Joseph Lieberman (R-Conn.?)

At the Diet of Worms in 1521, Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, uttered words that would echo through centuries: “Here I stand; I can do no other.” The phrase is remembered because it captures the magnitude of standing by one’s beliefs.

In Washington, though now it might be Democratic heresy to say it, Senator Lieberman should also take a stand and switch parties.

The reason to belong to a political party is to demonstrate solidarity over a common set of values. Lieberman has many Republican values, but he pretends to be a Democrat for his own political gain. He should stop the charade.

Conversely, Lieberman does not share enough values with the Democratic Party he claims to represent. In fact, he has been building conservative credentials for years. Not only is he a staunch advocate of U.S. involvement in Iraq, he also wants to reform social security, and he publicly supports President Bush’s free trade agenda.

When asked what he would do if Democrats opposed increased funding to troops in Iraq, Lieberman refused to deny the popular rumor that he would switch parties, instead characterizing the idea as a “remote possibility.” His relationship to the Republican Party may indicate otherwise.

Former Gore-Lieberman strategist Donna Brazile summed it up neatly in the Washington Post when she said: “The bottom line is, he is defined as a conservative U.S. Senator.”

Lieberman is a sad excuse for a Democrat, but he has no incentive to change his affiliation. Rather, he uses his image as a “rogue” senator to appeal to voters, and to further himself in the Senate. As a “Democrat-Independent,” he maintains the Democrats’ 51-49 majority, not out of principle but because it affords him a tactical position to wield unwarranted bargaining power. But this “independent” streak is a disguise for his true political orientation. Far from a thoughtful Democrat, he is a former Democrat.

Even if Lieberman’s stretch across the aisle is not just for show, the time has passed when it was necessary that senators be elected for their superior wisdom. In the age of mass media and widespread information, senators have a duty to represent the beliefs of the people who voted for them—an obligation Lieberman shuns in order to protect his own political capital.

Despite leaning on a Republican base to secure electoral victory, the senator remains purposely ambiguous about his party—he required 78 percent of the Republican vote to win in Connecticut this year. Again, Lieberman is able to use his opportunistic politics for personal gain, currying favor with Connecticut’s liberal voters and maximizing his influence as the Democrats’ majority-sealing vote—all without explicitly revealing where he stands. Instead, he should face the truth about his party affiliation and put ethics ahead of his appetite for power.

Of course, a switch might disadvantage the Democratic legislative agenda and please Republicans, but it is an opportunity to transcend party-politics—an area Lieberman likes to claim as his specialty. Realigning with the correct party would make a powerful statement against the culture of self-aggrandizement and insider politics that defines Washington. What better way to prove the “independence” he brags about than to take such a bold action?

Robert G. King ’09-’10, a Crimson editorial comper, is a history concentrator in Winthrop house.