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.
The comments by Sagacious make more sense to me than do Cynthia Tucker’s arguments. If Democrats take comfort from the polls that show them preferred over Republicans, then they should heed the warnings from the same polls that show an overwhelming majority of all Americans, Democrats included, object to unchecked illegal immigration and the continued bestowing of benefits on non-citizens, such as a New York driver’s license. Tucker ruins much of her argument by bringing up the straw man issue of forced expulsion of the 12 to 20 million illegals said to already be in the U.S. No rational opponent of the so called comprehensive solution to illegal immigration suggests rounding up illegals and sending them back en mass. The problem is that no national Democrat has even come up with a plan that really stops future illegal immigration. Where are the proposed new laws that put employers who hire illegals in prison? Where are the proposals to reimburse states and cities for what they are having to spend to control illegal immigration because the federal government has abdicated its responsibilities. Democrats may think they can prevail on this issue by taking the so called “high road”, but for citizens who think this is an important issue, they only drive them back into the arms of the Republicans or force them to sit on their hands.
One thing that Turner misses in this essay is that the sixties were a time of financial prosperity for Americans. Jobs were plentiful and people beleived they could succeed with hard work.
The new millenial does not at all have economic prosperity for vast numbers of working Americans, consequently they are unwilling to share the meager resources available to eek out a living for themselves. Many have lost their jobs and homes.
We may be a nation of immigrants but America is in a self-preservation mode, families are unable to feed themselves, they do not have health insurance and education is deplorable in terms of inadequate funding for children of American citizens.
For this reason the noble reasons for immigration will fall on deaf ears. Too many Americans have seen their jobs outsourced or unions busted with ‘immigrant labor’ destroying the unions as a new labor pool willing to accept menial wages that do not provide an American standard of living wage. Too many Americans have seen the influx of immigrant children into the education system crowding out needed programs for their children to meet the language and learning needs of immigrants. Too many Americans can’t pay for their own children to go to college and are outrage to have to consider making immigrant children who graduate from the public school system eligible for federal loans. The healthcare system is overwhelmed with immigrant patients without insurance and that deprives Americans who are waiting behind them in the ER for their own healthcare. Americans are angry and destitute with the harshness of the economics which will not allow a single wage earner to support a family. Individuals have to work 2 jobs just to survive and that leaves no time for a ‘life’ to enjoy family and their kids.
At this time in our history Americans are only willing to choose hope over fear, tolerance over division and the beloved community over bigotry for their OWN needs. To suggest they give the food off their plates to immigrants will create a huge backlash.
Immigration is a losing issue for Democrats and they should NOT attempt to stand up on this issue, as it is the WRONG time to do so.
The principles are right but the timing is completely wrong. Americans will give when they have enough for themselves to SHARE right now is NOT that time. Americans are not willing to share or offer helping hands because they are struggling to keep for themselves afloat.
The best idea to offer illegal immigrants is to go into the military and use that as a route to earn citizenship. At least then they will only be competing with families who also volunteer to give the ultimate sacrifice to this country.
Great idea Tucker…wrong time.
there’s another as yet unspoken argument that ought to be made by those proposing a progressive immigration policies and it begins with the question of “why would people risk their lives and be separated from their homes and families to come to the US to work at backbreaking jobs for menial wages?” the answer is simple: they do not see a future for themselves in their native homelands. a progressive immigration policy goes hand in hand with a progressive trade policy that lifts up the living standards of our trading partners and encourages their entrepreneurial and risk taking people (what else can the journey to the US be called beside a highly risky entrepreneurial venture built on optimism) to stay home and build up their own economies and societies. but that would of course necessitate shaking off the moneyed wing of the party and its unclear that the dems in leadership positions have the “brass balls” to do that (yes, that is an implicit reference to rahm emmanuel).