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.
Being that Bush has been re-elected (legally/officially) or
not, what differance does all this really prove or mean.
Like it or not, unless on 1/6 the Congress (Representitives &
at least 1 senitor) contest the election and somehow
the contest stands and Congress selects the P & VP.
(Kerry & Edwards ? unlikely under a Republican Congress,
wishfull thinking anyway).
We are now stuck with Bush for 4 more years. I’m not
sure about wanting him impeached either. Cheny would
then become P.
I’m just thinking that Bush is the lesser of two eveils, for
whatever better feeling that gives.
Is there a future in trading off intensiity of support for the war against breadth of support for the war, given a climate in which only 60% of the potential electorate, maximum, votes, and less than that in the next, mid-term cycle?
The 51% solution has worked so far, why would the Republicans not stick to it? As long as they get to determine by fair means — propaganda — or foul — Diebiold — 51% of *what*, it’s good enough to win.
I think Ruy understates it when he says Bush is “not out of the woods on Iraq yet.” Iraq is already a fait accompli disaster–it can only get worse and more humiliating. The election will inevitably result in a Shiite-dominated government that will most likely demand an accelerated, if not immediate, US troop withdrawal. Then all the sacrifice will have been to replace Saddam with a pro-Iranian Shiite Sharia-based government that will hand over oil redevelopment contracts to Russia, France, and Germany.
And I have to take issue with Larry when he says “God help us if we convince ourselves that in order to gain support from those currently on the other side we have to be more like the other side.”
I’m not sure what he means by being “more like the other side.” I don’t expect Democrats to initiate political strategies with an Orwellian super-state as the ultimate goal. But, the fact is that the goal is to win elections.
If Karl Rove had a revelation and became a Democrat overnight, would we not rejoice that the most cunning political strategist of the age was now on our side? Face it…he’s the Mariano Rivera of politics! And the Democrats lost not because the Republicans are such fascists, but because they are better at presenting their crap as ice cream. The Democratic campaign suffered an utter failure of marketing. We all know the list of mistakes. …
But high on the list of Democratic mistakes was to think that issues matter above all else. I’m not sure Rove is as tanked up about this war as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. But he accepted it as the baggage he had to take into the campaign. He dealt with his handicaps very, very well.
Let’s remember next time that the goal is to take office, not to run a “campaign we can be proud of” as the losers always say. A winning campaign is one to be proud of.
Jeez, Larry, the election was for only a four-year term. If your apocalyptic scenario is right, then Dems will certainly be returned to power in our lifetimes–quite possibly in four years. Hopefully it won’t be, but we certainly can regain power anyway.
And if you look at the polls you’ll see not only Bush’s ratings slipping to or below pre-election levels, but you’ll see Democrats registering as equal or better than the GOP in terms of public image and party identification. That’s not what I call a “reviled” minority.
I discovered your site today and have bookmarked it so I can read it regularly. I applaud your enthusiasm and your optimism about somehow being able to return the Democrats to the majority. But I think you need to get ready for a lifetime of being the loyal opposition, a reviled minority that can only succeed by cutting deals with the governing party, or by parliamentary strategies to block the worst of what the government would like to do.
The Bush administration no longer cares about their approval ratings, and rightly so: They don’t need another electoral win. They are now free to pursue their global domination and personal wealth accumulation goals without concern for public opinion. We should not be gloating that their poll numbers are slipping. We should be trying to obstruct them when we feel that they are wrong – on preemptive war, civil rights, social security, the death penalty and so on.
It has taken at least a generation for the GOP to get control of the debate, but they have worked at it relentlessly behind the scenes since the 1970’s and they now are in charge of the most powerful election-winning themes: religion, bigotry, greed and blind patriotism. It will take until these people are dead before the left can hope to explain itself in ways that the general public can embrace, and God help us if we convince ourselves that in order to gain support from those currently on the other side we have to be more like the other side.
I have to wonder when torture becomes a war crime and when do war crimes become high crimes and misdemeanors under the impeachment provisions opf the constitution.
Will the media start talking about impeachment being a correct response for enabling torture.
jim