Limping Towards Victory

The Democrats need to recognize what an immense waste the Lamont-Lieberman race was for the party.

You’ve got to hand it to the Democratic Party: Even after shooting itself in the foot, it still managed to cross the finish line. The party’s resounding election day victory seems even more miraculous considering the many missteps made by the Democratic leadership throughout the election, the most prominent of which was the abandonment of Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in favor of a tacit moral support for political newcomer Edward “Ned” M. Lamont, Jr. ’76.

After losing the Democratic primary to Lamont and choosing to continue in the race as an Independent, Lieberman ultimately won an impressive victory, recapturing his Senate seat for a fourth term. Lieberman has agreed to remain within the Democratic caucus, allowing him to maintain his seniority and become chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. But Lieberman’s status as an independent makes it all the more painless for him to switch sides as he pleases, taking the Democrats’ precarious 51-seat majority with him. This unique situation makes Lieberman one of the most powerful people in the Senate.

The utter failure of the Lamont campaign to unseat Lieberman makes one wonder: Was any of this actually worth it? Lamont and his base of left-wing support in the blogosphere consistently attacked Lieberman for his staunch support of the Iraq war and his willingness to work with the Republican administration. Focusing on this subject alone, they ignored the fact that Lieberman has remained a loyal Democrat on the vast majority of issues including environmentalism, a woman’s right to choose, and government assistance to the poor and elderly.

Did Lieberman, a seasoned Democratic senator, deserve to be replaced by a political novice simply over his divergence on one issue? The voters of Connecticut apparently didn’t think so. And even those who did support Lamont in his Senate bid must be cringing at the sheer waste of time and resources that took place during the Connecticut Senate elections.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Lieberman spent over $13 million in his campaign, and Lamont spent over $12 million (including $10 million of his own money). Especially in light of recent statements by Democratic strategists that the Democrats could have captured 40 instead of 29 House seats if more money had been devoted to House races, one wonders if the $25 million spent by Lamont and Lieberman could have gone to better use.

Now that the Democratic Party has control of Congress, its first step should be to get its own house in order and prevent tactless would-be politicians like Lamont from making anymore wasteful political grabs in the future. The Democratic leadership had ample opportunities to subdue the Lamont campaign and assert its support for Lieberman during and after the primary, yet it balked each time. Now, the leadership needs to assess the role it wants fringe activists to play in its party politics and recognize that however contentious the Iraq war may currently be, the Democrats cannot risk becoming a one-issue party. The time is ripe for the Democratic Party to learn the lessons of this election and get ready to soar across the finish line in 2008.



Jacob M. Victor ’09, a Crimson editorial comper, is a social studies concentrator in Leverett House.