It means that we don’t mind a principled centrism that doesn’t conflict with core Dem principles. We’ve got a Senate Majority Leader who’s pro-life; we’ve got a bunch of Dem Congresscritters with 100% ratings from the NRA. I’m good with that.
But a lot of ‘centrism’ these days means either mindlessly splitting the difference (e.g. favoring the stimulus, but deciding it needed to be smaller for no particular reason), or ‘hippie-bashing’ - reflexively opposing an idea that progressives favor, simply because they’re its most visible advocates, rather than for any rational reason. (E.g. Lieberman’s already-mentioned surprise opposition to the early Medicare buy-in.)
Those sorts of bogus centrism, I’m adamantly opposed to, as are many other progressives. And I don’t think it makes us any less of big-tent Democrats to be opposed to them. I think it simply makes us opposed to stupidity and obnoxiousness. Got a problem with that?
Let’s look at a moderate Republican for comparison, say Olympia Snowe. First, she still calls herself a Republican, and didn’t win her seat by running against a Republican in the general election. Second, she didn’t endorse the other party’s presidential candidate like Lieberman did, which is pretty extreme for a politician. Third, she comes from a relatively liberal part of the country, where getting even a moderate Republican elected should be viewed as a victory by conservatives. It might make sense for the Republicans to push for far-right candidates in some place like Utah, where they can reasonably be expected to win with them, but not in Maine. Forcing Snowe out would just be stupid for the Republicans, because they’re not going to get anyone better. And yet, there are a number of Republicans who are trying to do just that.
Well said, Chronos. I wouldn’t mind Leiberman being a centrist Democrat - hell, there are plenty of centrist Dems I like - were he not so noticeably and frequently bashing his own party and its candidates.
You make an excellent point, in practical terms. But ideologically, there’s no difference between Snowe and the rest of the Republicans and Lieberman and the Dems.
But in terms of practicality, it also may help to note that when the Republican party had a large group of more liberal, Northeastern members (back in the Rockefeller years, say) the Republican party was much, much less succesfull nationally.
Joe Lieberman puzzles people. I can see why. He seems to actually believe in things and act on his beliefs even when such actions are against his self-interest.
A man of principle is so rare as to cause confusion.
A Senator’s job is to represent his state, and it’s citizens best interests, along with the country and it’s best interests. Lieberman has been no better at that than the average Senator. He was elected in the first place, and re-elected, because of his ability to ‘raise money’ for a political campaign. I actually like the guy myself in comparison to his colleagues, but we’re still talking about a member of the US Senate, an organization for which a lack of principles seems to be prerequiste.
I do not agree with Lieberman, but a man in public life ought to follow his own moral compass. Otherwise, he is simply an instrument of the mob. But consider the source, I honestly think the direct election of the Senate was a Bad Thing.
For the last couple of years, his principle has been ‘the Democratic party supported my opponent, so I’ll fuck them over whenever an opportunity presents itself.’ Which is why he’s likely to lose in 2012.
As a resident of Connecticut, I don’t think that Lieberman has much chance in 2012. He won reelection in 2006 because of name recognition and his support from moderates of both parties.
Since then, however, he’s done everything he can to piss off everyone in the state. Health care reform was overwhelmingly popular here, but he was against it, despite being for it previously. Lieberman was widely perceived here as holding up the whole health care bill. However, in the end, he voted for it, so he managed to tick off the conservatives in the state, too.
If Connecticut had a recall provision possible for a Senator, there’s a good chance he would have been recalled last year. He is extremely unpopular these days.
Interestingly, after the 2006 election, Lieberman’s supporters lost control of the party created to allow him to run as an independent, the Connecticut for Lieberman party. Today, the party’s stated intent is to run candidates against Lieberman, and is actively hostile to Senator Lieberman.
In health care, he supported a Medicare buy-in, then decided that he would filibuster the reform if that buy-in was included. And his reasons for opposing it never made any sense. I fail to see anything admirable. He just wants to deny the progressive wing of his own party any victory he can.
Currently, he won’t even commit to not endorsing the Republican nominee for the other Connecticut Senate seat. Despite a career decrying the lack of morals in popular entertainment, he’s publicly toying with supporting the former CEO of the World Wrestling Federation against his own party. Again, there’s nothing to admire there.
Just because he’s done unpopular things doesn’t mean he’s done them for a higher moral purpose. As far as I can tell, it’s to out of petty vindictiveness for not supporting him after he lost his party’s primary in 2006. And because he loves getting attention.
It would be really beautiful if, because of the takeover of Connecticut for Lieberman, Lieberman had to start a NEW party for 2012.
Incidentally, the reason it was so easy to take over CfL was because there were no real members. Not even Lieberman was actually a member of CfL. Joe forgot to lock the door on his Old West storefront facade…
