Strange Reasoning

Joe Lieberman, on CNN, said this when asked how he justified ignoring the wishes of Connecticut primary voters:
(From Crooks and Liars)

KING: But why have parties and why have primaries if the candidates
who may be backed by the establishment, but perhaps not win the votes of
the people who turn out on primary day can just take out insurance
policies and stay on the ballot even if they lose the primary? Why have
a party then?

LIEBERMAN: Right this is a very important question. And I would
answer it this way, John. This challenge to me is obviously a challenge
to my record of serving the state of Connecticut and the United States
of America, and it asks the voters of Connecticut to decide which one of
us, my challenger or I, could do a better job for them in the six years
ahead.

But it also raises questions about what do we mean by political
parties? And what kind of politics do we want to have? And when I say
that, here’s what I mean. The Democratic Party has always been at its
strongest when it welcomed a diversity of opinions.

My opponent is campaigning against me on one issue: Iraq. I have the
support of a host of progressive groups: the labor movement, the
environmental movement, the human rights political action fund, which is
the advocacy group for gay and lesbian Americans, Planned Parenthood. I
could go on and on.

I am a committed, loyal Democrat. And the question that is being asked
of the Democrats here in Connecticut is: will we impose a litmus test?
The same kind of litmus test that we criticized the Republicans for
imposing, particularly on one issue on which I have taken a principal
stand, clearly not one that is to my political advantage, which is the
war against terrorism.

And I’m taking it because I believe that it is best for the safety and
security of our country and our families. So that’s what’s on the line
here. The other thing to say is this: we don’t know how many people are
going to turn out in this Democratic primary. Most people — I said
this morning when I made this announcement, John, that I know that if
all the Democrats in Connecticut came out to vote or even half of them
came out to vote, that I would win renomination in the primary by a
comfortable margin.

Most of the people here think that at best, there will be 25 or 30
percent of the Democrats who come out. That means about five percent of
all the registered voters in Connecticut might have the final say as to
whether I continue to serve Connecticut and my country in the U.S.
Senate. I think all the voters of the state ought to be able to make
that decision. That’s why I’ve done what I’ve done today.

Okay, let's take this apart.

"The Democratic Party has always been at its strongest when it welcomed a diversity of opinions. My opponent is campaigning against me on one issue: Iraq."

That political parties, especially in two-party systems, are strengthened when they accept a range of views is true, but only to a point. Political parties will generally tolerate dissent when it's seen as either peripheral to the aims of the party or as driven by a purely regional interest. Democrats accept that their representatives will veer from platform elements that might hurt their local industry or offend voters Democrats need to hold a seat.

Democrats are most intolerant, however, when their representatives disagree with them on issues fundamental to them--especially when other winning options are readily available. In this they're similar to Republicans. That's why primaries were invented, to make representatives accountable to those who provide them with money, volunteers, ballot access, and organization. Those politicians who risk taking a position far outside the party's mainstream have to accept the consequences of those decisions: that primary voters will be offended, that donors will be turned off, that volunteers will find other hobbies or candidates.

Iraq is the major issue of our time. Democratic voters use it as way of measuring candidates because they're passionate about it to the exclusion of other issues. This isn't like Robert Byrd's shilling for the coal industry or Bob Casey's stand on abortion. The circumstances our entry into the war and the duplicitous arguments the administration has given for staying have frustrated and angered Democratic voters like no other issue since Vietnam. Primary voters have every right to ask why they should put someone on the ballot who not only fails to acknowledge the legitimacy of their feelings, but also makes every effort to show that he shares the administration's contempt for those feelings. They have every right to wonder whether a party that refuses to serve as their voice on this issue is a party worthy of their money and time.

Lieberman's trying to make it sound as if his disagreement is a trivial one, which means that he's either dishonest or completely ignorant of the salience of Iraq as a political issue. Either way, other candidates have every right to challenge him for it, and voters have the right to judge him on it.

"I have the support of a host of progressive groups: the labor movement, the environmental movement, the human rights political action fund, which is the advocacy group for gay and lesbian Americans, Planned Parenthood. I could go on and on."

Most politicians running in contested races can. Check out any voter guide during primary season and you'll see that, in contested races, both candidates can boast of a fair-sized list of endorsements. In the case of an incumbent fighting a challenger, it would be a surprise if the incumbent didn't garner more endorsements. Incumbents win most primaries, and groups would, all things considered, rather not unnecessarily offend the probable victor and lose a benefactor. Put another way, love inspires some endorsements; fear motivates the rest.

"I am a committed, loyal Democrat."

This sentence contains three lies in six words. Committed, loyal Democrats accept the process that nominates them to office. Since this is Lieberman's first primary fight, maybe he doesn't understand that. Maybe this will help.

Once upon a time, Joe Lieberman presented himself as a candidate for President. The voters looked at him, judged his record and his experience, and decided to give him the Joementum. He failed to garner votes, and he went away, leaving the field to other, more popular candidates. He did not instead decide to take his case to "all the voters" in spite of the sentiments of those voters who had already found him lacking.

It's possible that Lieberman has hung around Bush too long, and forgotten that loyalty, like bipartisanship, is a two-way affair that requires mutual respect and the capacity to accept refusal with a modicum of grace. By making this move, Lieberman is showing that he really doesn't give a damn what primary voters in Connecticut think of him. He'll do as he pleases. Well, Joe, if that's the way you feel, don't be too upset if the voters you've blown off feel the same way.

"The other thing to say is this: we don’t know how many people are going to turn out in this Democratic primary. Most people — I said this morning when I made this announcement, John, that I know that if all the Democrats in Connecticut came out to vote or even half of them came out to vote, that I would win renomination in the primary by a comfortable margin."

Again, chalk this up to Lieberman's lack of experience in primaries. Most primaries around the country suffer from low turnout. This is a reflection of voter apathy that is sad, but it can be overcome if a race is closely contested and one or the other candidates inspires fierce loyalties.

I imagine that everyone in Connecticut is aware that Lieberman and Lamont are in a close and fairly interesting fight. If in that fight, Lieberman can't inspire enough voters to put aside what they're doing on August 8th and go to the polls for him, that says something about him, doesn't it? Part of a politician's job is making voters care enough about him and the issues he fights for to get off their asses and vote. Those who can't do that should become ex-politicians. It's pathetic that Lieberman uses his failure to arouse voters as an excuse for bolting the party.

Still, if turnout is Lieberman's worry, maybe we should ask him this: "Senator Lieberman, if 50% or 60% of Democrats turn out for the primary and you lose, will you bow out and support Ned Lamont?"

Finally, this isn't part of the bigger quote, but I wanted to get it in:

" And I want to give my fellow Democrats here in Connecticut the opportunity to affirm my service and accept the diversity that I am part of in this party."

Well thank you very much, Senator Lieberman, for condescending to us but primaries have nothing to do with affirmation of service. They function to select candidates for the party's November slate. They are a chance for candidates to make their case and be judged. If your case fails, Senator, you'd serve the party much better by withdrawing gracefully from the race. Because if others follow your example and refuse to exit the stage when they've lost the primary, the party will cease to have any meaning as an organization and its voters, frustrated, will be forced to seek other avenues of political expression, splintering into ever smaller and weaker factions. If you have any concern for the cause of liberalism left in you, Senator, you'll back off this stand. But you don't, which I imagine is why you drew a primary challenger in the first place.