Same Hypocrisy, Different Day

Politics

When Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary in Connecticut to Ned Lamont a few years ago, he decided to leave the Democrat party and become an Independent so he could win the general election. It worked, but the Democrat-controlled Senate punished him by not allowing him to keep his seniority — this new Independent Joe was deemed to be completely different from the Democrat Joe that had served for 18 years, so he was stripped of his rank. I remember the outcry from Democrats at the time Lieberman made the decision to leave the Democrat party, calling him opportunistic and shameful. Chris Dodd, fellow senator from Connecticut, said he disapproved of the decision. And I remember Republicans hailing Joe as being true to his values and standing up for what he thought was right. Heck, the Republicans had him give a speech at the Republican National Convention in 2008 for John McCain, and he’s not even a registered Republican.

Now I see these same Democrats cheering Arlen Spector for doing the exact same thing they disapproved of Lieberman doing, because now he’s helping their party instead of hurting it. Spector is a hero and is welcomed with open arms. Democrats  even say they will honor his seniority of 29 years so he can keep his rank on his Senate committees — something they did not offer Lieberman. And I see these same Republicans calling Spector a traitor (Benedict Arlen) and an opportunist for leaving the party, and a liar because he said a month ago that he would not switch parties. And if they were in power right now, they’d be stripping Spector of his seniority the way the Democrats did to Lieberman.

Lieberman and Spector are both political opportunists. They did what they did so they could keep their seat at the table in Washington, plain and simple. At his press conference, Spector tried to explain why he made the switch. And after first saying that his views have changed and he finds himself more in line with Democrats now (despite voting against them in his first vote after he made the switch), eventually he admitted that what it ultimately came down to was that he had seen the primary polls and knew he could not win in the primary election. He said he was not willing to let the Republican primary voters decide whether his 29-year career in the Senate would be over – never mind the fact that he was perfectly fine letting these same voters play a part in deciding his fate for the last 29 years.

It seems opportunism and shamelessness only apply to people in the other party. The hypocrisy is blatant and disgusting, and just one of the many reasons most people don’t trust politicians, and are so disenchanted with the political system. It seems the only standard, the thing that matters most to politicians, is what will make their party more powerful. The American people are a distant second or third on the list of what matters to our national political parties and to far too many politicians. I find that truly shameful.

UPDATE 5/6: It appears that despite their promises by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) to let Spector keep his seniority on his committees, the Democrats have passed a measure that moves him behind all other Democrats on all but one of his committees. (The committee on which he retains his seniority — the Special Committee on Aging. Poetic justice?) I guess when Spector goes back on his promise not to switch, he can’t really complain when other people break their promises to him, can he?

7 Comments

7 Comments

  1. Benjamin Seghers  •  May 5, 2009 @12:08 pm

    Perhaps Lieberman did change his political affiliations so he could better win the election. But I would not consider him a Democrat based on his political ideology. Would you?

  2. ProfSwitzer  •  May 5, 2009 @12:09 pm

    On social issues he falls in line relatively well with the Democrats, but not on foreign policy.

  3. Benjamin Seghers  •  May 5, 2009 @12:20 pm

    So what’s he to do in that situation?

  4. Nik Drescher  •  May 5, 2009 @12:33 pm

    Dave i agree with all the points here except one. They (“edit expletive” politician’s) do not care about making their party more powerful (or some of them do not). All they care about is furthering their personal agendas and making themselves more powerful. (Wow I just went from “moderately conservative” to “scary, crazy guy in line at the bus stop”)
    Anyways I might only be 23 years old, but all I expect out of any politician is hypocrisy, lies, self promotion, and the need to be “important” and powerful. Usually in our world of politics the good, honest, and honorable are weeded out or have to fall to the standards of their opponents.

  5. ProfSwitzer  •  May 5, 2009 @12:33 pm

    Benjamin — Lieberman’s views hadn’t changed. They’d been that way for years. His switch was not an ideological one — it was to keep his Senate seat. If he had changed his views and then wanted to switch parties as a result, that would be one thing and I could respect it. I don’t think that’s what this was. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s what it looks like to me.

  6. ProfSwitzer  •  May 5, 2009 @12:34 pm

    Janet Napolitano’s going to come looking for you now, Nik. Watch your back.

  7. Zach  •  May 5, 2009 @9:36 pm

    Prof. Switzer,
    I couldn’t agree more and that is why I find it more and more difficult to vote. I think it was George Washington that said and I am paraphrasing everybody should serve there country by being in an office but only for a short period of time. Many of these politicians need to leave office, I think that senators should have a 12 year cap and representatives an 8 year cap with no person able to serve more than 16 years in the federal government including Presidency or Vice Presidency.

Leave a Reply