Lieberman's Seedy Side

The Clinton Years have bequeathed the nation a low standard of public probity and a distorted definition of morality in politics. The latest proof of this was the reaction in political-media-land to Joe Lieberman, the supposedly better-half of the Democratic national ticket.

The Senator from Connecticut was hailed far and wide. The Reverend Jerry Falwell praised Leiberman's "impeccable character." NBC's Forrest Sawyer described him as "widely regarded as a man of high moral standards." Senator Arlen Specter noted his "integrity." GOP virtue czar Bill Bennett bleated, "He is a great guy. I'm going to offer to do a nominating speech." The Gore campaign was so enthused by Bennett's opinion it put out a press release highlighting his remarks. A Washington Post news story described Lieberman as "a two-term lawmaker with a reputation for truth-telling." And Democratic consultant Peter Hart cheered the Lieberman selection as a clever way for Gore to attract those honesty-in-government nerds drawn to Ralph Nader's candidacy. Lieberman, Hart maintained, "is ethically clean and sort of stands for purity, which is what I think the Nader vote is."

Let's conduct an exercise. Suppose that Gore had chosen, say, Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota -- another Jew -- to join his not-yet-excellent adventure. How might Wellstone, a feisty progressive populist from Minnesota, have been described by the chattering class? A far-left Democrat? A confrontational retro-liberal? An "Old Democrat" throwback?

It's doubtful he would have been cast first and foremost as a man of sound character and firm principles -- even though his integrity has not been questioned and he speaks his mind more forthrightly than most pols. Some commentators might mention that he has been a persistent and high-minded advocate of political reform. But he would not be celebrated as a moral compass in a suit.

Why was Lieberman beatified? Much of Lieberman's image as a man of rectitude is due to the statement he delivered on the Senate floor on September 3, 1998. As the media has reminded us a thousand times, he slammed President Bill Clinton -- the leader of his party and a friend who had been a Liberman campaign volunteer in the 1970s -- for engaging in intern-sex. "Such behavior is not just inappropriate," Lieberman asserted. "It is immoral. And it is harmful, for it sends a message of what is acceptable behavior to the larger American family, particularly to our children."

As the first major Democrat to scold Clinton -- which he only did after Clinton publicly confessed -- Lieberman sealed his rep. So much so that when Gore desperately thumbed through the Yellow Pages for "moral authority," he apparently found only one listing: Joe Lieberman.

Is whacking a White House adulterer for lying the best test of moral mettle? What of Lieberman's own involvement in the degradation of the political culture? Without apology, he pockets large sums of money from corporate special interests and promotes legislation that favors them. He is a leading recipient of funds from Big Insurance -- over $197,000 so far in this campaign cycle. And -- coincidence or not -- he has pressed for health care measures the industry desires and that consumer advocates criticize. He has opposed permitting patients to sue negligent HMOs for punitive damages. He supported product liability reform, which would make it difficult for consumers to sue businesses that manufacture and sell defective and dangerous products. Lieberman is a hardass on presidential responsibility, but permissive regarding corporate responsibility.

Isn't it reasonable for a citizen to look at this set-up -- money in, legislation out -- and wonder whether Lieberman deserves the title of Mr. Integrity?

He wallows in institutional sleaze of Washington -- $91,000 from the pharmaceuticals industry; $211,000 from the securities industry -- as much as most members of Congress. Lieberman also chairs the Democratic Leadership Council, a pro-business outfit financed largely by corporate lobbyists who do their best to squeeze special treatment out of Congress. These lobbyist-funders generally do not hesitate to place their interests ahead of the public interest when necessary. Where's the moral leadership in hanging with this crowd?