Lieberman

The vote was today, and the Senate Democrats voted essentially to ignore common sense and allow Lieberman to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. This is the sort of thing that makes me angry.

It's not as bad as the Dems capitulation in recent years on all questionable national security measures (FISA, the Patriot Act) but it's not a good start to this supposed new era of Democratic leadership.

I didn't want Lieberman kicked out of the party. But it seemed pretty simple - support the other party's candidate and badmouth your own, lose your most powerful platform. The justifications don't make sense to me - the talk about reconciliation and unity to honor Obama's message is the worst sort of smokescreen. This feels, pure and simple, like Congressmen unwilling to take a stand to take power away from a colleague because they don't want to have to worry about losing power themselves.

I don't advocate holding committee spots over the head of any legislator who breaks ranks on an issue. In fact, I would be even more angry about that sort of move, which seems more in keeping with the Tom DeLay school of political philosophy. Principled stands on issues, or even a crass political move on a vote, doesn't merit retribution from the party. But this isn't about one issue, or any principled stand, it's about a Senator who has actively campaigned against the symbolic head of the party, as well as staked out ground well to the right of where the party should be heading.

What really makes me angry at this move isn't even the issues surrounding the Lieberman vote, but what it tells us about the mood of the party leadership. The Democrats have been playing scared for a long time, even after picking up control in 2006. After riding a wave of obvious sentiment against the way the country has been governed and Bush's presidency, instead of making coherent arguments and standing up against Bush on key votes, instead they've made an occasional valid point and then immediately backed down once the votes were cast. It's as though Rove's politics of fear have the bulk of the Democratic congress so worried about falling prey to easy attacks on complex votes they aren't willing to do anything that might give the other side an opening.

To me, this was the most exciting thing about Obama's campaign. On some key points, when the opposition was trying to stir up resentment about his positions Obama didn't take the bait. Instead of retreating or responding in kind, he actually stood behind his position. Look at his speech on the politics of race. Or his willingness to stand behind his statements about pursuing diplomatic talks with our enemies.

I think there is a real danger of the Democrats losing the public affection they've gained in the past two election cycles, but to me the most likely way that will happen is by concentrating on votes that are clearly designed to benefit the people passing them - by worrying more about amassing power than benefiting the nation. And by not passing sweeping reforms of a progressive bent. The situation calls for large measures, and the leadership should be willing to make complex arguments to the American public, even if such moves may be seen as politically unpopular in the short term.

What this vote tells me is the Democratic Senate is not going to be interested in those sorts of large-scale measures or complex discussions. They're going to be interested in enjoying the political power they've been denied for much of the past three decades. And this is going to be the surest way to screw it all up.