More On Lieberman

by hilzoy

From a friend from Connecticut with some experience in low-level party politics, a very perceptive person whose judgment I trust:

"In 1980, when I was 20 years old, my parents bought me a three-piece suit. I didn’t have too many occasions to wear a suit, so when I arranged an interview with the State Senate Majority Leader for my college radio station, I put on my suit, walked across the New Haven Green and paid a call on Joe Lieberman. At the time, Lieberman had a reputation as a liberal Democrat. He was running for Congress to succeed Bob Giaimo, a defense-industry-oriented Democrat who had represented the New Haven area (and, as people said at the time, Pratt and Whitney) for years. It was 1980, though – not a good year for liberal Democrats, and Lieberman lost in the Reagan “landslide”.

When Joe Lieberman ran for Attorney General in 1982, the position was a fairly unexciting part-time post, in charge of the attorneys who represented the State of Connecticut in its various dealings. Lieberman was the first full-time A.G., and he quickly transformed the office, using it to grab exposure as a consumer advocate, among other things. He succeeded in forging for himself a public persona that wasn’t ideologically identified, and built up an impressive name recognition around the state. (He so successfully used the AG’s office as a stepping stone that since then the job has been one of the most prized in Connecticut politics.)

In 1988, Lowell Weicker came up for re-election to the Senate. As a liberal Republican (with impeccable credentials as a former member of the Senate Watergate Committee), Weicker had been able to count on his own party and strip off a segment of the Democrats who agreed with him ideologically. This has been a pretty successful formula in Connecticut, but those who have used it have always run the risk of alienating too much of their base. Throughout the 1980’s Republicans talked about mounting a conservative primary challenge to Weicker, but none ever seriously materialized. Instead, Lieberman in 1988 beat Weicker by using that same formula against him. By re-casting himself as a conservative Democrat, Lieberman was able to capture enough disaffected Republicans and independents to defeat Weicker, whom many had considered to be pretty much unbeatable.

The point of this tedious history of state-level politics through the 1980’s is that Joe Lieberman, far from being an ideological beacon to conservative Democrats throughout the years, has, in fact, tacked ideologically as time and circumstances have dictated. He ran for Congress as a liberal and lost. He rebuilt his career as a non-ideological advocate, and then, when it suited him, went at Lowell Weicker from the right.

What I have a hard time figuring out is why he didn’t tack left when circumstances dictated. I suspect that he started to believe his own press notices from the right wingers, and that he really, really wanted that Secretary of Defense job when it was dangled in his direction a while ago.

Ideology doesn’t completely explain Connecticut Democrats’ increasing rejection of Lieberman, though. While some of his positions may be out of sync with many people in his party, those same people would overcome those differences if more of them actually liked him. Unfortunately for him, that doesn’t appear to be the case. When, in the lead up to the convention, he took to the phones calling delegates for support, the question naturally arose – “I haven’t heard from you in 18 years – why are you calling me now?” The 2000 race, when he stubbornly insisted on running for Senate and Vice President at the same time (when Dick Blumenthal could have easily been elected to the Senate and kept the seat Democratic), was the height of selfishness. People remember things like that. Particularly the type of people who vote in primaries."

I also recommend this post by Mark Schmitt.

Comments

[bob mcmanus]

I commented over at Schmitt's. My first gut reaction was empathy for Schmitt, and sympathy for Joe. Just an old softy, that's me.

It's the f-ing war. The emotions of a bad war come out in weird places, like Moe hating on the press. It's like really hard to face being a part of thousands of wasted lives. The pain and hate and ugliness have barely begun.

Been there, done that. Tired of forty years of this stuff.

[qu]

Has Mark Schmitt ever written a bad post? His batting average is higher than anyone else's I can think of.

Yeah, it's true they stole Florida in 2000--shamelessly. But it might have been harder if Lieberman had not hedged his bets about the campaign's success in such an obvious and visible way. Classic example of what makes Democrats look temperamentally wishy-washy and untrustworthy: if you're going to run for President, pal, you'd better be willing to go for broke.

That's one of Lieberman's achievements: he manages to embody the deepest character-flaws of the opposition's caricature Democrat (mealy-mouthed, over-clever, insincere, uncommitted) while at the same time not actually espousing any of the substantive political commitments that make the Democratic party worth keeping alive. On the issues, he is a standard Republican big-business, defense-contractor, anti-abortion, sanctimonious toad. But his feckless insincerity, his evident willingness to do anything to be *liked*, still gets chalked up against the Democratic column. My former senator--what a nightmare.

