I’ve seen them called cowards on this board, now Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com is, to put it finely, declining to dispute a characterization of them as “weak-willed.”
Why is this an apt characterization?
If they are cowards, then there is some threat they ought to be facing up to but which they are avoiding instead. What’s that threat?
If they are weak-willed, then there is some immediate but less valuable gain to be had by not punishing Lieberman, where punishing him would lead to less immediate but more valuable gains. What are the two gains here?
Could you point to where Nate Silver agrees that this is “weak willed”? I believe he says he was trying to remain agnostic on the issue and that he thought the writing was on the wall anyways. His post seems to point out that Lieberman stayed because Obama said he should stay. I would interpret that as following a strong leader.
“Cowards,” I can’t see. The idea that they’re weak - well, Lieberman was nearly the Republican VP choice, campaigned against Obama, and campaigned against at least one Democratic Senate nominee. Their response to all of that was minimal. They took away a minor position but let him keep his pride and joy post. Some posters here and elsewhere were screaming for Lieberman’s head on a stick, but politically, it’s probably the smart move to leave him where he is. Silver offered the most compelling reason not to punish him that I have seen so far: nevermind the stuff about caucuses and filibuster-proof majorities, this avoids a counterproductive distraction. There would have been endless discussion of whether or not Lieberman would quit the caucus, whether the Democrats were being intolerant, if this contradicted Obama’s inclusive message, blah blah blah.
While for those who are actually trying to participate in governing this country an imperfect friend may be preferable to an embittered enemy, to someone bloviating on the Internet there is no real downside in being an uncompromising idealogue. In fact, it generates more hits and gives them more to write about than saying, “Glad we finally put that behind us, let’s move on!”
The Senate Democratic caucus members are neither weak-willed nor cowards for declining to punish Senator Lieberman. They are being pragmatic and realistic. What benefit does punishing Mr. Lieberman confer? Why deliberately screw up their thin majority, particularlyas they will need every vote they can get to deal with their opponents’ likely filibusters on domestic policies, for which Mr. Lieberman is a reliable ally? Expelling him from the caucus is all but giving him to the other side; so is strippng away the chairmanship he most values. His candidate lost, and Sen. Lieberman may well face costs in the next election for his defection. Why borrow trouble?
If there’s a rash of Democratic “disloyalty” in the next couple of years, I guess we can point to this decision as the reason. (The Senate tends to be less partisan than the House anyway, I think, although that gap may have narrowed in the last few years.) But I don’t think a rash of disloyalty is very likely. Things being the way they are right now, you’re more likely to see Republicans like Collins and Snowe crossing party lines.
Are the Congressional Democrats going to be called weak-willed every time they follow Obama’s lead?
Obama is wise enough to rule from the political center. He wants to get things done, not purge the party. Cutting out another centrist politician because some partisans want to enforce loyalty is short-sighted. Think long: Lieberman now owes political capital to Obama.
It sends the message that you don’t go around stabbing the Democratic Party in the back if you want the Democratic Party to support you politically. Conversely, letting him keep his gavel sends the message that the Democratic Party will cave in to threats and bluster even coming from someone who is in no position to back it up (there is simply no way a Republican, or GOP-aligned independent, is going to win a Senate election in Connecticut anytime soon).
Lieberman owed political capital to Obama after Obama supported him rather than Lamont in 2006. We know how Lieberman paid him back for that; I see no reason to assume that he will pay this back any differently.
They’re going to be called weak-willed every time they do anything. That’s what people say about Democrats when they’re not saying they hate America or whatever.
If you believe Obama is being big about this, he’s being REALLY big about it, because he endorsed Lieberman in 2006 when he was running as an independent and campaigned for him. When they had their famous conversation on the Senate floor a few months ago, I imagine Obama said something like “this is how you repay me? Thanks a fucking lot.” Several times.
I guess I’m still in the honeymoon, then. I think Republicans are foolish the way they enforce party discipline. Being magnanimous and effectively telling the partisans to sheave the knives is what I hoped Obama would be like as a leader. The post-partisan, big-tent stuff we were promised.
Party loyalty means that the party leadership can get their agenda through. If you want Obama and the Democrats to actually do the things they promised, you’d better hope they can get the party rank and file to go along.
Yeah, maybe that works in the Klingon Empire. It ain’t an ideal environment though. I prefer people that take a stand based on some motivation other than mere party loyalty. If the party is wrong about something…or for that matter, if a member sincerely believes the party is wrong about something, that person should be allowed to speak his mind in honest debate. The needs of the country outweigh the needs of the party.
heehee. Opened and closed a response to a thread in GD with Star Trek references, yet remained on reasonably on topic .
