Going Buddhist, not Medieval, on Lieberman
Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 05:47:08 AM PDT
My first reaction to Lieberman's obnoxious concession speech was anger: This bastard really thinks it's all about him! Screw Connecticut Democrats! Screw the need to turn attention from a safe seat and help our many outstanding Democratic challengers across the country! It's about me, me, me!
And being a bit self-righteous, I wanted us all to get in Joe's face, call him names, and shame him into accepting yesterday's results. Not surprisingly, I was taken aback and put off when I heard Jim Dean on C-SPAN deflect a question about Joe's Indy bid . . . until I got to thinking about the Buddhist principle of skillful means.
I don't know Jim Dean, but I sure as hell respect what he does for DFA, and I adore his big brother. If Jim Dean is avoiding any outright declarations that Joe must drop his bid, that good Democrats accept the will of Democratic voters, that they act in the best interests of their party instead of themselves, then there must be a reason.
And then it hit me: We here at dKos typically ignore the fact that honey is sweeter than vinegar, at least when it comes to telling politicians what we think. But Washington works differently--often in ways we rightly despise, but also in ways that still get the desired result.
If Jim Dean, and Howard, and other high-powered Democrats came out swinging at Joe, poor old Joe would be publicly shamed. He'd see in print all kinds of people imputing his integrity (hm, this shoe seems to fit nicely!). He'd hear people suggesting that 18 years of service count for nothing if he doesn't make the right decision now. And if he did decide to forgo his Indy bid, it would appear to the world that he did so under pressure--that he was shamed into acting rightly.
Given that scenario, he might just decide to fuck everybody.
I think it may take more skillful means to get what we want here. My ignorance about Buddhism runs deep, but my far better half is well-versed in Buddhist ethics, so I hope I'm not too far off the mark in this explanation. Let me start with a story: A teacher in an elementary school is in the middle of a lesson when the principal knocks on the door. "We just received a warning that there may be a bomb in the cafeteria! We can't ring the fire alarm because too many classes are routed through that area of the school, but you need to get your students out of the building as quickly and safely as you can! And don't panic!!" The teacher turns to her class, smiles sweetly, and says, "Class, would you like some candy? If you will all line up and walk quietly to the front steps, I will give you each a nice piece of candy!"
In other words, the teacher lied. To innocent children. But she got the job done, and the children, instead of being scared out of their wits, thought they'd played a fun little game and gotten some candy. That's basically what skillful means is all about: Getting the desired result in the most efficacious manner, without hurting others.
So, while at first I wanted every Democrat not only to endorse Lamont but to call on Joe to give up, I now see the merit in a gentler approach. By all means, you Democratic politicians, declare your support for the will of Connecticut Democrats. Endorse Ned Lamont. And when asked in front of the cameras or the microphones about Joe's intention to run as a third-party candidate, go ahead and dodge the question. Say that Joe has to make that decision himself. Praise his 18 years of principled leadership in the Senate. Offer encomiums. Call him honorable. Show the country and the world that our elected Democrats support Ned Lamont but also believe Joe Lieberman to be one hell of a great guy.
And when, in a few days, Lieberman announces that he has decided to withdraw from the race, he'll be able to demonstrate just how right you all are about his integrity and honor and commitment to the party.
(Oh, and when the cameras and the mics aren't around, turn those freaking thumb screws!)
Permalink | 18 comments