Why Lieberman Should Stay

^{Related: The Democratic Party on Civil Liberties}

Kagro X of DailyKos sums up much of the progressive blogosphere's reaction to the decision to allow Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to continue as a member of the Senate's Democratic leadership:

Sad.

But good for the blogging business, the way a Sarah Palin victory would have been good for the late night comedy business.

Okay, so let's look at the case against letting Lieberman keep his gig: He endorsed McCain, he spoke at the Republican National Convention, he helped a few Republican Senate candidates, and he supported the Iraq War long after he should have. Of these four concerns, the first three are partisan and the fourth is ideological.

I'm not interested in partisan concerns, but the ideological concern is a biggie. Obviously the Iraq War is one of the most important issues our country faces, and Lieberman is on the wrong side of the issue to be a Democrat. This is not a minor issue. But he can hardly be blamed for starting the Iraq War when the vast majority of Democratic senators (including Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden) joined him in his vote to grant President Bush the authority to wage war, and he can hardly be blamed for failing to support the withdrawal of troops when the withdrawal of troops is a decision that rests in the hands of the president, not the Senate. (It's true that the Senate could theoretically defund the war, but that would require a 67-33 majority in order to override the presidential veto--and abruptly defunding the war could prevent personnel from being able to evacuate safely.)

So Lieberman's position on the Iraq War, while not a position shared by mainstream members of the Democratic Party, is not particularly relevant. If that's the only ideological basis for removing Lieberman from his position of leadership and/or from the Democratic caucus, then it's fairly weak.

Its weakness is particularly visible when we compare Lieberman to a socially conservative Democratic senatorial candidate such as former Mississippi governor Ronnie Musgrove (D), who mounted a recent unsuccessful challenge to Senator Roger Wicker (R) for Trent Lott's old seat. Musgrove began his campaign by arguing that the federal government had not done enough to get rid of undocumented immigrants (a position that understandably raised some eyebrows among progressive civil libertarians), then boasted of his terrible record on several key civil liberties issues to prove he wasn't a liberal. From Musgrove's own campaign press release:

Musgrove Broke With National Democrats And Supported Pickering To U.S. Appeals Court: In 2003, Musgrove broke ranks with national Democratic leaders and supported President Bush's nomination of Charles Pickering to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The nomination was blocked by Democrats. (Associated Press, 1/14/04)

Pickering was blocked by Democrats (including Lieberman, who voted against his confirmation) due to his problematic judicial record on civil rights issues. Musgrove went on to crow that he was not especially pro-choice, and was no friend of the LGBT community either:

Musgrove Supported Additional Restrictions On Abortion: In 1990, Musgrove voted to require the licensing of abortion clinics by the State Board of Health. Also, Musgrove voted to require a 24-hour waiting period before a woman could obtain an abortion. In 1991, Musgrove again voted for a bill requiring the waiting period. (Clarion Ledger, 4/1/90; 4/7/91)

Musgrove Banned Public Funding Of Abortion: In April 2002, Musgrove also signed a bill that would ban spending public funds on abortions with a few exceptions (including when the mother's life is in danger, when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or when a fetal malformation is incompatible with the baby being born alive). (Clarion Ledger, 4/18/02 HB 1480, Summary of Legislation 2002)

Musgrove Voted To Require Doctors To Register As Abortion Providers: In 1995, Musgrove voted to require physicians performing more than five abortions per month to have their offices licensed as abortion clinics. (Clarion Ledger, 3/9/95) ...

Musgrove Supported Ban On Gay Adoptions: In March 2000, Musgrove supported a ban on adoption by homosexuals or same-sex couples. The ban not only pertained to adoptions in Mississippi, but also ensured that Mississippi would not recognize adoptions by gay individuals or couples from other states if the parents moved to Mississippi. (Clarion Ledger, 3/23/00)

Musgrove Opposes Gay Marriage: Musgrove opposes gay marriage and believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. (Clarion Ledger, 10/3/08; Sun Herald, 10/22/03)

Lieberman, on the other hand, holds a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America and has one of the strongest pro-LGBT voting records in the U.S. Senate--one that includes co-sponsorship of the original Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in 1996.

There was never any real doubt that Musgrove would be accepted into the Democratic caucus if elected, even though his regressive views on social issues could have substantial real-world consequences in the event of a Republican, or more closely divided Democratic, Senate. But Lieberman's participation in the caucus was called into question, despite the fact that the only major issue about which he is not adequately progressive--the Iraq War--is an issue over which he has no control.

Fortunately, Lieberman's leadership role and his participation in the caucus were both approved by an overwhelming majority of Democratic senators--and this is as it should be. If there is room in the Democratic Party for right-wing Southern candidates who have little respect for a socially progressive vision of civil liberties, then there should certainly be room for a progressive Connecticut civil libertarian like Joe Lieberman.