Primary hypocrisy

The difference between Lieberman and Chafee

By James Fullmer
From the October 2006 Print Edition

I’ve always been a big believer in the Golden Rule. Then again, I don’t know of anyone who isn’t a big believer in the Golden Rule, or at least who doesn’t claim to be, so I suppose I just wasted an opening sentence on a trite statement that has been made by hundreds of millions of people in a fair number of different world languages.

Let me rephrase that, then. I’ve always been a big believer in the Golden Rule, even when — actually, especially when — the situation in question is a political one. I’m a proud Republican, don’t get me wrong, but I always find it useful to temper my support for my party’s actions by putting the shoe on the other foot. If an incompetent Republican governor had exacerbated the energy crisis in the same way Gray Davis did, would I have supported his recall? If President Bill Clinton had gone into Iraq, instead of leaving it to President George W. Bush, would I have supported the war? Little thought exercises like these can help me make an objective decision about an issue. (It just so happens that, most of the time, my party is on the right side.)

So, as an assiduous adherent to the Golden Rule, I’m pretty good at sniffing out people who disingenuously try to use it to guilt other people into abandoning facts and, in the interest of not seeming like hypocrites, taking the other side. And nowhere has this been more evident this election season than in the pronouncements of those who would equate the Democratic purge of Joe Lieberman to the Republican primary challenge against Lincoln Chafee.

The basic facts are pretty well known: On August 8, three-term Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman was defeated in his party’s primary by Ned Lamont, whose campaign was fueled by the anger of those in the Democratic Party who disapproved of Lieberman’s support for the war in Iraq.

The defeat was aptly likened to an ideological purge, the likes of which one would expect from the ruling party in a single-party dictatorship. However, on every issue but the war, Lieberman is a card-carrying liberal. For 2005, the American Conservative Union gave him a score of 8 on a scale of 1-100, with 100 being the most conservative. (By way of comparison, moderate Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska received a score of 60. Even Russ I-voted-against-the-USA-Patriot-Act Feingold got a 13.)

If you look at his campaign Web site, Lieberman’s three main issues seem to be preserving a woman’s "right to choose," saving the environment, and bringing jobs to Connecticut. (Hardly a partisan issue, that last one.) Lieberman is a patriot and a statesman — and for that I admire him greatly — but any adulation he has from conservatives definitely shouldn’t have anything to do with the vast majority of his political views.

On September 12, Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island barely held off a primary challenge by former Cranston mayor Stephen Laffey. Chafee, by all accounts the most liberal Republican in the Senate (his ACU rating was a pathetic 12), made headlines when, in 2004, he announced that rather than vote to re-elect President George W. Bush, he would write in former President George H.W. Bush. In fact, no one is quite sure why Chafee is a Republican, since he is pro-choice, pro–gay marriage, pro–gun control, anti-war, anti–tax cut, and was the only Republican to vote against Sam Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

So let’s sum up here: The left would have us believe that we are hypocrites for decrying the primary challenge against Lieberman, while many of us supported a similar primary challenge against Chafee. Well, you got us there, guys — except for the fact that comparing the two primaries is like comparing apples and William of Orange.

On one hand, you had a distinguished senator and former vice presidential nominee, an articulate exponent of his party’s positions 90 percent of the time, and a good and moral statesman, being challenged based on one issue, and one issue only. This single issue was enough to disqualify him from representing his party.

On the other hand, you have an elitist blue-blood who rode his late and great father’s name into office — who in the time he has served has disagreed with his party on nearly every major issue — being challenged on the basis that maybe his party could do a bit better by finding someone who, ideologically, fits into that party. If that’s not a good reason for a primary challenge, I don’t know what is.

For whatever reason, Republicans in Rhode Island saw fit to retain Lincoln Chafee as their nominee. Perhaps he will go on to be the crucial 50th vote to uphold the Republican majority and keep Harry Reid from changing his business cards. If so, we can at least be grateful for that.

Those who supported Laffey in the primary should not be ashamed of their vote. And let us never be pressured into believing that those of us who supported Laffey are in any way similar to the majority of Connecticut Democrats who supported Lamont. You see, when a senator is challenged in his primary because he stands for nothing that his party constituents care about, that’s called democracy. When a senator is punished for his independent thinking on just one issue, well, that’s a purge. And when the primary process leaves the realm of democracy and enters the realm of the purge, it’s time to worry.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot