Joe Lieberman: The Neoconservatives’ Favorite Liberalby
Bill Barnwell "Powerful Republicans among Lieberman’s campaign donors," reads the headline of an October 21st news piece from the Boston Globe. Indeed, a number of powerful, rich, and noteworthy Republicans rose up to express public and financial support for Joe Lieberman’s independent campaign for Senate. After losing the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont, Lieberman was re-elected to the Senate, in large part due to a healthy dose of support from Connecticut Republicans. Where exactly did this Republican love affair begin with Joe Lieberman, who has been a reliable vote for liberal causes on just about every issue? After opposing conservative ideals for years, Joe Lieberman has become the favorite leftist of neoconservatives everywhere. The poor Republican nominee – what was his name again? – only received a mere 10% of the total votes in the state and was virtually ignored by the Republican establishment. On election night, many "conservative" bloggers cheered pro-war Lieberman’s victory and declared it to be one of the few shining spots in an otherwise dismal day for the GOP. Their support for Lieberman comes down to one issue and one issue only, and one that appears to be the issue of most pressing concern for neoconservatives: continuing to keep the War State propped up. It was Lieberman’s continued support for a prolonged adventure in Iraq that caused him to fall out of favor with the Democratic base throughout 2006. Sensing the tide was turning against him in his own party, Lieberman publicly stated a month before the August primary that he would file as an independent for the general election if he lost the primary. On August, voters in his own party rejected the once rising star. Only six years earlier, Lieberman was widely hailed throughout the national media and his own party. As the first Jewish Vice-Presidential nominee, Lieberman’s selection was seen as a boost to the lethargic Gore campaign. That same year, Lieberman was also easily re-elected to the Senate with 64% of the vote. In the early years of the Bush administration, Lieberman was seen as a fierce critic and was a frequent thorn in the side of Republican lawmakers. But Lieberman’s continued support for the war in Iraq – even after many in his own party defected from the cause – caused a shift in his fan base. Suddenly, many previous Lieberman loyalists became disaffected by what they saw as a cozying up to the President’s war agenda. On the other hand, more than a few Republicans saw Lieberman as a principled advocate of democratic reforms in the Middle East. Whether it was fair or not, many observers perceived the election to be a referendum between the anti-war cause and the pro-war cause. Hence, Lieberman’s victory is trumpeted by some as a slap in the face to the anti-war movement and proof that the hawks are not on the ropes, as the national election results suggest. Lieberman’s public image as a "moderate" has always been rooted more in fiction than in reality. Lieberman’s voting record indicates affinity and support for traditional left-wing causes. Indeed, Lieberman’s voting record is in line with the likes of such liberal stalwarts as Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy. Lieberman received a 0% rating from the American Conservative Union in 2004 (Feinstein’s voting record was actually slightly more conservative than Lieberman’s in 2004 and 2005 according to the ACU). His score in 2005 was 8% and half of that was earned because Lieberman voted against an amendment that would have granted military detainees and enemy combatants the right to petition for habeas corpus in the U.S. civil courts instead of waiting indefinitely for military tribunals. In 2002, Lieberman received a higher rating of 20% by the ACU. Of course, his score was boosted by his vote in the Senate authorizing the President to use force in Iraq "in the case of failure of diplomatic relations." The ACU also supported this bill, thus making the pro-war vote the "conservative" vote. This is a bit strange from a conservative organization since according to the constitution, the role of the Congress is to offer a declaration of war, not authorize the executive branch to wage war. But I digress. Basically, the only "conservative" positions Lieberman holds are support of NAFTA type trade agreements and cheering on Bush’s military adventures. The ACU and other conservative organizations have long held the mentality that "pro-war" is "pro-conservative," so even his lifetime rating is skewed based upon their support for bureaucratic managed trade deals and the war in Iraq. If ACU scored legislators’ scores based upon the standards of the Old Right movement, Lieberman’s lifetime rating of 17% would be even lower. Across the board elsewhere, Lieberman’s record is anything but conservative. Whether the issue is taxes, affirmative action, gay rights, abortion rights, radical environmentalism, etc., Lieberman has long toted the liberal party line. Lieberman has repeatedly voted in favor of issues that are completely anathema to both conservative and moderate Republicans. On some issues, Lieberman is even further to the left of the mainstream Democratic Party. For instance, while polls suggest that the vast majority of Americans, including most Democrats, oppose partial-birth abortion, Lieberman