Obama, Lieberman, and New Years' Resolutions

Somebody please share Glenn Greenwald's excellent piece about bipartisanship with my parents. I'm done trying to convince them that up is not, in fact, down. No matter how many times you try to explain to some people that "the left", as exemplified by Congressional Democrats, is actually the left of the right, you just can't compete with the Faux News propaganda that delights in painting conservative Democrats as far-left loonies. To be fair, there are some legitimately liberal Democrats in Congress, but I'll bet I could count them on my digits and never have to take off my shoes.

So while I agree completely with Greenwald regarding bipartisanship (we need much less, not more), I'm going to stick my neck out and differ from what seems to be the majority liberal opinion on Lieberman.

Personally, I can't stand the guy. I think he's partially responsible for Gore 'losing' in the first place, and he's got the personal appeal of a sticky gym sock. I don't, however, think he's a traitor or a Benedict Arnold as I see many on the left calling him, and I think it's disingenuous to make claims like that while applauding rational Republicans like Ron Paul or Chuck Hagel when they vocally refuse to toe their party's line.

I agree that allowing Lieberman to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee after he campaigned for McCain (and said some somewhat nasty things about Obama while he was at it) is questionable, I'm willing to give the President-Elect the benefit of the doubt. After all, I supported the guy knowing full well that he was a centrist. And I do believe that Lieberman's colleagues voted the way they did (allowing him to retain his chairmanship) because Obama wanted it so. I suspect there was a certain amount of political calculation involved there, fueled by the lingering possibility that Democrats could still reach that magical 60 number in the Senate (which is purely symbolic and not at all substantive in any truly practical way).

In the end though, I think it boils down to this: while I might have preferred to punish Lieberman more severely, as many others did too, Barack Obama didn't want that simply because he is better than I am. That's why I voted for him. He's confident, magnanimous, and he full well realizes that there is no sense in punishing the vanquished when you are the victor. He won, dammit. Just because it is impossible to unite Americans doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried, and how could Obama move that ball forward if he behaved like a Republican and encouraged his colleagues to marginalize and punish Lieberman for opposing him, sowing the seeds of division?

It strikes me that it's also entirely possible that Lieberman, as someone who has embraced a more fearful (if seemingly irrational) view of the threats to our country than Obama, might actually do a better job on that committee than someone who has become anaesthetized to the Right's cries of 'wolf!'. It could be a presciently pragmatic decision in that way.

The past eight years have taught us well to embrace and cultivate division. Bush and his supporters have made themselves damned easy to riducule and scorn, and the natural reaction to being attacked is to counterattack. We liberals, many or most of us, have allowed ourselves to see our own country as a battlefield, our own neighbors--family members even--as opponents. Just because we've been attacked and likened to terrorists or terrorist-sympathizers is not a good excuse. Yes, it's disheartening when adults with power say such childish things, but reacting in anger is like arguing with a three-year-old for calling you a poopyhead.

For Barack Obama's sake (by which I mean for the sake of progress and unity), I'm going to try to do better than that, and to see the wisdom of forgiveness. Rather than thinking of others, "you're wrong, you're ignorant, and I'd like to spit in your eye", I resolve to try to replace those thoughts with something more like, "I'm sorry you feel that way." I resolve better to internalize Yoda's lessons that anger, fear, and hate pave the path to the Dark Side, and giving in to them only serves the interests of Karl Rove, Emporer Palpatine, and their red-sabered brethren.

Criticism is necessary, but as a tool, not as a weapon. It is for building--not for destroying.

Now--you can go ahead and call me a big fat hypocrite. But please--do it with affection, will ya?