Unhelpful

Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman’s decision to continue to run for re-election after losing his party’s primary is an excellent barometer to judge his character by. The primary system is also an excellent barometer to judge our political parties by…

Connecticut has a “closed primary” in which only party members who have declared party affiliation get to vote for their party’s representative in the upcoming general election. Unlike the “open primary” system, the primary in closed primary states is generally more representative of the various parties’ wishes for whom they want to represent them than in open primaries, in which the undecided, uncommitted, and independent voters get a say in which nominee shall represent which party in the upcoming election.

One criticism of the closed primary is that in state districts which predominantly vote for a certain party, or are loathe to support challengers to an established incumbent is that the election is essentially decided by one party in the primary, with the election as a rubber stamp.

A criticism of the open primary is that members of other parties (or of no party) are able in some instances to force the hand of the dominant party by giving (usually) conservative Democrats or liberal Republicans a stronger chance in a primary than if that primary were open only to those with declared party affiliation.

I have absolute disdain for the concept of an open primary. It is my belief that any political party should be able to nominate anyone who represents the interests of that party, and if another party’s members have an issue with that nominee, then they should come up with a superior nominee of their own, rather than vote in another party’s primary in order to “lessen the damage”, so to speak. Open primaries tend to strengthen the hand of the worst sort of politicians whom some people call “moderates” but whom I feel are more accurately described as pandering to the general interests of the two main political parties and their largely overlapping interests. Having more so-called moderates in office mainly serves to stifle debate and new ideas, and strengthens the hands of both the Republicans and Democrats, which in my view have far too much in common already. As someone who regularly votes, in many cases, for third party candidates, I’ve been offended at attempts to hijack open primaries - and it’s happened, though admittedly it usually fails. For me, it’s a matter of free association - any party should be able to be as exclusive or inclusive as it sees fit - exclusivity gives more control of the internal nomination process at the cost of alienating a wider voting base, so in fact it’s in the parties’ best interest to define themselves in such a way that allows for a great deal of participation.

Today’s two main political parties have a problem of definition:

That’s a problem, all right, but it’s only really a problem for the Democrats, who for the most part (via the Democratic Leadership Council) have defined themselves in exactly the same way as Republicans on matters that actually affect most voters’ daily lives. Most people simply aren’t affected by the gay marriage issue. Those who are, are almost certainly exclusively Democrat, or liberals willing to vote Democrat. Those who aren’t affected are only going to vote if they feel that despite not being affected, that civilization is going to go to Hell in a hand basket if Fred can get his gay on with Frank after they trade wedding rings and swearing fealty to the Prince of Darkness. People whom aren’t gay and aren’t terribly bothered by it for the most part aren’t thinking too much about the issue come election day. The net result is that the Republicans gain a base-activating issue and everyone else is voting their pocketbook.

Abortion is also more an issue for Republicans than Democrats. Most people have simply not had this issue in their lives, and the vast majority of Americans, regardless on their feelings about the necessity of abortion being legal, wish to keep it as rare as possible: the Republicans, by legislation, and the Democrats by increased availability of contraceptive options for those whose choices in such matters are usually missing a few options, which is to say the very poor, the young, and the very stupid. God help you if you’re poor, young, and stupid. Nobody, except the most attention-starved, is suggesting that not only should abortion be legal, but that it should be promoted at an equal level with contraception (except the Republicans, whose right wing would in fact fund them equally, which is to say not at all, because of religious beliefs which actually have a lot more to do with the crisis of Catholic Church-owned property in medieval Europe than with the Bible, be they Catholic or Protestant).

About the only issue that actually affects most people that seems to be up for grabs in this election is the matter of the war in Iraq. The only reason this is even an option for rational political discussion is that our losses keep mounting years after Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” cruise. Now, the Democrats have come up with the novel idea of the “loyal opposition”, not novel in itself, but novel in that they’ve seemingly re-discovered the meaning of “opposition”. Congratu-fucking-lations.

After giving the Republican party a virtual monopoly on the patriotism front, it seems a few Democrats have decided to follow the lead of the electorate and come to the startling realization that maybe, just possible, “supporting the troops” means something other than “keeping your moral objections to yourself” - something the right wing of the Republican Party has certainly never felt a virtue.

For three years, the American public has been fooled (willingly for the most part) that buying “Support Our Troops” car magnets is a better means of helping out your average enlisted man than perhaps demanding that troops be paid a salary commensurate with the danger they face, that “Staying the Course” by celebrating the strengths of character exhibited by loved ones killed or wounded in battle is a more effective strategy than holding the Bush (and Clinton, and Bush Sr.) Administration accountable for continually supporting Saddam Hussein’s grip on power in Iraq until the enemy of our enemy turned out not to be our friend, and that calling into question the patriotism of those who question our motives in the Middle East is better than trying to find out why it is, exactly, that “they” hate us. For that matter, we’d do well to define who “they” are as well as figure out why “they” hate us, before moving on to whether they have a point or not. Note: it’s not because Osama bin Laden burns with rage at the fact that we’re “free”. I’m pretty sure he couldn’t give a damn, though I bet he’s mildly upset that we stopped funding him in the late 80’s, again thanks to the logical fallacy of “enemy of my enemy is my friend” committed by the Carter and Reagan administrations.

