Getting Used to Disagreement

by: Matt Stoller

Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 21:26


"Joe Lieberman votes with me a lot more than a lot of my senators," Reid told CNN's "Late Edition."

"Joe Lieberman is not some right-wing nutcase," he said. "Joe Lieberman is one of the most progressive people ever to come from the state of Connecticut."

That's Harry Reid.  Here's Obama:

President-elect Barack Obama has informed party officials that he wants Joe Lieberman to continue caucusing with the Democrats in the 111th Congress, Senate aides tell the Huffington Post.
Matt Stoller :: Getting Used to Disagreement

And Bill Clinton is making calls on Lieberman's behalf (update: Josh says that the Clinton camp is denying it).  Lieberman was Obama's mentor, Reid and Lieberman have served together for two decades, and Bill and Hillary Clinton, of course, worked on Lieberman's campaign in the 1970s.  These people have relationships, ya know?  

They also formed their political philosophies during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, a time of anti-partisan dominance on the left and conservative ascendancy.  They don't believe in partisanship, and have said so repeatedly.  They don't like elections to influence policy, and have said so repeatedly.  And they don't believe that Bush is an anomalous figure, just a bad President, and they don't see Lieberman as doing anything but being kind of a pest but ultimately coming through on important votes (like budgets).  You can do double-back-flips and squint and try to find some gnarly rejection of Lieberman in there if you want, but the most obvious explanation - they genuinely think Lieberman is a good Democrat - is the one that seems the most reasonable to me.

As to why they think this, well, there are many possible reasons, and I have my theories.  But the first step, and one most people are deeply uncomfortable with, is to recognize that our elected leadership simply does not share the same assumptions about politics that we do.  We believe that Lieberman was rejected by Democratic primary voters and that his campaigning against Obama, our nominee, suggest he's not worth keeping in the party.  They believe that the primary voters' choice was irrelevant, that his campaigning against Obama was mostly annoying and unrelated to policy, and that the votes and relationships within the Senate and among different elite decision-makers are all that matters.

It's disagreement based on different conceptions of politics, and it means that we have to exercise power in aggressive ways within the party to frustrate and annoy our leaders.  Or, you know, you can do backflips and make arguments that these people see the world the way we do but can't be public about their progressive instincts, and are secretly lying to the public with a wink and nod our way.  

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Getting Used to Disagreement | 43 comments
Clinton is denying (4.00 / 1)
Per http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Bill's spokesperson is denying the charge.  Still no official word out of the Obama camp

Are republicans credible actors or not? (4.00 / 1)
This is the question that defines the current state of american politics.  

We say no, they are criminals and idealogues.
Our leaders say of course they are, but sometimes people disagree on policy
And republicans, if being candid, would ask, why act in good faith when the other side never holds you accountable?


Enemies Should be Kept Far Away (4.00 / 1)
Not close to you where they will have a better or greater chance to stab you in the back or poison you.  People's actions have consequences and one should not be rewarded for bad behaviour.  Lieberman is obviously a Republican trying to pretend he is a Democrat for purposes of knowing what the enemy is doing.  They should kick him to the curb.
[ Parent ]
Or perhaps Obama is interested (4.00 / 1)
in passing a progressive policy agenda.  You can't pass such an agenda without the petty, selfish Lieberman being one of your 60 votes.  Therefore, it's better to cultivate a good relationship with him, because punishing him could motivate him to work against your progressive agenda.

Lamont lost, and we will get another shot at Lieberman in 2012.  But politics is about the numbers, so if universal healthcare and cap-and-trade matter, then we need to be able to work with Lieberman.  It would be nice if we had 60 progressive Democrats, but we don't.  So I'd rather let the baby have his bottle than provoke him into a tantrum that could make him an enemy on every issue.

honestly, if he wants to spend the next four years obstructing obama's (4.00 / 2)
agenda, let him.  see how people in connecticut respond to that in 2012.  

he can caucus with whomever he wants to -- that is his prerogative.  but if he isn't an elected democrat, and he campaigns against our nominee for president, then why the hell should he serve as the chair of a committee that all democrats worked to secure for our party?  

[ Parent ]
He's going to be a pain either way (4.00 / 2)
His current committee chairmanship will be used to obstruct Obama's agenda. He's got more power there than he would as just one vote on cloture.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
[ Parent ]
I was thinking about that... (0.00 / 0)
I'm wondering if they will keep him on a short leash.   Can't they remove a committee chair anytime they want?
[ Parent ]
This, I think, is the key issue (4.00 / 1)
I don't know the rules regarding the removal of a sitting chair other than at the beginning of a Congress, but if he can be removed at any time by a simple vote of the caucus than I see the logic of retaining him.

