Don't Punish Joe Lieberman

New Republic: The Case For Letting The Turncoat Democrat Keep His Position In The Senate

(The New Republic)  This column was written by James Kirchick.

---

On Tuesday, Democratic Senators will decide the political fate of Joe Lieberman. For the past several years, Lieberman has been a persistent thorn in their side--a relentless critic of Democratic attempts to end the war in Iraq and a no-less-vocal advocate of President Bush's surge strategy. Relations have grown considerably worse since he endorsed John McCain for President last December and delivered a speech at the Republican National Convention this fall. Now that the Democrats have picked up at least six additional seats in the Senate, liberal activists are calling on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship over the Homeland Security & Government Affairs Committee, revoke his seniority, and possibly evict him from the Democratic caucus altogether. But to do so would send the wrong message to the country, needlessly divide the Democratic Party, and betray the principles Barack Obama stressed so eloquently in his campaign.

To his credit, Obama has sent signals that he wants Lieberman to stay in the caucus, and perhaps even as chair of the committee. "We don't hold any grudges," Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter emailed Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent on Monday. And, indeed, allowing Lieberman to stay--however obnoxious liberals might have found his dissidence--wouldn't just be a sign of non-partisan, post-election magnanimity; it'd also be in the long-term political interests of Obama and his fellow Democrats. Because if the Democratic Party wants to maintain control of Congress and the White House, it will have to reconcile its liberal and moderate wings. Punishing Lieberman could complicate these efforts.

First, just in terms of policy, those calling for the axe ignore that Lieberman has been a reliable Democrat. Last week, Reid said that "Lieberman is not some right wing nut case," and, in fact, Lieberman has secured a higher party loyalty voting record than 14 of his Democratic colleagues. He's also been a fine chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. He sponsored the legislation that first created the department, and under his leadership, the committee has achieved some legitimate successes: Lieberman helped alter the formula by which homeland security funding is dispersed so that the localities most at risk receive more aid, and he crafted legislation to mandate the inspection of all air and sea cargo within three years. He has also sponsored good, progressive legislation, like a bill extending domestic partner benefits to gay federal employees.

Yes, Lieberman's frequent and vocal complaints about the Democratic Party have irked his colleagues. But, in terms of policy, has he really damaged liberal aims more than the other Democratic congressmen and Senators who have not toed the party leadership's line? Senator Robert Byrd, for instance, has been one of the coal industry's greatest friends in Congress, angering environmentalists for decades with his attempts to block measures that would reduce pollution. As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, he has been one of the most powerful men in the Senate, and it's not unreasonable to say that his position on the issue over the years has done more harm to the progressive cause writ large than Lieberman has.

Moreover, a political party that seeks to represent a broad swathe of the country should be able to accommodate someone (even a committee chairman) who holds slightly divergent views from the congressional leadership. For an example of what happens when a political party imposes ideological purity tests, Democrats need only cast their gaze across the aisle. The GOP is currently enmeshed in a civil war, where the conservative wing has all but destroyed the party's moderate faction. Starting in 1994 and continuing on through today, Republican leaders like Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay wouldn't allow for disagreement within the caucus, and the result has been the party's intellectual breakdown. Moderate Republicans like Chris Shays no longer exist, and the party is given to sensational acts of overreach, the congressional witch hunt over Bill Clinton's sex life and the federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case being two of the most notorious examples.

There's also the strategic case for keeping Lieberman on: Just because the Republican brand has lost some its luster doesn't mean that the Democratic Party now has the leverage to excommunicate its centrists. For the past 40 years, the Democratic Party has been most successful when it has governed from the center--when it has governed at all. Its 2006 congressional takeover, engineered by incoming Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, wouldn't have happened if the party didn't run centrist and conservative Democrats in traditionally red states. Were the Democrats to punish their former vice presidential nominee, it could weaken the position of these legislators by making the party seem too liberal and intolerant of moderates. Leaving Lieberman alone would allow the Democrats to one-up the GOP by showing that they're the ones who believe in a big tent philosophy, as opposed to the small-minded, petty Republicans.

Pointedly, not a single Democratic senator has publicly called for stripping Lieberman of his committee chairmanship or expelling him from their caucus. (On the contrary, some are rallying to his defense.) The people most interested in penalizing Lieberman are a small but noisy group of liberal bloggers and activists, the same people who were plumping over two years ago to eject him from the Democratic Party for his supposed heresies. Earlier this year, far left activist Robert Greenwald started the website Liebermanmustgo.com, which hosts a petition demanding the revocation of Lieberman's seniority. The Daily Kos is urging its readership to call Democratic Senators and demand that they do the same. Joe Klein, who refers to the "flagrantly dreadful" Lieberman, writes that allowing him to keep his committee chairmanship but revoking his seniority is "far more than Lieberman deserves," while Josh Marshall declares that offer "simply unacceptable." The popular liberal blogger Jane Hamsher, who once doctored a photo to portray Lieberman in black face, bizarrely argues that Democrats must strip Lieberman of his committee chairmanship because he'll "no doubt" use it to investigate the Obama administration. If Democrats follow the cues of this crowd, then the party will lose credibility among the moderate majority of the American electorate.

From his reversal on FISA and selection of Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff to the news that he's unlikely to overhaul Bush administration national security policies, Obama seems to understand that kowtowing to his party's left flank is not what the American people expected when they elected him president. Though it may be tempting to dump Lieberman now that he needs the Democrats more than they need him, doing so wouldn't put an end to "the partisanship and pettiness and immaturity" that Obama criticized in his victory speech last week. It would instead suggest that Democrats haven't learned a thing about what's currently rending the GOP apart.