Joe Lieberman’s main points of disagreement with the winner of his party’s primary, Thomas Lamont, have been Lieberman’s perceived unqualified support of the Bush administration’s handling of Iraq, Lieberman’s position against gay marriage, Lieberman’s support of the death penalty, and Lieberman’s views about health care, which are not surprisingly very much in line with the DLC faction of the Democratic Party, which knows it can’t afford to risk putting its lobby money in jeopardy by offending the potential political donors in the elite echelons of the health care and pharmaceutical industry. It shouldn’t be too much of a surprise that Democrats looking at Joe didn’t see someone who represented their interests, now that the average voter is less likely to apply support of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy as a litmus test of patriotism as it did in 2004. They saw someone indistinguishable from the “moderate” wing of the Republican Party. Presumably if that’s what they were after, they’d have, you know, declared themselves Republicans instead of Democrats.

Lieberman’s campaign has been criticized by creating parodies of Lamont’s campaign materials, including a mock up of a pumper sticker reading “all Lamont has to say is ‘No More Joe’”. To think that this fake sticker was a decisive and effective barb against Lamont’s run instead of a very real reason a lot of Connecticut Democrats voted for Lamont’s nomination speaks volumes. Joe, they get it: he’s not you. That’s why they voted for him, genius.

As the Democrats send Joe packing, from a closed primary in which Democrats supposedly get to decide the nominee for the Democratic Party in the general election, Lieberman’s conclusion is that his state and country are best served by him remaining in office by mounting an independent campaign against his Republican challenger as well as the rightful Democratic nominee. The history of incumbents who are defeated by their own party who run independently to maintain their office indicates that Joe Lieberman’s chances of doing so are not good to say the least. In order to have a chance of succeeding, got to do the one thing that Democrats left him for in the first place - start looking a hell of a lot more like a “moderate” Republican. Again, Lieberman reinforces his critics’ arguments.

In declaring himself an independent incumbent candidate, he’s made it clear that he considers his personal power and (dubious) charisma far more important than the interests of either the Connecticut Democrats or his broader constituency.

In short, I think Lieberman’s very likely finished the job that Connecticut Democrats started: ending his career. Though I am not from Connecticut, and I can’t say for certain that it wasn’t an issue, I see it as just desserts for one more reason that hasn’t been as big an issue in the media as it is for me: censorship.

Lieberman co-sponsored Hillary Clinton’s Family Entertainment Protection Act, which is par for the course for the DLC faction of the Democratic Party, using censorship of “offensive” popular culture to combat the religious fundamentalist notion that the Democratic Party and the general culture itself supports and is in some degree responsible for the supposed moral breakdown of civilization. Like the PMRC before them (and including many of the same voices), advocates of the FEPA suggest that banning violence and insensitivity in video games, music and movies is the key to keeping the barbaric opponents of Goodness and Christian Decency at the gates. The last time this coalition of pandering Democrats and oversensitive fundamentalists actually won one of these battles was during the push to get the “V-chip” mandated on all new televisions manufactured for the US market after 2000, which was part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

In 2005, the Parents Television Council provided statistics about V-chip usage. I’m not certain of their agenda or method, but I’m going to take them at their word for rhetoric’s sake. They claim that 15% of parents have used the V-chip, and 61% of those who have found it useful. During the discussion of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the V-chip was presented as the crucial tool that all parents needed in order to save their families from moral turpitude. It was so necessary that it had to be mandated technology on new TV sets, which means that even if I don’t need it or want it, I am required by federal law to be given only television receiver choices which include the technology. Any time I have to buy something I don’t need because the law says someone else does, in my eyes, that’s subsidy: I and everyone else who doesn’t need or want the V-chip has funded its development and manufacture on merits of it paying for it regardless. So overwhelming was the need for this technology that my needs don’t even matter when it comes to “protecting the children”! According to 2003 data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, “family households” constitute about 31% of American households. I put that in quotes because I can’t find how young a resident dependent has to be for household to count as a “family household”. It may count any dependent child under 21, it probably includes at least older teenagers who presumably are given more discretion as to their media consumption. Even with that caveat, these numbers are revealing: 31% of American households are “family households”. 15% of “family households” have actually gave enough of a damn to use the V-chip. 61% of those who have found it useful. So “family households” who used the V-chip and actually found it useful account for … less than three percent of American families. All that posturing over the Telecommunication Act of 1996, and of the PMRC, and now over the FEPA, to give parents tools, at the general consumer’s expense, that few actually want, and fewer yet find use for. In fact, one of the biggest contributors to that 15% number is the fact that most parents aren’t even aware that their newer television even has a V-chip.

The “v” in “V-chip” originally stood for “violence”. Such acronyms generally expand their original domain, so even though “DVD” originally stood for “Digital Video Disc”, it has now been back-cast to the inane and wonky “Digital Versatile Disc”. In the same spirit, once the Moral Majority Republicans and the spineless faction of the Democratic Party, who primarily agree that the worst thing about the Constitution of the United States is that pesky First Amendment, realized that the very fabric of American society was under attack not only from violence but from sex, drug use, and profanity (and presumably, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, though they couldn’t have known that then). Faced with this, the actual official meaning of the “v” in “V-chip” is the German word verboten. The irony here is so goddamn obvious that it isn’t even irony so much as apt commentary.

Joseph Lieberman, on behalf of freedom loving Americans outside Connecticut who haven’t yet had much of an official say in the matter, I cordially invite you to fuck yourself. It’s about the one thing you’ve proven yourself at.