Lamont's Victory

Last night, Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic Primary. Most in the media had characterized the race as a battle for the soul of the party, a left-wing witch hunt, with moderate Joe besieged by the lunatic left. Would the voters choose this insurgent, unpatriotic cut-n-runner? Or would they stand by their buddy, ol’ bi-partisan Joe? The common spin was that a Lamont victory would surely mean the permanent marginalization of the party. Oh, those wacky, inept Democrats. There they go, shooting themselves in the bullet-ridden stumps that used to be their feet.

This is not only lazy journalism; it’s inaccurate and intellectually dishonest. This primary was not about ideology. It was not about any one issue, no matter how large the war looms. It certainly wasn’t a conspiracy. This primary election was about one thing: accountability. Our system of government depends on the principle that we can hold our representatives responsible for their actions. If they lose their way, we can fire them. Now, we all know this is a lot easier on paper--like the pages of high school civics textbooks--than it is out in the big, bad, world, especially in the age of Tom DeLay. Thanks to gerrymandering, media control, and our rigged campaign finance system, tossing out an incumbent is next-to-impossible.

That’s why it took a perfect storm to get us to this point. Ned Lamont has plenty going for him, including personal wealth, charisma, articulate policy positions, and a dynamite team. But that’s only half the story. Without Lieberman’s pathetic performance, there would have been no primary challenge.

So where did Joe go wrong? Was he too moderate for the radical party base? Is he a relic from the age of statesmen, unfit for this era of bitter partisanship? No. In fact, he is ideologically where a lot of Americans—and a lot of his own constituents—are: conservative in some areas, liberal in others, a common-sense approach to policy. Sounds like my neighbor. Joe’s not in trouble because he’s too far to the right, or left, or center. He faced a challenge, and lost (for now), because he has no spine.

Joe’s third Senate term saw the rise of the most corrupt, power-hungry, incompetent Presidential administration in our nation’s history. We’ve had Presidents breach their Constitutional authority before. We’ve certainly had institutional corruption for hundreds of years. And our country has seen its share of poor leadership decisions. But we’ve never seen it all in one package. Not like this. And since George Bush is a Republican, and R’s are conservative, that means anyone who criticizes his conduct is a liberal. One’s liberalism can be measured, or so it seems, by how vehemently one criticizes poor George. More inaccurate, lazy reporting. Remember the tenets of traditional populist conservatism: small government, personal freedom, humility and caution in our foreign affairs. George isn’t a conservative. He’s not a liberal. He doesn’t fight for a cause or a philosophy. He takes care of No. 1. That’s it.

And how did our man Joe respond to this profound challenge to our system of government and our way of life? Like our President, and Machiavelli before him, he took care of himself. Like the Gmork in The Neverending Story (non-nerds, Google that one), he bet on the side he thought would win. Not wanting to be left out in the cold when this bunch secured total power, he decided to help them any way he could. He sabotaged any efforts at real opposition. He lambasted Democrats, or anyone, who questioned the unconstitutional and unethical behavior of the Bushies. He even ran for President on a Bush-is-really-okay-stop-being-so-negative platform. Why? Political survival. He wanted to keep his job, above all else. It’s great fun being a U.S. Senator. He’s hardly the first to scrap his integrity for his job security. He won’t be the last.

But he guessed wrong. He failed to realize that people are so angry at the disintegration of our democracy that they’re clamoring for real leadership-crying out for anyone to stand up and tell the truth. Remember Profiles in Courage? Kennedy’s tribute to leadership was all about taking principled positions in the face of overwhelming political pressure to fold. That’s what people so desperately want, and that’s what Ned Lamont promises.

This little blue-state primary represents one of two things. It could be the last gasp of true democracy before our fair republic truly becomes an empire—with leaders selected by the powerful, and completely unaccountable. But I don’t think so. I think it’s the beginning of a better time, an age when the people began to take back their country. Left, right, or center, what people want is honesty and accountability. Transparent, ethical representation. Real elections, with real choices.

In Connecticut’s general election, voters will have a real choice. They will be able to support a person willing to provide true opposition, rather than a lapdog waiting for his next “good boy” kiss.

Lieberman vows to run as an independent candidate, and the odds are with him. Remember, he pulls Republican and independent voters very well. In a three-way race, he could easily suppress this annoying show of democracy. As he said himself, he cannot and will not accept the democratic result. He is more important than democracy. So how can we help? Contribute to Ned Lamont’s campaign. Talk to anyone you know in Connecticut. Write letters to editors demanding they treat Ned Lamont as the reasoned, articulate, brave candidate he is.

This is the beginning. Remember, as Studs Terkel says, “hope dies last.” There is always hope. Ned’s going to win. And that’s a good thing. Don’t worry about Joe. He’ll be fine.