[jsl45]

He needs to be thrown under the bus.....let him join the losers in the McBush republican party...

[notopennshut]

Such trash like Lieberman ought to be carted out and dumped by Waste Management! No one should tolerate such a hypocrite or traitor. He betrayed the democratic party and president-elect, and if he has ANY HONOR, he ought to remove himself out of shame. But he is such a scum bag that he thinks he can just put on his "smiling tiger" face and all will be forgiven. He should be ostracized and rejected by his senate colleagues if they have any sense of integrity!!

[godseyesore-2009]

He tried to destroy Democratic party. He deserves to be banished to the dust bin.

[augustman195]

Hey Xlib, Here''s food for thought....After the "***"
Lieberman pulled on his colleagues, (both Dems and Reps) don''t you think he should be "second guessed?" I mean, to whom has he shown loyalty? This isn''t third grade, this is American politics and in this arena one must suffer for one''s indescretions and given accolades for one''s successes. HANG ''EM!

[joobie810]

As Stephen Colbert said on the Colbert Report, Joe Lieberman "spit in the face" of every Connecticut resident who voted for him by supporting McCain so visibly. It''s become apparent from Lieberman''s words & actions that the only party he represents is the JOE LIEBERMAN PARTY!

[longtree-2009]

something should be done to lieberman in the way of punishment. if for nothing else, than standing in the background smiling while mccain and palin made outrageous accusations, charges against obama which none of them ever were able to prove. just for that alone, lieberman was a big jerk. do something to him like put him in a lower post on some committee but take away something.

[sleepyric]

Zell Leiberman. give em'' the axe.

[xlib]

Now there''s all that compassion, understanding and diversity spouting libs. Yep, only you libs use terms like punish, etc. So, the man left your party because he didn''t like the way it was going. Therefore he must be destroyed. Destroy him, ruin him.
You people all shoulda that is basically run by aging hippies from the 60''s (pelosi, reid, etc)I sure don''t see a lot of "love".

[formrusmcsgt]

Everyone knows that Lieberman serves Israel first, the U.S. second.

With the change of administration and the Dem gains in the Senate, he has become a non-entity.

[babooph]

Why "punish" him -just for political trash?

[ausus-2009]

LMartinK,

Would you call Jim Jeffords corrupt, a man with no integrity, and a bald faced liar? After all, he betrayed the Republicans even more. He was elected as a Republican and caucused with the Democrats. Or are you being selective, taking ideology above scruples?

[nearl4511]

No.Don''t punish Joe. Rather give him freedom from his obligations as a Chairman.

[palmstorm]

Throw Lieberman to the Republicans.

[fallingleaf1-2009]

This crazy thing turned my apostrophes into double quotes.

[fallingleaf1-2009]

"Lieberman has been a reliable democrat"

Running against Connecticut Democrats'' choice for the Senate candidate is being a "reliable Democrat?"

Campaigning against the Democrats'' choice for the Presidential candidate is being a "reliable Democrat?"

All this talk of needing Joe for some kind of filibuster-proof majority is nonsense. He''s a two-faced weasel and he''ll vote the same way no matter where he caucuses so let him stay with the like-minded Republicans. If I never hear his whiny voice again I''ll be so happy. What''s wrong with you, Connecticut?

[ausus-2009]

Talk about embarrassing typos. I meant to say "It doesn''t sound like democracy to me".

[ausus-2009]

sjbj2322,

It sounds like you want to follow the system of some Parliamentary countries and have party discipline. If a person does not toe the party line he or she loses party endorsement and therefore their seat. The trouble with this system is that you would therefore need one person in Congress to announce the leader''s decision, with all votes a foregone conclusion, and everything else is just for show. It doesn''t sound kike democracy to me.

[sjbj2322]

This just makes me sick. I was so hoping that there would be enough Democrats elected into office that they could finally tell Joe to take a hike. He is so repulsive that the thought of giving him the slightest satisfaction of thinking that he is in anyway needed, much less indispensible, just makes me want to stick my finger down my throat. As far as I''m concerned the most he should have been granted was his position on sub-committees. It''s not vindictive to hold someone accountable for their actions or to except them to suffer any meaningful consequences - unless the person happens to be in government...then anything goes.

[tangouniforn]

Like most of the posters on this blog, I would like to see Liberman striped to his skin and thrown out into a blizzard. But until the dems have 60 senators, they need him. He could be the difference between passing legislation or not. The GOP has shown that they are willing to stand together and prevent any bill that they oppose, from even coming up for a vote. Having said that, I do think that he should be taken to the woodshed and have the facts of life explained to him and then show him what will happen to him if he steps out of line.

[eewrites]

scottyusa:
It is ridiculous to say Lieberman was right about the war. Of course the surge worked. If you kill off enough Iraqi''s and millions of others are in exile, then you send in tens of thousands of our troops, isn''t it obvious that eventually things will calm down? Lieberman is the same guy who said things were great in Iraq while it was burning. He was right about nothing. Maureen Dowd in the times rightly said that when people like John McCain take credit for the surge it''s like an arsonist wanting credit for putting out a fire they started.
Having said that, this article makes some good points about bi-partisanship. But the idea that Lieberman was right about the war is laughable.