Whatever Became of Joseph?
Back in 1965, Harvard mathematics professor/topical singer-songwriter Tom Lehrer brought out his classic "That Was the Year That Was." Included among the 7 cuts on side B was a little ditty entitled "Whatever Became of Hubert?" Dedicated to then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey, "who used to be a senator," the song asked:
Whatever became of you Hubert?
We miss you, so tell us please.
Are you sad, are you cross?
Are you gathering moss
While you wait for the boss to sneeze . . .
Do you dream about staging a coup
Hubert what happened to you?
What Lehrer was skewering wasn't so much the then-Vice President's relative unimportance and invisibility, but rather the sad fact that a once prominent progressive had somehow become a political eunuch. Those who remember the Hubert Humphrey of the mid-1940s through early 1960s will recall that he was a fiery, fearless liberal, a man accustomed to standing on the side of the angels. But then came the election of 1964, which turned him into a political castrati. Indeed, it was only mere months after becoming v.p., that Lehrer would lampoon:
Once a fiery and liberal spirit,
Ah, but now when he speaks he must clear it.
Second fiddle's a hard part, I know,
When they don't even give you a bow . . .
Today, nearly 45 years later, many find themselves asking virtually the same questions, albeit with a different name:
Joseph what happened to you?
In this case, the query is about Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman. Now without question, there are several similarities between "Hubert" and "Joseph":
At this point, we must acknowledge two great dissimilarities: Indeed, many are asking that provocative question, "Whatever became of you Joseph?" Because of the fact that nearly all current items, stories, photographs or videos about Senator Lieberman usually have him standing alongside Senator John McCain, people presume that he has "gone over to the other side." Interestingly, this is not necessarily the case. In doing a bit of research, and comparing Lieberman's voting record to some of his most liberal senate colleagues, a fascinating pattern emerges: with one -- perhaps two -- notable exception[s], he is still voting like a liberal. I can hear the catcalls: "How's that?" "Are you crazy?" "Been out in the sun too long?" No, actually, I've got the facts to back it up. When one compares Joseph Lieberman's votes on 12 key issues in the 109th Congress to the votes of the very liberal senators Boxer, Kennedy, Feingold, Clinton and Schumer, one finds that with the exception of a single vote -- S2766 "A Bill expressing the sense of Congress that the president should start to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq in June 2006" -- Lieberman voted precisely the same as his aforementioned colleagues. Like Senators Boxer, Kennedy, Feingold et al, Senator Lieberman voted:
Against limiting debate on a bill to repeal the estate tax.
In other words, when it comes to taxes, civil liberties, the environment and other progressive hot-button issues, the Joseph Lieberman of today is no different from the Joseph Lieberman of yesteryear. It is in the single area -- and a huge one it is indeed -- of war and peace that Lieberman diverges sharply from most -- if not a vast majority -- of his Democratic colleagues.
As they ask in Beverly Hills: vos meinsdie?
Obviously, this means that for Senator Lieberman, the Iraq war is THE defining issue of our time; that everything else is of secondary -- if not tertiary -- importance. This means that when it comes to choosing and casting his lot with a presidential candidate, he uses a single criterion; which candidate will best be able to execute the war along the lines which Senator Lieberman deems to be proper, fitting and in America's -- and perhaps Israel's -- best interests. In other words, it means Lieberman is not all that dissimilar from lots of otherwise progressive voters in America.
Although I certainly share Senator Lieberman's concern about our involvement in Iraq and all that it spells for America's ability to return to being a positive influence for good in the world, I cannot in any way, shape or form share his enthusiasm for Senator McCain. In the few instances when I have discovered that I am standing on a different street corner than other members of the party I call home, I always did my level best to change my party's position; I didn't go out and support the other guy's candidate.
But this is precisely what Senator Lieberman has done. Despite the fact that he has been publicly joined at the hip to Senator McCain for God knows how long, Lieberman continues to caucus with the Democrats. If not, he would lose all his accumulated senate seniority. And that would be an awful lot to lose. For in the 110th Congress, Senator Joseph Lieberman is:
- 4th on Armed Services,
- Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee's subcommittee on Consumer Solutions to Global Warming, and
- Chair of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Joseph Lieberman's seat isn't up until 2012, at which time he will be 70 years old. Whether or not he will have to continue his political high-wire act in order to survive at the polls is anyone's guess. [Remember, he lost the 2006 Democratic primary to Ned Lamont 52%-48%, and was only able to defeat Lamont in the general election with the help of Connecticut's Republican voters.]
Don't get me wrong; Joseph Lieberman is a good man for whom I have a lot of admiration and personal affection. It's just that in this case, he's hitched his horses to a powerfully wrong wagon; one that will undoubtedly continue plodding along the same path it has traveled for the past eight years.
Indeed Joseph, whatever happened to you?
©2008 Kurt F. Stone