If he can be removed at any point there is the constant club over his head to hold his loyalty over a full range of issues while retaining the ability to jettison him if he gets too unruly or impeding.

On the other hand, if he is safe until the next year's Congress that allows him to run rampant and only play the loyal stooge at the end of the year.

My gut still says dump him and be damned the consequences!

[ Parent ]
No way Lieberman would be removed after he starts an investigation (4.00 / 2)
Such an act could be spun as a ham-fisted political purge to prevent crusading martyr Joe from getting at "the truth of the matter."

No way the likes of Reid is going to risk the shrill attacks that would come from the right-wing noise machine if anyone get's in Joe's way while he's crusading for truth.

In fact, there's incentive here for Lieberman to start an investigation of the Obama administration just to make it politically impossible to remove him. Lieberman could become Obama's Kenneth Starr while building himself up as a maverick independent clean government crusader/defense stalwart for a 2012 re-election bid.

[ Parent ]
Nice Theory, but NO Reality! (0.00 / 0)
Joe Lieberscum is finished in politics. He will never run for another election, let alone for election in 2012.

He can switch to the Republican party, but there's no future as a Republican senator from Connecticut. He only won because he got 1/3 of DEMOCRATIC voters who believed his lies that he would be a loyal party member.

Republicans understood better where Lieberthug stood and they voted for him instead of their own nominee. But most only did so, because they knew that Lieber-liar was their only hope to prevent a gasp LIBERAL from being elected. In 2012 a REAL Republican can run and will win the Republican primary.

Remember that the Republican party is still in the process of purging all heretical moderates. It's NOT a "big tent" party as Rush Limbaugh just reminded us forcefully. Conservatism, he said, doesn't need to compromise because it's already "whole and complete."

So, exactly where does Joe fit in? He might be a right-wing scumbag to us, but he's a wild-eyed liberal on social issues like abortion as well as many other economic issues. He might be too conservative for CT, but no way could he get elected in Mississippi or Oklahoma. His positions on most issues are totally unacceptable to the Republican base.

He only won re-election by lying and cheating, and Connecticut voters are furious with his betrayal. He's NOT popular and won't be in 2012.

His chances for a post in the McCain cabinet just went out the window. So, what's he to do but cling to power and cause as much trouble for the next 4 years as possible?  

[ Parent ]
once again (4.00 / 3)
You are avoiding the real choice.  Obviously if the choice is to pass a progressive policy like EFCA while keeping Lieberman in the caucus versus not passing EFCA and pushing Lieberman out of the caucus, most people would choose the former.  The question is what happens when the choice is more muddled.  Do you give Lieberman subpoena power, the right to speak for the Democratic brand, and access to caucus deliberations in return for, well, no one really knows, but in all likelihood, a continuation of Lieberman's slightly conservative Democratic votes on domestic issues and insane votes on foreign policy issues?  And do you encourage a moral hazard by rewarding a Senator who does this as opposed to a candidate like, oh, the other 57 or 58, who don't?

That's the choice.  Make it.  Don't avoid it.

[ Parent ]
Your choice is a false one (0.00 / 0)
Lieberman has even less "right to speak for the Democratic brand" than Ben Nelson and everyone knows it.  There is obviously no "moral hazard," because no senator in his or her right mind would try to replicate Lieberman's foolish and self-destructive political choices over the past few years.  Lieberman is not getting "reward"ed but rather the status quo is remaining the same.

The 60 vote threshold is crucial for domestic policy but not so much for foreign policy, where the Senate has far less power.  So Lieberman will continue to mouth his crazy foreign policy views and be a hawk -- big deal.  Maybe he'll hold a few hearings -- when's the last time that mattered?    He can't get into the way of President Obama's withdrawal from Iraq, and Obama won't go to war with Iran because Lieberman says so.

But for a domestic progressive agenda, we need 60 votes and Lieberman has to be one of them.  So Obama needs to win over Lieberman, the conservative Dems, and the "moderate" Republicans in the Senate.  That's the way to make change happen.  Kicking Lieberman out will make it more difficult to achieve this goal, and we will get little in return.

[ Parent ]
60 votes (4.00 / 1)
The 60 votes thing assumes members are routinely whipped into line. Who's to say Lieberman won't vote for many of the bills he does now if he's out of the caucus? I would have more fear of kicking a long-time chairman from a conservative state out who's been arm-twisted on a lot of votes he didn't want to have to take in order to remain chairman, keep an Approps seat, etc. His voting patterns would likely change immediately. Lieberman isn't that person, and I don't see his voting patterns changing dramatically.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter
[ Parent ]
You only get to 60 votes if the Dem caucus is disciplined (4.00 / 1)
Letting Lieberman stay chair can not send any other message than there is no discipline in the Dem caucus.