has repeatedly voted against efforts to ban the practice. He has also traditionally received strong support from the pro-abortion lobby. In fact, for the better part of this decade he has received a 100% ranking from NARAL Pro-Choice America. In 2006, Lieberman received a 100% ranking of Planned Parenthood and 0% from the National Right to Life. When it comes to gay rights issues, Lieberman also fares well, receiving high marks from organizations that promote the interests of the homosexual lobby. In their most recent "Congressional Scorecard," the Human Rights Campaign, one of the nation’s largest gay rights groups gives Lieberman an 89% approval rating. This is down a bit from the 100% approval rating he received four years ago. Conservative and moderate Republicans used to think they had an ally in Joe Lieberman on affirmative action issues. Lieberman used to support initiatives to curtail affirmative action, but when this created controversy during the 2000 Presidential campaign, he reversed his position. Lieberman now says that his earlier opposition to affirmative action was the result of a misunderstanding and in recent years has been a reliable proponent of federally and state sanctioned reverse discrimination. Gun owners have always opposed Lieberman’s legislative record. In a grading scale that scores candidates between an F and an A+, Lieberman receives a lifetime grade of an F from the National Rifle Association. Likewise, the Gun Owners of America gave the Connecticut Senator a 0% for 2005. There is little variance amongst other gun rights groups in evaluating his record. On immigration, Lieberman is well outside the mainstream of the Republican Party as well as his own party. The American Federation for Immigration Reform gave Lieberman a 0% rating in 2005. During his 2004 run in the Democratic primaries, Lieberman said it should be easier for illegal immigrants to earn citizenship. Said Lieberman, "As president, I will create a new one-time earned legalization status, improve family reunification laws, create a work visa program, and partner with the private sector to create a new 'American Dream Fund' to help all immigrants learn English." But it’s not just the hot-button social issues where Lieberman has proven his liberal leanings. Conservative interest groups whose focus is tax issues consistently rank Lieberman low. The National Taxpayers Union gave him a 9% rating in 2005 while that same year he scored just 1% higher with Americans for Tax Reform. In fact, a simple visit to Project Vote Smart will quickly disprove the notion that Lieberman is a "moderate." There is plenty more that can be said about Lieberman’s liberal voting record. It is indeed odd though that Lieberman could be considered a moderate when he holds single digit ratings amongst tax reform groups yet only three years ago received an 83% rating from the ACLU, and this year consistently ranks near the top of just about every established liberal interest group’s list. Where exactly then did the myth originate of Lieberman’s "moderate" status? There are two areas where Lieberman is seen as a "moderate." As an "observant" Orthodox Jew, he is perceived to be culturally conservative and has been a noted critic of violence and bad morals in the media. However, as already noted, Lieberman’s legislative voting record on "moral" issues is decidedly far to the left. He has criticized games such as Grand Theft Auto series, where the main characters in the game run around causing mayhem in various cities by stealing cars, shooting people, propositioning prostitutes, amongst all sorts of other things. This, however, does not make one a conservative as just about any public official would have a problem with these types of games. In fact, Lieberman sponsored a bill by Hillary Clinton – not known for her popularity amongst conservatives – to limit the amount of violent and otherwise "inappropriate content" in video games. Lieberman also earned the reputation as moderate during former President Clinton’s impeachment drama. Lieberman was widely noted for taking the Senate floor in late 1998 and criticizing the President’s moral behavior with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. But while Lieberman gave the President his harshest lashing from a fellow Democrat, he stopped short of calling for Clinton’s impeachment, supporting a measure of censure instead. While this seemed very hard on his own President, many later considered this a sly act on the part of Lieberman that actually helped save the Clinton presidency and prevented other Democrats from jumping ship and siding with the conservatives. Aside from talking like a conservative and voting like a liberal on moral issues, Lieberman earned the respect of conservatives primarily though his consistent support for the "War on Terrorism" and more particularly the war in Iraq. While many Democratic Senators initially supported the Bush policy in Iraq, Lieberman was the strongest proponent and continued his stance even in the face of rising unpopularity. While most of America was getting sick of the rising body count and the prospect of an indefinite and open-ended commitment in the Middle East, Lieberman refused to back down. When his own party rejected him the primary, the Republicans came to the rescue. While Lieberman received his highest number of votes from self-described independents in the general election, he also received near identical support from state Republicans. But when examining Lieberman’s actual voting record – and not just his sanctimonious moral pronouncements – it really makes you wonder what exactly Republicans want with this guy. Thus the real moral of the story: in the minds of the neoconservative establishment and still many ordinary Republican voters, you can support higher taxes, stringent environmental laws, partial-birth abortion, gay rights, a lax immigration policy, excessive gun control regulation, etc., etc., but as long as you support and bless the War State all can be forgiven and forgotten. There were no bigger cheerleaders of Lieberman than the neoconservative establishment this past election. When Ned Lamont was showing strongly in the polls during the primary, the Crown Prince of Neoconservatism and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol stated that many people were so fiercely opposed to Lieberman because "he's unashamedly pro-American." In the minds of people such as Kristol being "pro-American" instantly equates to being pro-invasion, pro-bomb, and pro-"benevolent global hegemony," borrowing an imperialistic statement from Kristol’s magazine several years ago. Now comes the bitter irony of it all. After Republicans were so busy cheering on a Democrat turned "independent" in Connecticut, they lost control of the entire U.S. Senate by one seat. Instead of nominating a viable Republican candidate, even in the "centrist" mold of Lowell Weicker, who previously held the seat before Lieberman, state Republicans instead dropped the ball during the primary and supported a Democrat during the general election. All because their lesser of two evils candidate was supporting a long and protracted war in Iraq that most the rest of the country was and is getting tired of. Perhaps if Republicans would have tried harder to recruit a credible candidate from their own party and actually supported him or her during the general election, they may have had a small chance to hold onto the United States Senate. On the November 12th edition of Meet the Press, Lieberman left open the vague possibility that he may one day switch parties to the GOP. Regarding the prospect, he said, "I'm not ruling it out but I hope I don't get to that point." This immediately caused some Republican bloggers and onlookers to get excited. But Lieberman actually bolting is highly unlikely. For one thing, he will retain his seniority within the Democratic Caucus which makes him much more powerful if he aligns himself with the Democrats rather than the Republicans. Second, his values and voting behavior much better suits the Democratic Party than it would the Republican Party. Why though, would the Republicans welcome someone into their party whose voting record is far to the left of even such liberal Republicans like Lincoln Chafee and Susan Collins? For one thing, it would give them back control of the Senate, though they never anticipated they would lose the Senate when they began supporting Lieberman over Lamont after the primaries. The main reason many in the neoconservative movement support Joe is because they consider him a kinsman in their pursuit of a utopian democracy movement around the world. But as more and more time passes, the majority of the nation, including many conservatives voters, are rejecting the ideals of Kristol and Lieberman. This is not just a "silent majority." The voters spoke out loud and clear in the November elections and rejected Republican leadership, in large part due to the fumbling with the war in Iraq. That the pro-war Lieberman won was not a vindication for the hawks, as he only won in a strange three-way race where many Republicans who were already pro-war threw their vote towards him rather than their own candidate. While the rest of the nation is getting it, still many hardcore neoconservative purists are not as is indicated by their post-election remarks. The election of Joe Lieberman is part of the just deserts for the former majority party. The party that was supposed to stand for fiscal responsibility devolved into a drunken orgy of federal spending the past six years. The party that was supposed to change Washington in 1994 had been seen as a party of corruption and status quo by 2006. The party that was supposed to stand for principle had become so sold out by this last election that one of their only successes was seeing a far left liberal who will continue to caucus with the Democrats re-elected to the Senate because of his support of Bush’s war policies.
November 21, 2006 Bill Barnwell [send him mail] is a pastor and writer from Michigan. He holds both a Master of Ministry degree and a Master of Arts in Theological Studies degree from Bethel College in Mishawaka, Indiana. You can denounce him for his blindness and underestimating the threat of the New World Order though email or by visiting his blog. Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com |
One
wonders if neoconservatives will consider their support of Lieberman
and the never-ending war in Iraq to be worth all the losses. The
GOP selling out for Lieberman is all the more proof of where neoconservative
priorities lie. For this crowd it’s all war, all the time. If this
is what Republicanism now stands for then it was rightly repudiated
by the voters across this nation.