When people on this site have criticized the Democratic Congressional leadership as "spineless" during my time on this site -- particularly over the past two years almost exactly, if you look back at post-election diaries from November 2006 -- I have generally been one to step in and say not to judge them too harshly, that they were responding to extreme circumstances, that they were biding their time out of political prudence, and that essentially they could not be expected to achieve progressive ends in a hostile environment so we had to work to make that environment more conducive to change.
Apparently, a lot of this wasn't true. Those of you who thought that I was being naive have reason to point at me and laugh.
I put up with the continued funding of the Iraq War, the Torture bill, the FISA bills, the Roberts nomination, the failure to investigate impeachment, and still put the majority of the past two years into unpaid political activism because I thought that once the Democrats had the ability to act unconstrained by the Republicans, and once they had gotten past feeling snake-bit by the voting populace, they would stand up straight and be progressive.
Well, that was wrong.
In some ways, this bothers me more than the votes listed above, even if the practical stakes are lower, because unlike them this wound is entirely self-inflicted. Unlike the Alito nomination and many others, it did matter how each person voted this time; this was not a contest that we were bound to lose. This atrocity is of our making, all the way through. Democrats chose to be fools.
My only solace is that in defending Congressional leadership, I have often argued that the problem isn't the leadership, the problem is that the leaders accurately represent the caucus. Today's 43-12 vote allowing Joe Lieberman, without concessions or constrains, to retain his position as Homeland Security Chair, does suggest that that is true.
I'll continue to vote Democratic and I'll continue to work for Democrats, not because Democrats are so great but because Republicans are so terrible. But what the Senate Democratic caucus has taken away from me today is this: I can no longer defend them effectively. I may, in fact, continue to think that they are right in being cautious at various points. It won't matter. Anyone I argue with can and will point to the Lieberman vote, and I will have no rejoinder.
There is simply no excuse for this action.
So, Congressional Democrats, you have disabled a voice in your defense. Congratulations on this victory. My fallback position is simply to weakly say "yes, but they are better than Republicans," and I think we all know how inspiring that is.
Here, by the way, are a few costs of this action you may not have considered.
(1) It has been suggested, and will no doubt be suggested even more, that this vote was pushed by AIPAC. I don't know if you can quell a rumor like that, as on its face the vote does not make sense. The more people believe this, as Lieberman inevitably misbehaves and bloviates on the national media, the more people will blame AIPAC and Jewish lobbyists for the damage Lieberman does to progressive causes. You've given a boost to anti-Semitism today -- what counterargument to that can I or anyone muster? I guess I'll have to spend more time on J Street -- if, and only if, that organization condemns this vote.
(2) You have substantially damaged Democratic electoral prospects in 2012. I, and many like me, now have a #1 target for that year: electing Ned Lamont or another progressive challenger. We must drive Lieberman out of the Senate, as that seems to be the only way to keep you from promoting him. (Will Obama then appoint him to some Administration position if that happens? Probably, and if so he will suffer for that -- electorally and in terms of policy -- as well.) Our money, our effort, our passion -- that could be spread out across the nation -- will be devoted disproportionately to the Connecticult U.S. Senate race, because getting rid of Lieberman is that important to the soul of our long-suffering party, and we will lose other seats because of it, thanks to your action today. And we only have to do this because you Senate Democrats can't quit Lieberman on your own.
I'd like to take solace that Lieberman's retention shows that any apostasy is forgivable for Democrats. Alas, I think it shows only that anything a Democrat does is forgivable only when it is a challenge from the right. Another day, I'd probably have disagreed with someone making that assertion. Today, I'm making it myself.
So, you have just strengthened your opposition and weakened your cause. Not bad for a day's work. It will be a pleasure to no longer feel the need to defend you. You are beyond defending.
Update 1: Here's something I saw online; had to search for a new source:
One senator, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private, said Lieberman spoke openly about the rejection he faced in 2006, when many Democrats supported his opponent during the Connecticut Senate race.
"He spoke earnestly of the pain he felt when he was rejected by the Democratic Party in his re-election and in turn, the rejection he felt from many in the caucus who campaigned against him after decades and decades of friendship," the lawmaker said. "And that put him in a very different place approaching the 2008 election and John McCain was the only candidate for president who asked for his support."
So, it's our fault for opposing him, and it's all about his feelings. When people write about the Left having a snit or a tantrum over this, please toss this quote back in their face.
Meanwhile, Marc Ambinder offers this:
It's going to be easier, relative to punishing Lieberman (and therefore pushing him to the Republican Party), to send progressive legislation to the President. They'll need him on filibuster breaking votes. His impact on foreign policy will be minimal. Some Senators have taken to the microphones to brag about the spirit of reconciliation that pervades the party.
Honestly, do you think these people understand what this committee does? Lieberman is acting in the area of Homeland Security, where he is functionally a Republican. He will block progressive legislation. By blocking investigations into government wrongdoing in Iraq, such as war profiteering, he will have a huge impact on foreign policy. And he will continue speaking as a de facto Democratic on news shows. Those are substantive reasons to oppose this -- yet they depict is as mere pique!
NOTE ON FUNDRAISING: I impetuously created an ActBlue page for my first comment, thinking that that alone would allow receiving money. Evidently not. In figuring out what to do, I think that one good protest is to give money to Sen. Bernie Sanders -- a Lieberman opponent and a non-Democrat. Sanders has the ability, I believe, to donate to other candidates, and today he's one of the few politicians I trust. So, I'm going to suggest that donations go to him until further notice. If someone from Connecticut wants to create a committee that can receive donations, please speak up here.