Balkinization: The worst reason in the world to deny Joe Lieberman the Chair of the Homeland Security Committee

The worst reason in the world to deny Joe Lieberman the Chair of the Homeland Security Committee

Sandy Levinson

A story in Friday's NYTimes concerned the Democrats' response to the egregious Sen. Joseph Lieberman. I have disliked Lieberman since he casually joined in giving away Florida in 2000 (by refusing to countenance a challenge to amost undoubtedly illegal military absentee ballots), but that's really beside the point. I note the following part of the Times article:

Many Democrats say Mr. Lieberman had crossed a line not only by endorsing Mr. McCain, his longtime friend, but also serving as one of his closest advisers and by sharply questioning Mr. Obama’s qualifications to be president. Some Senate Democrats and aides say it is unthinkable to let Mr. Lieberman head a committee that will conduct oversight of the Obama administration.

It is a paradoxical truth that the very best reason to keep Sen. Lieberman in his position is precisely that he will be engaged in overseeing the Obama administration. As Rick Pildes and Daryl (no relation) Levinson wrote in a splendid Harvard Law Review article a couple of years ago, the single best explanation for the utter failure of Congress to engage in oversight of the Executive branch during periods of "united government" (as we will have beginning January 20, 2009) is party loyalty. This is why James Madison's optimism in the 51st Federalist about "checks and balances" has proved to be wrong. Congressional Republicans put their party loyalties above all else (until the past election season, when it suddenly became opportune for many of them to deny they ever heard of George W. Bush).

It would be terrible, frankly, if Democratic legislators prove to be as negligent as their Republican counterparts when they enjoyed a unifed government. Pldes and Levinson note that German practice is to put a member of the opposition in charge of at least one of the major committees of the Bundestag dealing with foreign or defense affairs. This is a fine idea. Needless to say, I anticipate that the Obama Administration will be the first in recorded history to do everything just right and, therefore need no whit of oversight. But, just in case I turn out to be wrong in my optimism, it would be good to know that Congress in fact was living up to its constitutional duty to ask hard questions and not simply playing dead before Administration assurances about the purity of its motives and quality of its policies.

I can understand the impulse to punish Sen. Lieberman. As Gail Collins suggested in an hilarious column this (Saturday) morning, if Lieberman, like Lindsay Graham, had promised to drown himself if Obama took North Carolina (or even get more than 60% of the vote in Connecticut), one might be tempted to hold Lieberman to the promise. But to want to deprive him of chairing the Homeland Security Committee because, God forbid, he might want to engage in vigorous oversight of the new administration is truly awful reasoning. It would truly be "putting country first" to keep Lieberman where he is (or, if one must exact some punishment for his betrayals, finding a Republican to replace him, perhaps Sen. Collins or, for that matter, John McCain, who I suspect will revert, after his disgraceful campaign that left so many people wondering why they ever admired him in the first place, to his earlier, and far better, self).

Posted 10:49 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]

Comments:

This was what I was trying to tell Ta-Nehisi Coates yesterday. Although, Carl Levin's the next guy in line on the committee and he's not an Obama friend either.

# posted by

Asher : 11:27 PM

While I agree with your point in theory, there's a difference between "rigorous oversight" and "fucking people out of spite, malice and naked opportunism" which I wouldn't exactly rely on Joe Lieberman to understand. That said, I wouldn't rely on most senators to understand it either so maybe handing it over to one with a demonstrated capacity to be as easy as a street hooker but without any of the decency or self-respect might actually work out for the good. It all depends on whether Reid & Co think they can get some of that sweet congressional rim-job action that he's been handing out to the Republicans.

# posted by

McDuff : 11:28 PM

To a certain extent, I think party discipline is necessary, if only to unwrap some of the Republican disasters -- if the Democrats can't discipline people like Lieberman, how can they ever make policy? I'd much rather have John McCain as chair of that committee than Lieberman. Although perhaps a less pro-killing-Muslims Republican would do.

# posted by

Unknown : 11:30 PM

Sandy:

To the extent that you disagreed with the foreign policies of the waning Administration and desired Congress to object and take actions to block such policies, I would suggest that the party membership of the various chairs would not have made much difference as Mr. Bush's wars enjoyed heavy bipartisan support at their inception, his classified operations nearly if not unanimous bipartisan support until leaked and all enjoyed funding support at all times.

I am unsure how maintaining Mr. Lieberman in is chairmanship will advance your aims in this area when he was the foremost Dem supporter of the foreign policies that you opposed.

For example, if Mr. Obama attempts to secretly gut the TSP as per the repeated suggestions on this blog, would it serve your purposes if a chair like Mr. Lieberman were to conduct oversight on this action and accuse Mr. Obama of emasculating our intelligence defenses?

What Dems do in their party is their business. However, Mrs. Collins had betrayed the GOP the way Mr. Lieberman has the Dems, this Elephant would demand that she be kicked out of the caucus. Treason is pernicious and destroys an organization.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:59 AM

Here's a good reason to deny Lieberman the post: his support of the Iraq War suggests that he doesn't understand our security needs. Surely there are better choices.

Personally, I think the Democrats should just ignore Lieberman.

# posted by

Nancy Jane Moore : 10:32 AM

naaaww prof. levinson .. i disagree here .. lieberman has had control of the oversight comm. for the past two years and hasn't called a sinle action of the bush regime into question .. not one hearing .. not even a discouraging word .. that alone is far more than enough to tell me he isn't the right man for the spot ..

and "elections have consequences" holy joe has stood right behind mc cain while he attempted to tar obama with every smear imaginable ...

i'm sorry prof. but joe's gotta go ..

# posted by

Jkat : 12:14 PM

Sandy's institutional argument highlights a compelling reason not to give Senator Lieberman a committee chairmanship. The reason is his performance as chair of the Homeland Security Committee. He made himself useful to the administration and useless to the public in the aftermath of Katrina, a catastrophe whose mishandling scandalized us as a nation.

What did he do? He caused it to fade from public attention and avoided calling Bush on the carpet. And after achieving that he did nothing to expose how the administration used the disaster to do to New Orleans what Paul Bremer's 100 edicts tried to do to Iraq: turn it into a Republican utopia that in this case happened to be whiter than before.

I waited for something from Lieberman as the horror stories mounted. I expected nothing knowing him all too well, but I was interested in seeing what I had learned come to light in a congressional proceeding. I would have given him credit had he come through. Yet, unsurprisingly, he didn't. He was George Bush's toad.

A toad makes for a poor watchdog. I wouldn't trust him with my bags at a seedy bus station while I went to the candy machine even if I was facing him all the way back and forth. This man for a committee chairmanship? Is there a Senate Committee of the Toilet? He can hand out the clean towels.

I think that what is really behind the complaints about him have to less to do with party than with character. The man strikes up the strangest alliances. He is so vain, so convinced that he is above question, that he thinks he can get away with it. What's really going on is that he's building power for himself at every turn, as cynically as anyone I know of in public life. For instance he plays the religious Jew but introduces John Hagee, who can't wait for Israel to reach Armageddon, as an ish elohim, a man of God. He can do this without soiling the podium in his own puke because, being in bed with the neocons, he thinks only of furthering their cause. Where are the makings of a public trustee in a man such as this?

So start if you like with how he wields the gavel. I have no problem with that. But what you see there is just for starters, and it smells bad.

# posted by

Occasional Observer : 12:48 PM

I must say that all of you have given excellent reasons for stripping Lieberman of his chairmanship. I'm still willing to defend the proposition that the threat posed by his conducting oversight is a terrible reason if it implies that the Dems will take care to make sure that the Obama Administration will receive no more oversight than did the Bush Administration during the Republican hegemony.

# posted by

Sandy Levinson : 2:10 PM

prof. levinson .. i don't see anyone disagreeing with your proposition .. the majority have sided with you while offering other reasons for kicking joe to the curb..

secondly .. i don't think we're dealing with the same animal in terms of an obama administration as we have been with the so-called bush "administration" ... i'd submit to you ..sir .. that living under a constitutional dictator who has actually read and studied and taught the constitution .. will be much different from living under one who apprears to view the document as a mortal enemy of his chosen perogatives ..

what say ye .. oh wise scholars .. ??

# posted by

Jkat : 2:49 PM

"i'd submit to you ..sir .. that living under a constitutional dictator who has actually read and studied and taught the constitution .. will be much different from living under one who apprears to view the document as a mortal enemy of his chosen perogatives"

I'd submit that there's not a lot of reason to suppose that studying and teaching the constitution is mutually exclusive from viewing it as a mortal enemy of one's chosen prerogatives.

Is anybody besides me troubled by Obama's post-Heller suggestion that local communities should have some kind of home-rule exemption from respecting constitutional rights?

# posted by

Brett : 4:18 PM

Does Heller (5-4) clearly apply, shooting from the lip, to a state and its municipalities?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 5:18 PM

OO sums it nicely.

# posted by

Charles Gittings : 10:42 PM

The main reason for stripping Lieberman of his chairmanship (and his position as a Senator) is that Lieberman is no longer an American. He is acting as the agent of a foreign country and does not have America's best interests at heart.

# posted by

Oldfart : 11:05 PM

Think of Shoeless Joe Jackson. A constituent of a Party-less Joe Lieberman might say, "Say it ain't so, Joe." Just think, Joe was VP nominee in 2000 with Gore. In 2008, he was seriously considered as VP for McCain. Joe is a man without a party. Yes, the Republicans might "adopt" him formally, but will Joe change his liberal side for the accommodation?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:13 AM

If there were any evidence that Lieberman would engage in principled oversight of the executive, you'd have a point. As it is, on your logic, we should just cede power to the Republican caucus.

# posted by

Michael Drake : 10:48 AM

"..will Joe change his liberal side.."

but does the good Senator actually have a "liberal side"? I'm not convinced. His actions and inactions for the past decade or so seem to be governed mainly by pure self-interest, spite and what he perceives to be the best interests of Israel. Toadying and back-stabbing seem to be his political strengths, with mealy-mouthed sanctimony running a close third. While this may make him a fine Senator, I don't think that really qualifies him for a chairmanship. Better a predictably hostile "real" Republican than Senator Gollum, but even better would be a Democratic Senator with some self-respect and respect for his national constituents.

# posted by

Anonymous : 11:52 AM

Someone's confoozed about who it is that does the "secrecy" thing:

For example, if Mr. Obama attempts to secretly gut the TSP as per the repeated suggestions on this blog,

"Bart": grow up, willya? Stop pretending to yourself that when you cover your eyes, it's we that can't see you....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 12:17 PM

Heya, Arne, maybe you don't follow Beeblebroxian fashion, but Peril Sensitive lenses might be more hip than you think. (This reporter assumes the PSS were originally developed as a safety device for travel to locations with a high Bugblatter Beast population).

We now return you to your regularly scheduled international interracial intellectualisms.

# posted by

Robert Link : 9:37 PM

Robert Link:

"Bart" DeBugblatter.... I likeit. It is true that he has a fondness for secretly gutting and gobbling much larger prey than the TSP ... namely the U.S. Constitution. And the level of intellect is also reminiscent....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 11:21 PM

I'm curious why people think Lieberman even HAS a duty of loyalty to the Democratic caucus. He is not a Democrat and was not elected as a Democrat. He was rejected for the Democratic endorsement and ran as an independent. He has no duty to the Democratic party in any respect, any more than Bernie Sanders or another independent.

To say that he should be stripped of a chairmanship because of party discipline for endorsing McCain or criticizing Obama means that you really view any independent who joins either caucus as just another member of that party. I don't think that follows.

My view is that *if you are elected as an independent*, you do not owe a duty of loyalty to any party. If you then join a caucus, you have to vote with them on procedural matters and in exchange you get committee assignments and potentially chairmanships, but I don't se why that would affect your obligation with respect to a presidential endorsement. That is not a Senate procedural matter and it really has nothing to do with your role as a senator.

On a separate note, it is my understanding that Lieberman actually voted with the Dems more often than at least a handful of other Dems, like Johnson, Nelson, Salazar, etc. I could be wrong on that. But if not, it would be even more curious to say that he should be disciplined when the greater Dino's are not so disciplined.

# posted by

Zachary : 1:16 AM

If Lieberman holds a committee chair -- which he receives solely because he caucuses with the Dems -- then it seems fair to expect him to behave consistent with Dem political interests generally. If he simply wants to caucus with the Dems, that's no problem as long as he complies with any secrecy rules.

The fact that the situation is flexible doesn't mean there are no limits at all.

# posted by

Mark Field : 10:36 AM

Zachary:

I'm curious why people think Lieberman even HAS a duty of loyalty to the Democratic caucus. He is not a Democrat and was not elected as a Democrat. He was rejected for the Democratic endorsement and ran as an independent. He has no duty to the Democratic party in any respect, any more than Bernie Sanders or another independent.

True. Nor do any other Democrats'; they've shown time and again that they are willing to vote whichever way they see fit and buck party discipline.

However: If he's not a Democrat, it's perfectly fit not to give him any committee assignments, particularly chairmanships of plum ones. And threats on his part to bolt hte party should be scoffed at. If he wants to caucus with the Democrats, fine, but it is he that has to behave. Despite his delusions, he's not a "power unto himself".

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 12:05 PM

Like OO above, I am not against Lieberman maintaining his chairmanship of the committee because I am worried that he will exercise vigorous oversight - I am absolutely furious that, to date, he has not done so.

The DHS is, IMHO, the most inefficient bureacracy ever developed by a government not of Italian origin. Lieberman has been at the helm of the committee responsible for its oversight.

He has conducted that oversight only in the most tepid, institutional, completely infuriating manner possible.

I don't mind that he might conduct vigorous oversight of an incoming administration. I mind that he has completely fucking failed to do so to date.

# posted by

nick : 7:57 PM

Thanks, SL, for resurrecting Lieberman's disloyal antics over Election 2000's late-filed and otherwise questionable military ballots. I know Joe's displayed many more serious shortcomings, but that's always particularly irritated me.

Contemporaneous reporting indicated the postelection Gore team devoted serious thought to how to push back on the GOP's inevitable "you're disenfranchising Awe Twoops" line. They developed a careful, sophisticated PR posture; Joe participated in those discussions, agreed to the team's consensus, but then left it on the cutting-room floor. Wanker.

# posted by

Winston : 11:08 AM