I was sorry to learn of the sudden death of 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman. But his long and stormy career did offer some important lessons about party loyalty, which I wrote about at New York:
Joe Lieberman was active in politics right up to the end. The former senator was the founding co-chair of the nonpartisan group No Labels, which is laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign on behalf of a yet-to-be-identified bipartisan “unity ticket.” Lieberman did not live to see whether No Labels will run a candidate. He died on Wednesday at 82 due to complications from a fall. But this last political venture was entirely in keeping with his long career as a self-styled politician of the pragmatic center, which often took him across party boundaries.
Lieberman’s first years in Connecticut Democratic politics as a state legislator and then state attorney general were reasonably conventional. He was known for a particular interest in civil rights and environmental protection, and his identity as an observant Orthodox Jew also drew attention. But in 1988, the Democrat used unconventional tactics in his challenge to Republican U.S. senator Lowell Weicker. Lieberman positioned himself to the incumbent’s right on selected issues, like Ronald Reagan’s military operations against Libya and Grenada. He also capitalized on longtime conservative resentment of his moderate opponent, winning prized endorsements from William F. and James Buckley, icons of the right. Lieberman won the race narrowly in an upset.
Almost immediately, Senator Lieberman became closely associated with the Democratic Leadership Council. The group of mostly moderate elected officials focused on restoring the national political viability of a party that had lost five of the six previous presidential elections; it soon produced a president in Bill Clinton. Lieberman became probably the most systematically pro-Clinton (or in the parlance of the time, “New Democrat”) member of Congress. This gave his 1998 Senate speech condemning the then-president’s behavior in the Monica Lewinsky scandal as “immoral” and “harmful” a special bite. He probably did Clinton a favor by setting the table for a reprimand that fell short of impeachment and removal, but without question, the narrative was born of Lieberman being disloyal to his party.
Perhaps it was his public scolding of Clinton that convinced Al Gore, who was struggling to separate himself from his boss’s misconduct, to lift Lieberman to the summit of his career. Gore tapped the senator to be his running mate in the 2000 election, making him the first Jewish vice-presidential candidate of a major party. He was by all accounts a disciplined and loyal running mate, at least until that moment during the Florida recount saga when he publicly disclaimed interest in challenging late-arriving overseas military ballots against the advice of the Gore campaign. You could argue plausibly that the ticket would have never been in a position to potentially win the state without Lieberman’s appeal in South Florida to Jewish voters thrilled by his nomination to become vice-president. But many Democrats bitter about the loss blamed Lieberman.
As one of the leaders of the “Clintonian” wing of his party, Lieberman was an early front-runner for the 2004 presidential nomination. A longtime supporter of efforts to topple Saddam Hussein, Lieberman had voted to authorize the 2003 invasion of Iraq, like his campaign rivals John Kerry and John Edwards and other notable senators including Hillary Clinton. Unlike most other Democrats, though, Lieberman did not back off this position when the Iraq War became a deadly quagmire. Ill-aligned with his party to an extent he did not seem to perceive, his presidential campaign quickly flamed out, but not before he gained enduring mockery for claiming “Joe-mentum” from a fifth-place finish in New Hampshire.
Returning to the Senate, Lieberman continued his increasingly lonely support for the Iraq War (alongside other heresies to liberalism, such as his support for private-school education vouchers in the District of Columbia). In 2006, Lieberman drew a wealthy primary challenger, Ned Lamont, who soon had a large antiwar following in Connecticut and nationally. As the campaign grew heated, President George W. Bush gave his Democratic war ally a deadly gift by embracing him and kissing his cheek after the State of the Union Address. This moment, memorialized as “The Kiss,” became central to the Lamont campaign’s claim that Lieberman had left his party behind, and the challenger narrowly won the primary. However, Lieberman ran against him in the general election as an independent, with significant back-channel encouragement from the Bush White House (which helped prevent any strong Republican candidacy). Lieberman won a fourth and final term in the Senate with mostly GOP and independent votes. He was publicly endorsed by Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani, among others from what had been the enemy camp.
The 2006 repudiation by his party appeared to break something in Lieberman. This once-happiest of happy political warriors, incapable of holding a grudge, seemed bitter, or at the very least gravely offended, even as he remained in the Senate Democratic Caucus (albeit as formally independent). When his old friend and Iraq War ally John McCain ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, Lieberman committed a partisan sin by endorsing him. His positioning between the two parties, however, still cost him dearly: McCain wanted to choose him as his running mate, before the Arizonan’s staff convinced him that Lieberman’s longtime pro-choice views and support for LGBTQ rights would lead to a convention revolt. The GOP nominee instead went with a different “high-risk, high-reward” choice: Sarah Palin.
After Barack Obama’s victory over Lieberman’s candidate, the new Democratic president needed every Democratic senator to enact the centerpiece of his agenda, the Affordable Care Act. He got Lieberman’s vote — but only after the senator, who represented many of the country’s major private-insurance companies, forced the elimination of the “public option” in the new system. It was a bitter pill for many progressives, who favored a more robust government role in health insurance than Obama had proposed.
By the time Lieberman chose to retire from the Senate in 2012, he was very near to being a man without a party, and he reflected that status by refusing to endorse either Obama or Mitt Romney that year. By then, he was already involved in the last great project of his political career, No Labels. He did, with some hesitation, endorse Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in 2016. But his long odyssey away from the yoke of the Democratic Party had largely landed him in a nonpartisan limbo. Right up until his death, he was often the public face of No Labels, particularly after the group’s decision to sponsor a presidential ticket alienated many early supporters of its more quotidian efforts to encourage bipartisan “problem-solving” in Congress.
Some will view Lieberman as a victim of partisan polarization, and others as an anachronistic member of a pro-corporate, pro-war bipartisan elite who made polarization necessary. Personally, I will remember him as a politician who followed — sometimes courageously, sometimes foolishly — a path that made him blind to the singular extremism that one party has exhibited throughout the 21st century, a development he tried to ignore to his eventual marginalization. But for all his flaws, I have no doubt Joe Lieberman remained until his last breath committed to the task he often cited via the Hebrew term tikkun olam: repairing a broken world.
Yes, we have to overwhelm them with a landslide and GOTV will be crucial. But I was getting at what Susan picked up. We need to weigh in on the spin game, and hard. First, we have to shout that Kerry did win, and support all efforts of the Kerry campaign to make sure the votes are counted. And we have to have a good narrative about why Bush lost. We have to create our own facts, starting now.
Alan S,
You are absolutely correct.
The Bush Machine is all about saying something and making it so by saying it over and over and over.
Fox News and Gallup are in on it. So is the New York Post, the Washington Times, and Drudge. Likewise Limbaugh.
They take daily talking points and utilize brainwashing techniques aka marketing techniques.
They are losing because their product sucks so hard. People try Kerry Cola, and even though the marketing sucks, it tastes better.
Bush and team already plan to either declare victory or war the night of November 2nd. Unless there is a landslide, this guy is not leaving office without a fight. I can easily see him counting on litigation or legislatures to steal a few key states.
That is the main reason we need to win by 5 million or more votes. We need a landslide to rid the country of this counterfeit King who stole the presidency once, and will surely do so again if given any chance.
Danton wrote:
“Are there circumstances in which the “50% rule” doesn’t quite hold? Could, say, the majority of undecided voters break for an incumbent in a time of war?”
=================================
What time of war?
The public doesn’t perceive this as a US war, but as a Bush war, and there has been no indication the undecideds are in any way moved by Bush’s constant pitch that this is a war time.
If they would buy that dubious proposition, they would have bought it already.
All polls shows undecideds decidedly anti-war.
Ruy, echoing “Gabby Hayes,” I was very happy to see you get props from Krugman, who’s one of my idols.
But I share Alan’s concern about the guerilla campaign that Bush/Cheney are waging. My advice: volunteer NOW to get out the vote and do what you can to help the Dems keep voter fraud at bay.
Alan, We certainly made a difference right after each debate when we flooded the polls with votes stating that Kerry won. Hope we can be effectively mobilized to help bring about victory on Nov. 2.
At the moment, I’m on pins and needles. My DD and Ruy make me feel hopeful, then I read Altercation and Eric reports that things just ain’t that rosy.
Oyi!
Krugman’s article is important because it says it out loud that we are in an evolving coup d’etat. And it reinforces the picture of Bush’s world painted by Ron Suskind in his important NY Times article
Krugman’s point about Gallup illustrates perfectly what the Bush advisor meant when he told Suskind that “we create our own reality.” This remark has nothing to do with faith vs secular, it is ad-speak. I’ve been around advertising types for years, and it is how they speak. They do create perceptions, and for them, that is reality.
Gallup, Fox, and the others are working very hard to create the perception that Bush is winning. They are not obsessed, like those in the reality-based community with analyzing facts as they exist. They are creating perceptions–reality in the world of politics. And as the Bush adviser told Suskind, the rest of us just have to rush to catch up.
While the rest of us are glued to TV on election night, analyzing the election results, the right wing media machine will be forging ahead, creating the perception that Bush has already won. We’ve all got to do what we can to create the alternative perception, that Bush lost and Kerry won. Let’s not be caught flat-footed this time around.
Are there circumstances in which the “50% rule” doesn’t quite hold? Could, say, the majority of undecided voters break for an incumbent in a time of war? I ask this because lots of blogs seem to take the rule as an article of faith
Ruy, you didn’t mention that he gave you a shout out and props by name.
I was reading Krugman earlier today and saw the tip of the hat he gave you on deconstructing Gallup and others.
Congrats. I’ve been sending people here for the past 6 weeks to get people educated on polls.