- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Let's not kid ourselves. This is the US Senate we're talking about, the closest thing we've got to an "Old Boy's Club" in the US government. It works on a spirit of comity and entitlement, something that in these socially stratified times virtually ensures Lieberman would escape serious reprisal; the fact the Democratic leadership essentially abdicated on this issue to the sentiments of the President-Elect is but the latest failing, but again shouldn't be a surprise as the Senate has always seemed rather removed from its nominal constituents and the consequences of its votes.
That said, lets also not blow this into the sounding of the Final Trumpet. Yes, an unpleasant man has retained chairmanship of a committee of supposed importance, doing so with the apparent blessing of the President-Elect.
Is this necessarily a bad thing? Lieberman hasn't done much to build either his own creditability or that of the Homeland Security Committee; I find it hard to believe that he'll actually convene a hearing or investigation that will probe deeply into, well, anything. Even if he does, how can it possibly be perceived as any kind of 'serious' (i.e. credible) effort given his history and willingness to ignore more recent activities?
Atop this, lets also not turn the man into a national issue. His ultimate fate will be decided by the voters of Connecticut. I'm not even clear why the Democratic leadership was involved here, given Lieberman was an 'Independent' who just 'caucuses' with the Democrats; common sense suggests he shouldn't have Seniority or any real input with the party he abandoned in the first place, but then the rules and procedures that govern the Senate are labyrinthine to say the least.
Do I think he should have been stripped of his Chairmanship? He shouldn't have had it in the first place, never mind the last four years. But he has retained his gavel. Whether he'll do anything with it remains to be seen, and even then its not clear if he'll manage to make serious traction out of it.
I'd also like to speak to an earlier comment about how our democracy is supposed to involve and thrive off the 'clashing of ideas', as opposed to quiet deals in the back room. I don't argue the point there, but I'm hard pressed to think of any period where our democracy and government really was lead by such vigorous exchanges as opposed to back room consensus and horse trading. Can someone please point to such a time? Please?
A final word, concerning "Prime Minister's Questions" over in the UK. I really wouldn't put much stock in it, as the 'answers' the PM or his proxies offer tend to look and sound so 'canned' you get the feeling its just for the cameras and not an actual inquiry. I mean, the PM's stock answer of "I refer the Right Honourable Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago"...what the hell does that even mean? I can't see how it would work here in the US anyway, given our bicameral legislature; the UK Parliament likewise has two houses, but only one has actual involvement in governance.
