“Generally I don’t speak ill of the dead, but I think I’ll make an exception in this case …”
I have resisted the urge to post about Joe Lieberman for several reasons — one, this is not a political blog, despite the fact that I sometimes blog about politics, and two, I don’t live in Connecticut and have no personal stake in the election. I really don’t want to come off as one of those out-of-state activists who wants to swing the election. Hell, that’s part of how Dean lost Iowa.
But Joe Lieberman is an exceptional case, and I think I should probably say a few words about him. This morning, NPR covered a rally attended by Bill Clinton and others, the purpose of which was to get across the message that “Joe Lieberman is a real Democrat.”
But the tone of what I heard went further than that. The message also was: “Joe Lieberman is an incumbant, and he should own his seat for life — it’s outrageous that this millionaire cable executive is trying to steal good ol’ Joe’s seat.” As if “good ol’ Joe” isn’t a millionaire himself.
I think this encapsulates everything I despise about the Democratic establishment. Not only are people who diverge greatly from fundamental Democratic views still considered to be “real Democrats,” but somehow their seats belong to them for life, or until a Republican beats them. Apparently, no Democrat has any right to challenge them. To me that reeks of monarchy, aristocarcy and elitism. It’s sickeningly anathema to everything the party is supposed to stand for. And it really sums up just what’s wrong with the party elites.
They expect us to follow their lead — they’ve forgotten that they are in government to represent us.
And that is the core of Lieberman’s problem with Ned Lamont. When he backed Bush and the war in Iraq, he followed his own beliefs, rather than the beliefs of his constituents. When he refused to criticize the false rational behind the invasion, or even the incompetent conduct of the war — while the Democratic voters in Connecticut were actively questioning it — he showed not only a tin ear in regards to the concerns of his constituents, but also the hubris of an elected politician who thought himself born to the office.
Whenever Lieberman mentions his primary opponent, it’s with an incredible sense of outrage, as if some rule had been broken. But it was Joe who broke the rules — he decided to serve in the Senate like a Republican, rather than serve like a Democrat. But alas, he is running as a Democrat. Which means he may very well lose in the primary — and if he follows his loss with an independent bid for his seat, you know he’s counting not on Democrats, but on Republicans to get him into office. Which, in my book, makes him a Republican.
But why, you may ask, should a Democrat like me — a Democrat living in the People’s Republic of the District of Columbia, with no representation in Congress — care about Joe Lieberman? Because his support for Bush’s policies have had a real impact on the lives of people around the world — on the lives of American soliders and Iraqis. And his attacks on free speech in the name of pious morality, have served only to erode our Constitutional freedoms.
And let’s not forget how he famously said: “Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.” Which suggests, at least to me, that religion must somehow be mandatory. Not something that those of us who doubt can choose to opt out of. And the lack of choice again suggests that he is not, as he falsely claims, a “real Democrat.”
(With apologies to The Evens for appropriating the opening line of “All These Governors,” which my iPod just decided to play for me.)
