On Joe Lieberman

Mark Graber

Today's Washington Post has an editorial lamented the defeats of Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) and John Schwartz (R-Mich) in primary elections by more extreme members of their respective parties. The editorial then endorses Mr. Lieberman's decision to run as an independent on the ground that "centrism and bipartisanship [are] a needed salve for a divided country." Remarkably (well, not so remarkably, as noted below), the editorial does not also urge Mr. Schwartz to run an independent campaign for the same reason.

The difference choices Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Schwartz are making highlights an important difference between the two parties, one ignored by the Post and many of Mr. Lieberman's supporters. As Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson document in their wonderful OFF-CENTER,Republican moderates at the end of the day follow their more extremist party leaders, defecting, for the most part, only when the leadership has enough votes to pass legislation. For the past twenty years, when faced with primary challenges, Republican moderates move right and, if they lose, support the more extremist nominee. Democrat moderates, by contrast, hold fast to principle. Until the very last days of the primary campaign, Lieberman showed little interest in dealing with left anger and, as indicated, would rather run as an independent, even when that is likely to strengthen Republican strength in other races. There are obvious senses in which this is praiseworthy. But one may legitimately wonder whether, given the behavior of his Republican counterparts, whether Mr. Lieberman's behavior promotes centrist or right-wing extremism.

The Washington Post celebrates Mr. Lieberman as a voice of moderation, but from a distance, he does not seem to have been a force for moderation. On issues as diverse as Iraq, the environment, and federal judicial selection, Mr. Lieberman was consistently unable to form a coalition of the center against the wings, largely because Republican moderates preferred to ally with Frist. Perhaps I am wrong on this, but while Mr. Lieberman on the campaign trial touted his moderate views, I saw little evidence of his touting any moderate successes. Nor do the Post writers who celebrate his centrist make any claim that Mr. Lieberman helped moderate Republican extremism. Rather, as a senator he did far more to assure Republicans that Democrats would not obstruct their extremist agenda than promote the bipartisan centrism fantasized by the Washington Post. He was never a vote for a filibuster and always could be counted on for a better quote demonizing the Democratic left than the Republican right.

As readers of the sacred Dred Scott book will learn, I think there is much to be said for constitutional structures that promote centrist politics. But bipartisanship requires senators of both parties to cooperate, not simply senators of one party to weaken their party's capacity to oppose the other. Those who want bipartisan centrism need to promote independent candidates from all parties and expose Republican moderates who too often cave to their extremist leadership. A good case can be made that in the present political environment, centrism is more likely to be promoted by a Democratic party that uses every parliamentary tool in the books to oppose Republican initiatives until they are moderated, then by Democrats who when pronouncing a plague on extremists in both parties, make no actual contribution to diffusing the extremist policies of the right.
Posted 8:19 AM by Mark Graber [link]