Those sounds you heard a few days ago turned out to be the exploding heads of Connecticut Democrats. During his announcement last week that he would not seek re-election, U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman said that his politics were those of John F. Kennedy, a comparison that sent the state's liberals into fits of enraged hysteria. I have no doubt that Mr. Lieberman sincerely believes what he said; in thirty years of state and national politics, no one has ever doubted his integrity. I suspect, however, that the maverick former Democrat also relished the opportunity to goad his old friends (and enemies) on the left.
Mr. Lieberman said that Kennedy's policies—civil rights and social security, pro-growth economics and a strong national defense—were Lieberman's policies and that, like Mr. Lieberman, President Kennedy might not "fit neatly into any of today's partisan political boxes." True, President Kennedy was initially distrusted by his party's left wing, not least because of his father's previous reactionary antics. Still it is hard to imagine Jack Kennedy endorsing the G.O.P. presidential nominee, as Mr. Lieberman did in 2008. Among other things, Kennedy knew that his constituents wouldn't stand for it. Perhaps that's how Mr. Lieberman is most different from his political hero. He has suffered in recent years from an acute political tone deafness of the sort that never afflicted Kennedy. As a result, Lieberman made some really bad political decisions, like speaking at the 2008 G.O.P. convention—perhaps the worst self-inflicted political injury since former House Speaker Tom Foley sued his own constituents.
One person's tone deafness, of course, is another person's profile in courage. Loyalty in friendship is a virtue, supporters might say, and Lieberman was simply helping a friend, John McCain, in 2008. Similarly, Mr. Lieberman's "this-is-what-I-believe-the-consequences-be-damned" style of politics has a certain and admirable integrity. And while his Kennedy comparison is a stretch, there is some truth in it. Kennedy belonged to a time when Democrats and Republicans could stand to be in the same room together. People on both sides of the aisle not only could work together, but wanted to. Most of the last century's progressive social legislation—not to mention civil rights—came about through coalitions of Democrats and liberal Republicans, the latter currently an endangered species, the political equivalent of the Klamath Chinook salmon. The evisceration of the GOP's left wing by the Reagan revolutionaries, as well as the defection of the Democrat's right wing to the G.O.P., has indeed led to a more stridently partisan, rigidly ideological politics. In Washington and elsewhere, moderation and compromise are viewed as vices and every political fight, however marginal, is an Ali/Frazier slugfest, frantically and cynically hyped by the Don Kings of cable news.
"I have not always fit comfortably into conventional political boxes—Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative," Lieberman said in his remarks. The problem with American politics at the moment is not that there are boxes, but that there are too few of them. One sometimes gets the impression that most people in politics see only two boxes, right and wrong. The relative ideological homogeneity in both parties has led to a kind of intellectual entrenchment that has dangerously impoverished our discourse. In a political system in which third parties are hard to start and even harder to keep going, this new, all-or-nothing-at-all politics, one that values purity of intention well above effectiveness of action, will lead inevitably to political stagflation: the nation's business will come to a halt while the price of inaction grows daily.
Farewell, Mr. Lieberman. I have no idea whether you were the next John F. Kennedy. I doubt it. I sure do miss the old John Kennedy though, as well as the more effective and human politics that he practiced.
The question about McGovern should be re-cast: would JFK endorse RFK's brand of liberalism in '68? I doubt it (I don't think RFK ca. early '60s would either!). Different context, different voters.
I happen to think that Lieberman is neither bold or principled. He's a painfully self-absorbed centrist with a reckless foreign policy record.
"The evisceration of the GOP's left wing by the Reagan revolutionaries, as well as the defection of the Democrat's right wing to the G.O.P., has indeed led to a more stridently partisan, rigidly ideological politics."
This line essentially repeats liberal dogma that the break down in "civility" is the result (solely) of the Regean Revolution & the rise of social conservatives. Of course what is ignored is that by and large the rise of the social conservatives occurred in response to the radicalization of politics that roiled the DEMOCRATIC party in the '60s and '70s. But that's NEVER a factor mentioned as a cause of the current "incivility", largely because I suspect many of the current emince grises pontificating were part of this social upheaval that rent asunder long-held beliefs that undergird the political commitments of BOTH liberals and conservatives (such as basic constitutional interpretation).
He can't just have a different point of view, huh, Vince? You gotta assume the worst about anyone with whom you disagree. Liberal open-mindedness and diversity at its best!
I'm surprised you have wasted blog space to criticize someone for stating that they disagree with an elected official. Did you want to actually weigh in on Matt Malone's argument?
My thoughts on the piece itself is posted above your original post.
Finally, since you insist on renewing the fruitless exchange from last week, I did not dismiss the pro-lifers: I asked someone to explain the way they plan to re-criminalize abortion. Not a single person could do so. Are you able to do that now?
Lieberman has reached a political dead end. He can not get his pary's nomination for the U.S. Senate as was demonstrated in 2006. He would be forced once againt to run as an independent. But this time around there is a strong well-known well-finaced Republican ready to run and who would divide the vote in a way that a Independent could not win. In a three way race Lieberman would assure a Republican win for the U.S. Senate seat.
As it is it is very likely this seat become up a Republican win in 2012. The Democrats will faithfully nominate the most radical among themselves with or without a primary and therby lose the race.
Democrats just do not notice or suspect that their year by year drift further left is alientaing more and more voters. The irony with Joe Lieberman is that he was the Democrat vice-presidential nominee of 2000 who did very well as acandidate. Now the party insiders will have nothing to do with him. But who does the Democratic party have to run successfully even liberal bastions of the Northeast like New Jersey, and Massachusetts which have recently elected conservative Republicans? The Democratic party is becoming very imbred with candidates and policies that are not viable and in fact often outright obnoxious.
Who can forget the 2004 campaign of Vermont Governor Howard Dean for President. Dean was on the cover of Time magazine and Newsweek several times as the inevitable 2004 Democratiic party presidential candidate with his very liberal anti-war stands. But when it cam to actual voting outside of the Northeast - Iowa - he was not acceptable even to Democrats. Deans's well-finaced campaign fell apart for lack of Democrats voting for him. Dean lost the nomination in every state except Vermont. Yet the media was sure that he was the ultimate and only candidate possible.
Joe Lieberman inability to get the Democratic nomination is a sign of extreme ill haelth in the Democratic party in Conneticut How amusing will it be when the Democrats nominate another prepy liberal from Greenwich or some other unknown person who is completely unrepresentative of most citizens? The Northeast Democratic party's candidate selection mechanism is badly broken by its own extreme left wing biases. The Democratic party has become its own worst enemy.