[ivyelm]

I voted for Lieberman over Weicker and regretted it ever since. When I had a choice between the Republican mayor of Waterbury and Lieberman, voted for the Republican (about the only time I've ever done that). That guy turned out to be a convicted pedophile so my girlfriend always reminds me that I'd choose a pedophile over Lieberman.

I find it hard to articulate what it is I have against Lieberman. He has long seemed aloof and full of himself. I don't find his positions on issues to be thoughtful or well-considered. He's susceptible to flattery and that's what makes him a prime choice for Republicans looking to split off a democrat with whom they can cut a deal. It seems that promising him a lot of attention is enough to get him to leave his party in the lurch.

So for this long time Connecticut democrat, it's not just the war, although the war would be enough. Go Lamont!

[Chuchundra]

It's kinda funny to see the right-wing blogosphere get all up in arms about the Lieberman primary challenge. The RINO hunters seemed to be pretty happy about the concept back in 2004 when Toomey ran against Arlen Specter.

[KCinDC]

Chuchundra, you don't have to go back to 2004. The right wing is perfectly happy right now to see Laffey challenge Chafee from the right.

[Morat20]

Speaking personally, my dislike of Lieberman started when I got to know him as Al Gore's running mate. He seemed to combine the worst aspects of Republican and Democrat, with few good qualities to balance it.

I'm sure he's GOT those good qualities -- but I didn't see them. Since then, he's only cemented that -- I don't seen anything there. If anything, he seems to believe in less than Bush. He seems to be trying to do whatever makes him look better (more fair, more noble, more 'statesmen like', more bipartisan -- to hold himself up as the epitome of political leader) but lacks the instinct to even find the will of the masses, and has no clue about leading them.

[grackel]

He seems to me to be a near clone of Diane Feinstein, about whom my sentiments mirror those of most of the commenters above in regard to Joe.

[Vance Maverick]

The only time I've ever voted for a Republican was for Weicker over Lieberman. At the time, my political views were anti-war (and not much developed beyond that), and Lieberman was grotesquely hawkish even then. Soon after, I left Connecticut, but I've occasionally wished I could go back to vote against him some more.

[CaseyL]

I don't remember Feinstein consistently sabotaging Democrats in order to advance the GOP agenda, like Leiberman does; or supporting the notion that opposing Bush gives aid and comfort to our enemies, like Leiberman does.

Feinstein's a moderate. I sometimes disagree with her views and votes, but I don't consider her beyond the pale, or "not a real Democrat."

To echo what's already been said, my beef with Leiberman is that he might just as well be a Republican mole - and at a time when the Republican Party has done incalculable damage to the country. Correllary to that is Leiberman's belief that he's somehow entitled by divine right to keep his Senate seat, and that Lamont's challenge is therefore illegitimate on its face.

Leiberman has bought, lock stock and barrel, into the idea of a permanent ruling class (one, moreover, that exists mostly to cater to monied interests). That's not only a non-Democratic idea; it's an Un-American one.

[KCinDC]

Like Vance, I voted for Weicker over Lieberman in 1988. During the debates it was hard to believe that Lieberman was the Democrat and Weicker the Republican. In my case, I did vote for a Republican over a Democrat one other time, when I moved to DC and did my small part to try to stop Marion Barry's comeback.

[Anarch]

To echo what's already been said, my beef with Leiberman is that he might just as well be a Republican mole - and at a time when the Republican Party has done incalculable damage to the country.

Amen, brother.

[Debbie(aussie)]

Sorry to go OT. Hilzoy, have you read, or know about a book 'Oath Betrayed' writen by a medical ethicist about torture and doctors involement? Is this your area of expertise?

[cleek]

let us all remember, that to speak against Lieberman is to practice fascism.

[Tim]

Just say the title of this post 10 times fast and all shall be clear.

[hilzoy]

Debbie: no, but it sounds as though I should. (So I just ordered it.)

[KCinDC]

Stephen Miles, author of Oath Betrayed, is on the Diane Rehm Show right now. The audio should be available on the WAMU site within a couple of hours.