and it sends a message to anyone else who wants to sell out Democratic values that as long as we need your vote, there will be no consequences for undermining our vision for the country.
I disagree that he's coming out in support of Lieberman, though I agree he is coming off that way. No one was going to kick Lieberman out of the caucus. The question was whether he would get to keep the plum committee chair of Homeland Security. Essentially Obama said he was agnostic about that, which provides cover for allowing him to keep it, but certainly doesn't preclude kicking him off that committee.
He'll be kicked out, and he should be, but mostly because he was ineffective as chair of that committee.
In addition to being a little worm.
(Note, most of my thoughts are unoriginal and taken straight from TPM's discussion of question)
I'd like to comment not on Lieberman in particular but on the course of change politics, i.e.
"Among other things he hoped to change; our politics. Well the current politics - that of Rove and company - is predicated on holding grudges and unceremoniously crushing one's enemies."
I wholeheartedly agree that this sort of change would be welcome, but it will not be effective unless Obama can secure some accountability from his opponents who would otherwise continue the Rove-esque ways.
As long as Democrats keep appointing smart, competent, "middle of the road" people, and Republicans keep appointing whoever the hell shares their extreme ideological viewpoints, Democrats stand to lose out on the progress of their policies. For example, Clinton appointed many middle-to-conservative judges to the federal bench, and Bush II, with a few exceptions, appointed all ideologically-minded conservatives to the bench. And they will be there for a very long time, so no matter how many smart, competent, non-partisan people are working just to make good public policy-- regardless of party-- there will still be those hell-bent on advancing their policy view, to hell with "change." You can see the same sort of thing in the Senate's dealing with high gas prices when the Republicans refused to pass any bill that sought to curb oil-price speculation, and then blamed the Dems for not doing anything about oil prices because they didn't want to allow drilling anywhere and everywhere. If only our side is willing to give concessions, then things will always end up right of center.
I'm not suggesting, then, that Obama should get dirty and balance things out with some uber-liberal stances. Far from it. This needs to stop- on both sides. And it certainly cannot stop on just one side. That's like not even asking your enemy for a truce, just stop throwing dodgeballs, and then you get hammered-- can't say you didn't expect it right? No, what Obama & co. needs to do is publicly call for cooperation, reconciliation, "change" politics, such that if Republicans deviate and at the first taste of regaining power begin to seek right-wing adherence at the expense of intelligence, the public and the Dems can string them up by their political balls, so to speak.
Post a Comment