I was hoping that I would not have to write this diary, or for that matter anything else about Joe Lieberman. As I try to control my dismay about the possibility that Lieberman will go unpunished for his deeds, I realize that this needs to be discussed at least one more time. Maybe, just maybe, Obama and others will listen. Reconciliation has its place, so does anger, and so does accountablity. Acceptance and "moving on" does not happen by decree
A number of cogent arguments have been put forward for allowing Joe Lieberman to continue his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. A number of equally cogent arguments have been made to strip him of this chairmanship, and some have proposed even more drastic punishment. These have been explored, but in a somewhat dissociated and fragmented way. I think its time to bring them together in a composite, cohesive whole if possible.
First I would like to explore the idea that what Joe Lieberman did during the Presidential election is "just politics", and now that the election is over its time to forgive and forget and move on with the business at hand. Right away, I see a number of fallacies in this argument:
- Acceptance of the notion that "anything is permissible" in politics. This is perhaps the most dangerous underlying premise of this argument. The idea that behaving in a back stabbing, untrustworthy fashion that invokes deeply emotional images that incites people to anger and possible violence is acceptable must not be permissible. The case most often cited about this kind of behavior is that of yelling "fire" in a crowded public place. It crosses the line from free speech to gratuitous provocation of emotion, and is not protected from censure. The fact that Lieberman's provocation was done with the intent of furthering his purported cause provides no shelter for him. Inducing emotions of hatred in one person against another can not be allowable and must be punished.
- The declaration that "it's time to start healing and move on" is a falacious way to dealing with how conflicts are resolved. Healing and acceptance do not take place on demand from our leaders. There is a process that must be worked through to allow people who have been injured or treated unjustly to come to terms with that injury. While leadership has a place in helping the collective public conscience put things in proper perspective, it's a mistake to think that a leader can dictate the ripening of that process as a willful outcome. Attempts to prematurely bring the healing process to closure creates a real danger of lack of trust in the process and in the leaders of attempt this. Injustice or injury that does is not properly brought to healing and closure is likely to resurface in unexpected ways and subvert other important processes.
- Implicit in "forgive and forget" is that whoever is being forgiven has indicated some responsibility for the actions that need to be forgiven, and equally important, that the forgiving carries with it a removal of the threat of repetition of the injury. Neither of these conditions has been met. Joe Lieberman has never admitted that he has been mistaken, nor that he has caused injury to those who feel injured by him. He has never taken any action to suggest that his behaviors will be modified to prevent further injury from occurring. In fact, his veiled threats and demands have a sinister air that makes him seem even more threatening. Given this context, I cannot see how "forgive and forget" can realistically be expected.
The second argument made is that Democrats need Joe Lieberman's support in blocking filibusters, and that Joe has voted with the Democrats more than he has voted against them. I think that these arguments have been adequately debunked in a number of other threads. Joe's vote is not critical to blocking filibusters. There are Republicans of conscience who will help legislation that is needed be brought to a vote. On issues that are of vital interest to the majority of the electorate (as opposed to the members of the Senate), people do not feel that Joe has voted in a way that deserves any rewards.
The third argument is that blocking Joe's chairmanship is vindictive and unworthy, and that it sends a message of divisiveness at a time when we need unity. This is a particularly insidious argument, and one that is largely a matter of framing. I suppose if we were discussing whether Joe should be guillotined or jailed for his actions, one might make the case that this was pure vindictiveness. And certainly if we allow this whole discussion to be framed as a matter of "getting even" with Joe, one could argue whether that is appropriate. But I think the whole retribution argument is nonsense: this needs to be framed in light of accountability for one's actions and consequences. If there is a cohesive system of justice that people can feel is a predictable, fairly applied system, they must have a sense that actions have consequences. Words have consequences as well. People become disoriented and their relationship to each other becomes distorted when public figures are deliberately excused from this kind of accountability. It destroys an important underpinning of the structure of our society when this happens. If Lieberman is excused from accountability, what's next? Many of us were outraged by Scooter Libby's pardon. Is overlooking Lieberman's responsibility really different?
The fourth argument is that the people of Connecticut are being unfairly punished for the actions of their Senator. Somehow, I fail to see how this holds any water. Depriving Joe of his Chairmanship has no negative impications directly for the people of Connecticut. In fact, one could mage the argument that the job Joe has done as Chairman has been so shoddy that the people of Connecticut would be relieved if he lost his influence and power. Certainly there is a loss of perceived status, but that is just posturing.
The last idea I would like to explore is that Joe does not deserve to have any consequences imposed by his colleagues because everybody makes mistakes, and since presumably all of the other Senators have committed infractions, no one should presume to judge anyone else. This is a very slippery slope, and one that undermines the entire notion of a knowable, cohesive social structure that can allow the development of a stable civilization. I think it's true that we have to be very careful when setting ourselves as righteous judges. This is a dangerous perch to climb onto, and potentially can result in as much harm as good. But it's disingenuous to argue that we can't set standards and judge (and be judged by) those standards. What is important is that there be further accountability and transparency in the process of making judgments so that there is some assurance that the judgments that are made are done in an impartial and even handed way. It just won't do to throw out the baby with the bathwater and refuse to judge anyone. Not unless we wish to return to the Dark Ages.
I'm sure there are more arguments can be made. My hope is that this will somehow get the attention of Obama and leaders in the Senate, and that they will see the action that needs to be taken before they fire yet another torpedo into the ship of government that is already listing badly and taking on water.