Joe did no investigation of the Bush administration. One wonders if he will investigate the Obama administration?  And if he suddenly does decide to spring into action...will he try to undermine Obama to pursue his principles or will he decide to butter up Obama by just doing proforma oversight rather than real oversight.

Democratic presidents should have real oversight as well. Things happen and go wrong in Democratic administration as well. The legislative purpose of oversight is to make things better not to punish an administration.

One rightly wonders about Lieberman......that's the thing about 6 year terms in the Senate, unlike the House....it's a small group who are together for a long time....College is only 4 years...you make friends that last a lifetime there. I bet the ones who would let Lieberman stay are the ones who have been there the longest....

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
again (4.00 / 1)
You are avoiding the choice.  If they keep him in the Democratic caucus, he speaks as a member of the Democratic caucus.  You may not like that, but that's reality.  That's the choice.  Don't avoid it.  

This stuff is complicated and everything has trade-offs.  I really wish you would defend your choice, it's actually defensible, just not something I'd agree with.

[ Parent ]
I tend to agree with Jimmy. (0.00 / 0)
Maybe I've been listening to Obama's message of unity too much, but it seems that the potential benefits from keeping him in the caucus are greater than the likely harm.  It does no good to think about the past in this case.  I've swung pretty hard from the outraged radical to the pragmatic progressive in these past few months largely because of admitting the possibility that Obama may be right with his "yes, but" arguments against more decisively progressive actions.
[ Parent ]
I hope you're right (0.00 / 0)
and Lieberman will actually provide those key votes.  After all he's done, the only reason to keep Lieberman in the party (much less let him keep his committee chair) is if we've essentially blackmailed him: he can keep his seniority, and Harry Reid can even call him a progressive (ugh), if he actually starts voting like a progressive.  The chances of our party leadership actually doing this, though, are quite slim, because they'd never dream of doing anything like that to their distinguished colleague Holy Joe, even though he's been stabbing them in the back for the past six years.  And the chances of Lieberman accepting a deal like that are even slimmer.
[ Parent ]
That's poppycock .. (4.00 / 1)
Or perhaps Obama is interested in passing a progressive policy agenda.  You can't pass such an agenda without the petty, selfish Lieberman being one of your 60 votes.

You can peel away Specter, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.  Or even Voinovich(who is up in 2010, I believe).  I know Specter is up in 2010.  If Republicans like that are serious about saving their career, you can peel them off depending on the issue.  You don't need to keep kissing Lieberman's ass.  Besides, what is to say he'll be of help?  Once Reid gives Lieberman his chair back, what do you think Lieberman is going to do?  Do you trust him?  I only trust him as far as I can throw him.

[ Parent ]
Connecticut law (4.00 / 1)
2012 is too long to tolerate Lieberman. Connecticut law doesn't appear to offer a recall mechanism, so we should start an initiative to create one, then christen it on Holy Joe.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
they have lieberman just where they want him (0.00 / 0)
and they'll have him there for a while.  Obama can wield a lot more power if he gives this act of leniency to Lieberman.  (I'm with Kos that they should reassign him to a committee where he actually acts like a Democrat).  By this act, Obama and the Dems takes away from Republicans the theme that he's running a tight partisan shop, and Lieberman will have to be on the very best behavior to stay in good graces.  It's aimed towards building a broader majority.

And my guess is that internally everyone will know that Lieberman's ass is basically owned.

Or, they could just throw him to the corner.  But what would that accomplish?

Yes but are they (4.00 / 1)
actually going to take away his precious Homeland Security chair?  Since he's threatened to throw a tantrum and walk out if Harry does this, and Harry (and, according to sources, Obama) want him to stay in the Dem Caucus, doesn't all of this sound very much like the Dem leadership is going to blink first and not even give Lieberman a slap on the wrist for saying (among other things) that the Democratic presidential nominee might not really put his country first?

