Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Joe the Lieberman

Is Joe Lieberman a Democrat?

Short answer: yes. Long answer: it's complicated. Lieberman has run with the Democratic party for the past 20 years as a Senator, a vice-presidential candidate, and a presidential candidate. According to his biography on his web site, "He remains committed to caucusing with Senate Democrats, but will be identified as an Independent Democrat (ID-CT)." Since his flagrant endorsement of Republican presidential candidate John McCain, Democrats have wondered where his true loyalties lie. If he was a Democrat, even an Independent Democrat, how could he justify campaigning for McCain? Regardless, since Lieberman considers himself a Democrat, and since a brief look at his voting record shows that he does vote in agreement with the Democrats (see voting record here), he is a Democrat, albeit an Independent one.

What should Senate Democrats do with him?

Even though I'm posting this after the caucus results, I'll admit that I do agree with their decision, but only because of the current Senate situation. As of today, the Senate Democrats have a Senate majority -- 58 seats -- only 2 short of the "magic 60" filibuster-proof majority. And, as such, every single seat counts. This article does an excellent job explaining why the Democrats voted as they did. A large part of it rested on Obama's appeal to the Senate Democrats to retain Lieberman's posts. But as the article states, "...Obama wasn't just acting out of bipartisan goodwill. In supporting Lieberman's continued inclusion in the caucus, Obama may have effectively defanged his toughest potential opponent in the Senate Democratic caucus. If Lieberman is anything, as he proved with McCain, he's loyal — and now he owes Obama a big one. For the first time in his long political career, his job over the next few years is to keep quiet." In short, the Democrats need him, and his Democratic leanings, to help pass each of Obama's planned legislation. And as this article demonstrates (when you get past the writer's obvious ant-Lieberman bias), Lieberman's single vote has proven crucial for much legislation. "Instead, I found that of 638, 110th-Congress votes through July 31, 2008, 36 of those came down to a tie or were decided by only one vote and, of those, Lieberman voted with the Democrats 31 times -- and on most of those 31, Democrats prevailed based on Lieberman's vote."

Lieberman, as a member of the party-in-government, owes his party his loyalty and his vote. Since he clearly abdicated his loyalty when he formally supported John McCain, he *must* vote with the Democrats in the Senate. As stated in Aldrich, page 23, "The parties-in-government are more than mere coalitions of like-minded individuals, however; they are enduring institutions...in the language of politics, parties may help achieve the goal of attaining policy majorities in the first place, as well as the often more difficult goal of maintaining such majorities." And, on page 195, "Legislation requires the formation of majorities on the floor in each chamber...political parties are one basis on which majorities can be formed, and they can provide long-term stability to such a majority. But these too can be defeated and majorities fashioned on other bases..." Clearly, the Democrats need to hold on to their majority in the Senate, because majorities are so difficult to form. Punishing Leiberman would've upset the majority balance, which would've proven detrimental in the long run.

I think the Senate Democrats, though many of them are still angry about letting Lieberman off with a mere 'slap on the wrist,' they'll not regret their decision in the long run.

When asked if he felt reprimanded, chagrined or punished, Lieberman responded with unwavering support for his fellow Democrats. "This is the beginning of a new chapter, and I know that my colleagues in the Senate Democratic caucus were moved not only by the kind words that Senator Reid said about my longtime record but by the appeal from President-elect Obama himself that the nation now unite to confront our very serious problems," said Lieberman, while admitting that he had uttered certain statements on the trail that he now regretted.

No comments: