Lieberman and the Meaning of Party
So, confirming speculation that’s been buzzing for a while, Senator Joe Lieberman announced that he will begin circulating petitions to run for re-election as an independent. Lieberman is still running in the Democratic primary this August, but he’s facing a challenge from businessman Ned Lamont. So he’s decided to hedge his bets – if he loses the primary, he can still run in the general election and hope that independent, Republicans, and Democrats who didn’t turn out for the primary can put him over the top. Many of the progressive blogs that have been beating the drum against Lieberman for the last few years are unsurprisingly upset by this move, urging readers to call various Democratic politicians and campaign organizations and demand that they support the Democratic nominee.
Now, I’m not a big fan of Joe Lieberman. I think I would be happier if Lamont wins this Senate seat. But if I may indulge in a bit of navel-gazing, this line of discussion has had me thinking about the definition of a political party. What’s it mean to be a member of a party? What are the responsibilities that go with it?
Being a member of a political party as a voter carries few responsibilities and in some cases it doesn’t even bring any particular privileges. In some states, voters can vote in any primary they want, regardless of their registration. In Louisiana there is no separate primary at all. In states like Connecticut, party affiliation does matter. But Lieberman says he is going to remain a registered Democrat. So the requirements are clearly different for an elected official, and that makes sense.
As an elected official it seems to me like the clearest and most significant issue when it comes to party affiliation is how you caucus – which side will you vote for when it comes time to organize the chamber? This can’t be the be-all and end-all, because there are two members of Congress right now who are independents who caucus with Democrats. And the Democrats have endorsed one of those independents, Bernie Sanders, in his race to replace the other one, Jim Jeffords, as Senator from Vermont. But if you’re going to be a registered Democrat and caucus with Democrats, which Lieberman’s said he will do, is it right to say that you’re not a Democrat?
The key argument might be that the Democratic voters of Connecticut wanted a particular candidate, and if you’re running against that candidate you’re going againt the will of the state’s Democrats, and thus by definition you’re working against the party and can’t be a member. The scenario I’ve always considered that would work against this standard is based on the idea that primaries tend to draw fewer voters than the general election. What if Lieberman ran i nthe fall as an independent and won, getting more Democratic voters than Lamont? Couldn’t you make an argument that Lieberman, as a registered Democrat caucusing with Democrats and receiving the support of the most Democratic voters, is still a Democrat even if the letter “I” appears after his name instead of a “D”?
After a lot of mental back and forth, I would finally say no. As an elected official within a party, you have certain leadership responsibilities. One of those is helping other candidates from your party. A fall campaign where Lieberman is running against the Democratic candidate is not going to be good for other Democrats running in Connecticut, from a media attention or fundraising perspective. And refusing to accept the verdict of the primary voters is absolutely a rejection of the party and its structure. Perhaps there are a lot of Democrats in the state who like Lieberman but can’t be bothered to vote in the primary. That’s their fault for not voting and Lieberman’s for not mobilizing them.
Most significantly for me is a point I’ve seen several blog commenters make. If you’re like me and you believe that, given the structure of American politics, we’re stuck with a two-party system and that the way to promote change is to work to change the party from within rather than run against the party as an outsider, then you simply can’t turn around and say it’s OK for the establishment to run against the party as an outsider when those who want change succeed within the system. You just can’t change the rules in the middle of the game like that. And if you’re a party leader, as Lieberman is, you just can’t send that message that the party’s procedures aren’t valid and still call yourself a member of the party in good standing.
About Dave Thomer
Born and raised in Philadelphia. Studied philosophy at Fordham University in the Bronx, where I made many great friends and met my wonderful wife. We moved back to Philadelphia, where I studied philosophy some more and became a teacher. Online and off, I'm looking for ways that we can be better citizens and build stronger communities.