As the discussion here and elsewhere unfolded in the wake of the Lieberman-Lamont debate last night, some contributors here noted that the attacks on Joe Lieberman had become increasingly vicious and personal, and that as angry as we might be with Joe's various antics, that we would be well-advised to keep our criticisms professional and issue-based. Our desire to bury Joe Lieberman's political career, in many ways, has overwhelmed our ability to retain our perspective.
Those postings made me think a bit. I will admit that I personally have been as guilty as anyone of the vitriol aimed at Connecticut's junior senator. But I can understand the sentiments of the posters -- as damaging as Joe Lieberman, the political figure, has been to the Democrats and to the nation, Joe Lieberman, the person, doesn't deserve to be described by some of the over-the-top epithets attached to him. He's still a human being, going through enormous stress. And I don't believe he's anywhere near as evil and black-hearted a man as, say, Dick Cheney.
But that's not exactly what this diary's about.
Why is it that Joe Lieberman, particularly and specifically, brings out the worst in us, the netroots? Why not, say, Dianne Feinstein, who certainly gets her share of barbs from us but nothing at Lieberman's level? What is it about Joe Lieberman that drives so many of us to pile upon a dedicated progressive like Barbara Boxer just for the sin of saying something nice about him?
I submit that the problem isn't Joe Lieberman, exactly. The problem is what Joe Lieberman represents.
In a nutshell, Joe Lieberman personifies and encapsulates everything that's gone wrong with the Democratic Party over the last fifteen or twenty years. It's got to be somebody, and it happens that Joe fits the role to a T. When we attack Joe, we're attacking the failed direction of the Democratic Party since the days of Reagan. And an endorsement of Joe, by anyone, is taken as an endorsement of this failed direction. I believe that's why the mention of Joe Lieberman triggers this Pavlovian response among much of the netroots.
What are some of the components of this failed direction? Here's my list:
1. Phony bipartisanship. Or, if you will, bipartisanship for the sake of appearances, and not for the purpose of actually accomplishing anything. It's one thing to reach across the aisle, meet your opponent halfway, and attain a compromise; it's quite another to let your opponent pull you all the way into his end zone and negotiate a "deal" that gives him 95% of what he originally wanted, with the remaining 5% to be restored in conference. The Democrats have been falling into these traps for years, with no end in sight, and Lieberman is one of the main offenders. And there's a time for partisanship, as well -- you don't take your opponent's hand if he's going to throw you off a cliff.
2. Ineffective messaging. While the Republicans offer clear, organized talking points and framing mechanisms to make their rancid agenda attractive to the voting public, the Democrats flail around and often tumble straight into the Republican terms of discussion. What's more, they've shown very little recognition that this remains a problem (despite hordes of analysts screaming at them that they need to improve their messaging), and continue to operate entirely within the Republican playing field -- the recent Iraq resolutuions are a case in point. And again, Lieberman is one of the biggest culprits in hanging up the pictures and setting them up for GOP frames.
3. Abandonment of the base. Or even outright contempt for the base, in some cases. The Democrats have all but hung labor out to dry -- and labor is THE core constituency of the Democratic Party. And if working people aren't going to get ecomomic relief from Democrats, they'll vote instead for the party that'll at least give them scapegoats for their struggles -- immigrants, gays, feminists, minorities. Incredibly, several leading Democrats believe that we can regain the labor vote not by re-dedicating ourselves to serving working people's needs, but by jumping on the scapegoating bandwagon. And Lieberman, with his early support for Social Security privatization and his strong support for ill-advised, labor-killing "free-trade" deals, has been a part of this as much as anyone.
4. A refusal to get tough and fight. Lieberman's famous "debate" against Dick Cheney in 2000 is perhaps the most egregious example of what has become a popular stereotype about Democrats -- wimps who won't stand up for what they believe in, and who readily surrender to the opposition at the first raised eyebrow. This continues today -- look at the Dems' refusal to return the pugs' redistricting favors in Texas. The Dems do have some weapons at their disposal, notably the filibuster, but they steadfastly refuse to deploy them, even in the face of the worst extremist threats to our Constitution, like Samuel Alito. Again, Joe Lieberman is in the middle of this; if he'd gone after Bush for lying about Iraq the way he went after Clinton for lying about Monica, this primary challenge probably wouldn't be happening. And if he hadn't undermined Al Gore in Florida, he might be looking at his sixth year as Vice-President today.
5. Lack of differentiation. This one probably should rank at the top. The Democrats' electoral strategy over the last few years, such as it is, has been to emphasize their similarities to the Republicans. "We're for tax cuts too! We're for the war too!" There are exceptions within the party, of course, but Lieberman is never one of them, and these exceptions never become incorporated into the party's overall message -- look at the way everyone ran away from Jack Murtha when he first stuck his neck out to call Iraq out for the disaster it is. And Lieberman, more than anyone else, harshly criticizes those Democrats who DO form these exceptions.
6. Elitism. This is an offshoot of the abandonment of the base. The "party of the people" has drifted into an elitist power structure over the last couple of decades, and reached the point where the party's elites now proactively stomp upon any nascent grassroots movement, even if said movement has the potential to bring new voters into the Democratic Party. The elites would rather lose their way than win our way -- and Joe Lieberman's petulance throughout this whole primary experience, especially his conduct during the debate, has exemplified this elitism.
I don't intend for this to be a comprehensive list; I'm just pointing out that Joe Lieberman has encapsulated just about every bad strategic decision made by the Democratic Party over the last couple of decades. It would be something if these decisions had translated into electoral victories, but obviously, the exact opposite has happened. So the continued "loyalty" to Joe, even in the face of his announcement that he intends to screw the party if he loses the primary to Ned Lamont, is an expression of a continued loyalty to this failed strategic direction, and an indication that most of the Dem leadership continues to Not Get It. And that, I think, is the real origin of the netroots' ill feelings towards Joe.
Why do we feel so strongly about Lieberman and Lamont? Because this isn't just about these two men; this is about the future strategic vision of the party. Will we stick to the old, discredited, election-losing practices of the last twenty years, or will we re-connect with the public that formed the backbone of our party for so many decades in the twentieth century?
That's why the commentary is so strong. That's why Joe is so vilified. But feeling strongly about something doesn't mean we have to get ugly and personal about it. So let's turn the party around and support Lamont, by all means...but let's resist the temptation to destroy Joe Lieberman, the person, in the process.