"Betrayal is the only truth that sticks." - Arthur Miller
I have known the name Joe Lieberman since I was seven years old. At the time, the only reason I knew his name was because of my status as an avid gamer. Repeatedly, his name came up in discussions about censorship of video games and TV, and as I was a fan of both, I resented his insinuation that I couldn't tell the difference between reality and fiction. Even at such a young age, my first thought about Joe Lieberman was "Doesn't this guy have anything better to do?" He was my first introduction to the concept of legislating to counteract an unwillingness to be a good parent and to the idea that someone who didn't know anything about me could somehow know what was best for me.
Needless to say, I haven't cared for Joe Lieberman for quite some time.
As the years passed, Lieberman for the most part harped on about the same things, pursuing a Democratic domestic agenda while simultaneously brandishing a Republican foreign policy (this is something he himself has said). For the most part, I was free to ignore him, as much of Congress ignored his moralizing in favor of doing their own moralizing. Then, in 2000, Al Gore chose him as his running mate. I was conflicted (which ultimately didn't mean a whole lot, since I couldn't legally vote yet). I liked Al Gore. Despite the fact that he was incredibly boring at times I knew that he was a fellow intellectual, and at the time he was essentially the only one speaking out on climate change. Unlike some people I know, I could divorce the individual from his family (specifically Tipper, whose pursuit of censorship in music I consider as abhorrent as Lieberman's positions). I couldn't, however, divorce him from Lieberman. This was his choice to serve in the second-highest office in the land: a man diametrically opposed to several of my own positions. For that reason, I couldn't put my support behind Gore. Of course, I couldn't support Bush either, so I was left without any option.
Following the election Lieberman disappeared from the public eye for a time, until the buildup for the war in Iraq began. Lieberman became the Administration's "go-to Dem." On the war, he sided, and continues to side, with the Administration on all matters; he was the one who sponsored the Senate resolution giving President Bush free reign to use the military as he sees fit in Iraq. He declared his support for Alberto Gonzalez's definition of the Geneva Conventions, effectively permitting the use of torture. Time and again he has voted to uphold the Patriot Act and reauthorize funding for the War without any conditions. My general distaste for Lieberman grew into a bitter loathing; to me, he represented the absolute worst the Senate could offer: a yes man with no interest in finding his own answers, only in trusting the words of a patently untrustworthy conservative hegemony. I began to find amusement in his failures. His inability to draw more supporters than Al Sharpton in the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries amused me, as did his loss to Ned Lamont in the 2006 Democratic Senate primary. For a time, I thought that people had finally seen him for the wolf he is.
Then something unexpected happened. Lieberman reneged on a promise not to run if he lost the primary, and under the mantle of "Connecticut for Lieberman" party candidate, he won reelection, largely in part to the support of conservatives. At this point, he became Public Enemy #1 in my eyes. Yet the Democratic Party continued to tolerate his shenanigans, agreeing to allow him to maintain his seniority and all his committee positions in exchange for his continued caucusing with the Democrats, thus granting them a slim majority. There's an old saying, that the enemy of an enemy is a friend. What then, is the friend of an enemy who gives you an advantage over said enemy?
For some reason Lieberman once again disappeared, for the most part, from public view, despite some pretty crazy goings-on. Then came the 2008 campaign and the candidacy of John McCain. It's not much of a surprise that Lieberman backed McCain, as the two are old friends and share similar views on the use of the military in foreign affairs. What did come as a surprise was his grandstanding for McCain. His repeated campaigning for McCain, his perpetuation of the myths about Obama, his stunning support of Sarah Palin...all of this, coupled with his speech at the Republican National Convention (a slap in the face to his party if there ever was one), convinced me that Lieberman no longer viewed himself as a Democrat. Apparently several Democrats thought the same thing, for following the election several members of the Party wanted him out of his position as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, a post which had allowed him over the past four years to prevent Congress from performing the oversight duties necessary to keep the Bush Administration in check. However, in part because of their desire to possibly hold a filibuster-proof majority, in part because of the mercy of President-elect Obama (God, I love typing that), they ultimately decided to do nothing.
By now, most people know that Lieberman didn't lose his chairmanship and chalk it up to Democratic mercy, as I've suggested above. What they don't know is the third part, that Lieberman told Harry Reid that if his chairmanship was stripped, he would leave the Democratic caucus for the Republicans. In essence, Lieberman held the Democrats hostage, playing political games with a position that holds far too much significance for that sort of nonsense. Maybe taking his position is vengeful. I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is the notion that he should keep the position simply because he has it now. He's done nothing with a position that presented the prime opportunity for Congress to check the absurd excesses in executive power the Bush Administration has built up over the last eight years. Why not give it to someone else who might, you know, hold some hearings once in a while?
I'm not going to knock Lieberman for his support of McCain. I will knock him for his choice to get in the mud with him, though. There's a big difference between supporting a candidate and actively trying to slander the opposing candidate. Sooner or later he should have to pay, not just for this, but for all of his other failings: his refusal to take on an Administration so off-course they couldn't find their way back to the road with three maps and a GPS, his concentration on legislating morality at a time where far more important matters deserved the scrutiny of a United States Senator, his shifty manner of ignoring his own proclamations. What does it take for people to notice that the snake in their midst is a snake? Moreover, what does it take for them to do something about it? The Democratic Party has been bitten by the snake and still refuses to cut off the head.
Hopefully, someday someone in Washington will grow a pair and put an end to this chicanery. Until then, here's hoping that Connecticut, and America, see him for what he is: pathetic.