-- Stu

[ Parent ]
Be careful where you put him (4.00 / 1)
If he's on another committee, don't put him on anything involving technology (as I've seen some suggest.) It's apparently a favorite area of his, but he's an appaling neo-luddite. We don't need him running around ruining the Democratic brand among young people with his pro-censorship views.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
[ Parent ]
"one of the most progressive people (0.00 / 0)
ever to come from the state of Connecticut." I guess that is true since you helped defeat Ned Lamont Senator.
Whip count (0.00 / 0)
Has anybody done a count of the likely pro- and anti-Joe votes in the Democratic caucus? We've got more than a dozen new bodies in just the last two cycles that don't have long term relationships with him, and we have some other progressives that might be less tolerant of his shenanigans... Is it possible that he could lose out on that chairmanship if it comes down to a vote?

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
"...they genuinely think Lieberman is a good Democrat .." (0.00 / 0)
Shit! If you really believe that then we are in worse shape than I thought we were.

Could it be that they don't necessarily believe Lieberman to be a good Democrat, it's just that the guy has so much power and is so embedded in the Democratic Party power structure, that a majority of our Senators careers rely on his blessing?  That the Club can't afford to touch him?  

If that's the case, you are presenting a bleak picture going forward, where the House becomes nothing more than a pretend place for debate, that the ideological fights are just played out for fun.  Because, ultimately as soon as any policy changes get to the Senate -- that's it -- correction and absolute status quo will be maintained -- with Lieberman possibly having enough power to manipulate the numbers?

It's crazy to think this one man -- after all that he's done, might possibly be given a free pass.

"...recognize that our elected leadership simply does not share the same assumptions about politics that we do..."  

You mean they don't believe in elections?  One ideological party rule?  The nagging feeling started with Lamont -- For example, when Lieberman's friends within the Party were able to kill a DNC resolution calling on Lieberman to drop out of the Senate race after Lamont won, and it continued when Schumer, Reid, Clinton and even Boxer continued to put Lieberman on a pedestal throughout his independent bid.

If Lieberman doesn't lose his chairmanship do you think progressives will accept the decision lying down?

Go talk to Mike Lux about it... (4.00 / 1)
Isn't he supposed to be the progressive liason?
Isn't Obama's position the same as Markos and Jane Hamsher? (0.00 / 0)
Obama didn't say keep him as Chair of Homeland Security, he said let him caucus with Dems.  

John McCain
That's exactly why all the anxiety (4.00 / 1)
Obama (as far as I know) hasn't stated yet specifically what he wants to do regarding the Chairmanship. So everybody's just trying to read into what "caucusing with the Dems" means in its full flushed-out format in Obama's mind.
[ Parent ]
No (4.00 / 2)
They said if he wants to leave the caucus, fine. Obama is insisting he stay. Obama is undercutting us because if Reid does X (stripping him of his chairmanship), Lieberman will do Y (joining the GOP), and Obama tells Reid not to do X, then game over for us if Reid obeys under pressure from the President-elect.

Either that, or he's playing an interesting game of jujitsu where Reid still does X and Lieberman looks like a whiner in the media for taking his ball and going home despite open arms from Obama, Reid, etc.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter

[ Parent ]
I would go with jujitsu (4.00 / 2)
...if I didn't think Harry Reid was asleep for the past 2 years. Maybe Obama can draw a plan out on a napkin for him. There are more than enough moving parts (Byrd out at Appropriations, Biden out at Foreign Relations, Rockefeller out at Intelligence) to just reshuffle the entire committee leadership and move Lieberman to EPW. You don't make it about Lieberman, you make it about CHANGE.

The thing that pisses me off is all the time that is wasted on Joe Lieberman. LBJ would have solved this shit in about 30 seconds. The Senate is filled with indecisive losers -- a big reason why Obama wanted to get out of there so fast.

John McCain

[ Parent ]
But that is just the problem .. (0.00 / 0)
Obama is saying that .. but not addressing the Homeland Security chair .. it would be nice if someone knew exactly what Obama's idea was .. if Reid takes away the Homeland Security chair ... we'll see what HoJo really does .. I doubt he'll hang his hat with the Republicans
[ Parent ]
That's what I want to know (4.00 / 1)
I don't want him in the caucus but will eat it if it's what's SEEN as (but IMO is not) necessary to get his votes, by Dems--for now. But I don't want him head of any committee where he can do real damage to Dems, Obama or their agenda. Make him video game czar or something.

Better yet, he should be a character in Grand Theft Auto or a political role-playing multiuser internet-based live action video game, with characters for all the current top pols and media bloviators, and provision for downloading new ones. That ought to be a riot. Actually, it could be a bestseller, and get more people interested in that part of politics that involves more than just showing up to vote or watching the news--i.e. most of it.

Ok, gotta go, I have an idea to pitch...

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
_Don't_ make him video game czar (0.00 / 0)
Unless you want to drive away a generation of young people from the Democratic Party. Whatever you make him, make sure it is somewhere that he is part of the liberal mainstream.
[ Parent ]
I was snarking about that, of course (0.00 / 0)
The thing is, even though he often votes liberal, he is an inherently corrupt and dishonorable man, which means that he stands for nothing, and can be bought. Which makes him dangerous in charge of anything, no matter how liberal he tends to be on it. I say keep him in the caucus for now, but in charge of nothing, as if he were a freshman senator.

And at the appropriate time, serve that cold dish of revenge.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Another possibility: Is this the "good cop-bad cop" routine? (0.00 / 0)
Part of insider Beltway dynamics is loyalty, friendship, and preserving the "brotherhood." Like a classic good cop-bad cop dynamic, when many party loyalists from outside the Beltway (the bad cop) want Lieberman's head, this gives the insiders the maximum opportunity to play the "good cop" in this pressure situation and strengthen Lieberman's reliance on them. What leverage does Lieberman really have to turn the table on the good cop and betray the loyalty? Hard to see at this point.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...
Hmmm (4.00 / 1)
Howard Fineman was on Olbermann and was saying that Durbin and Schumer are "loaded for bear" going after Lieberman. Allegedly there will be a secret ballot vote next Tuesday to possibly decide the issue.

I don't think this one is over yet.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
"...Durbin and Schumer are "loaded for bear" going after Lieberman..." (4.00 / 1)
I'll take that with a bucket of salt.

Did he say it would be about his chairmanship, and/or just about him staying in the caucus?

[ Parent ]
Just the chairmanship (4.00 / 1)
It was over the chairmanship. I think that's all that most people care about. If he's a back-bencher, or has some other committee, that would satisfy most of us, I think. If he pitches a fit over that, and takes his ball and goes home, that's just a bonus.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
[ Parent ]
That's always a possibility that can never be entirely disproven (4.00 / 2)
But, given how Dems have acted in recent years, it appears that "good cop" (i.e. the one who wants to make nice by rolling over) always ends up prevailing. And until that ceases to be the case, it's a losing bet to assume that this is what's going on. For all the talk of "Chicago Rules", what I'm still seeing is Kick the Can and Keep the Powder Dry.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
These "leaders" are what the Democratic Party is (4.00 / 1)
at the heart. They take my vote for granted, then turn back to those "loyalists" that campaign against them.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
who cares (0.00 / 0)
it's a senate thing. they will do as they please. i don't have any use for lieberman. but in all honesty there some others that i don't care for either. the real problem here is that we are off our progressive agenda. we need to worry more about enacting it.  
the pols (0.00 / 0)
don't take you seriously because you will vote for them anyway. you are the democrats lap dog. nuts to primary challenges organize against and vote them out in the general.
Why would you burn Lieberman? (0.00 / 0)
No matter how big a party's majority is, Senators are precious.  Ned Lamont may have been your fantasy Senator, but Joe Lieberman is still a pretty good Democrat on the issues, even if he's committed some heresies in politics.  

Second, Obama wants to pass his agenda as smoothly as possible.  While he can safely repudiate a lot of Bush's policies, he is going to need to reach across the aisle to smooth things over with congressional Republicans, particularly since he will want to pass an economic stimulus package very quickly.

There is, further, a rift among Republicans following this year's massacre, and as the social conservative stranglehold on that party weakens, Obama and Reid will be able to find some allies on key agenda items across the aisle.

Exacting political vengeance undercuts Obama's message of healing and his narrative as a figure who transcends political bickering. McCain also will continue to be an extremely powerful figure in the Senate, and Obama gains very little by rubbing the guy's face in the dirt.

Further, as a domestic-policy liberal and foreign policy hawk, Lieberman is cut from the same cloth as a lot of Jews.   This is a traditional Democratic constituency, that Gore and Kerry lost ground with because of Bush's unwavering support of Israel and hawkish foreign policy on the Middle East.  

They are an important piece of the base in key swing states, particularly Florida, but also Ohio.  This is also a constituency that Obama worked very hard to court, and was successful among. Lieberman remains popular among many Jews, and if you burn him, they'll feel burned as well.  

Most importantly, maintaining a majority means making room in the tent for the middle.  When the base punishes deviance from ideological orthodoxy, the electorate punishes the party.  That killed Al Gore in 2000, and it hurt John McCain this year.  

I am not a progressive, and I voted for Obama because I believe he is thoughtful, flexible, capable of compromise and able to govern with both compassion and pragmatism. Conciliation with Lieberman demonstrates those characteristics.

Getting Used to Disagreement | 43 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox