Here are some excerpts from Joe Lieberman’s September 3, 1998 speech in the U.S. Senate about Bill Clinton’s personal failings. I make no attempt to defend Clinton–what he did was wrong and not acknowleging such for so long was wrong. But I’ll follow with my concern and part of the crux of the argument against the retention of Joe Lieberman as U.S. Senator–that Lieberman has failed to address, let alone condemn, the moral failings of George Bush.
“But the truth is, after much reflection, my feelings of disappointment and anger have not dissipated. Except now these feelings have gone beyond my personal dismay to a larger, graver sense of loss for our country, a reckoning of the damage that the President’s conduct has done to the proud legacy of his presidency, and ultimately an accounting of the impact of his actions on our democracy and its moral foundations.
The implications for our country are so serious that I feel a responsibility to my constituents in Connecticut, as well as to my conscience, to voice my concerns forthrightly and publicly, and I can think of no more appropriate place to do so than the floor of this great body…
…I have come to this floor many times in the past to speak with my colleagues about my concerns, which are widely-held in this chamber and throughout the nation, that our society’s standards are sinking, that our common moral code is deteriorating, and that our public life is coarsening. In doing so, I have specifically criticized leaders of the entertainment industry for the way they have used the enormous influence they wield to weaken our common values. And now because the President commands at least as much attention and exerts at least as much influence on our collective consciousness as any Hollywood celebrity or television show, it is hard to ignore the impact of the misconduct the President has admitted to on our children, our culture and our national character…
…The President is not just the elected leader of our country, he is, as presidential scholar Clinton Rossiter observed, “the one-man distillation of the American people,” and “the personal embodiment and representative of their dignity and majesty,” as President Taft once said. So when his personal conduct is embarrassing, it is so not just for him and his family. It is embarrassing for us all as Americans.
The President is also a role model, who, because of his prominence and the moral authority that emanates from his office, sets standards of behavior for the people he serves. His duty, as the Rev. Nathan Baxter of the National Cathedral here in Washington said in a recent sermon, is nothing less than the stewardship of our values…
…In choosing this path, I fear that the President has undercut the efforts of millions of American parents who are naturally trying to instill in our children the value of honesty. As most any mother or father knows, kids have a singular ability to detect double standards. So we can safely assume that it will be that much more difficult to convince our sons and daughters of the importance of telling the truth when the most powerful man in the nation evades it. Many parents I have spoken with in Connecticut confirm this unfortunate consequence.
The President’s intentional and consistent misstatements may also undercut the trust that the American people have in his word, which would have substantial ramifications for his presidency. Under the Constitution, as presidential scholar Richard Neustadt has noted, the President’s ultimate source of authority, particularly his moral authority, is the power to persuade, to mobilize public opinion and build consensus behind a common agenda, and at this the President has been extraordinarily effective…
…But the President, by virtue of the office he sought and was elected to, has traditionally been held to a higher standard. This is as it should be, because the American president is not, as I quoted earlier, just the one-man distillation of the American people but the most powerful person in the world, and as such the consequences of misbehavior by a President, even private misbehavior, are much greater than that of a an average citizen, a CEO, or even a Senator. That is what I believe presidential scholar James Barber, in his book, The Presidential Character, was getting at when he wrote that the public demands “a sense of legitimacy from, and in, the Presidency. . . There is more to this than dignity, more than propriety. The President is expected to personify our betterness in an inspiring way, to express in what he does and is (not just what he says) a moral idealism which, in much of the public mind, is the very opposite of politics.”
The entire Lieberman speech can be found here:
Joe, whether it be George Bush’s continued monarchal over-reaching of presidential authority, the long term immorality and double-talk that led our country into Iraq, the lies surrounding ‘fixing’ the problems with Social Security, the vulgarity of the Bush-endorsed attacks against the patriotism of Johns Murtha and Kerry, the callous veniality towards the inhabitants of New Orleans, the delinquency towards aiding those in greatest need, the gaping dichotomy between Bush’s words and his scandalous action/inactions–where is your outraged speech on the Senate floor?
Plus,regarding your railings against the entertainment industry, while sometimes deserved, where is YOUR leadership in rallying against the standards of misbehavior so visible by your fellow member role models in the House and the Senate? Does such transgressions and improprieties by national figures have no moral consequences for this nation Joe? Where is your outraged speech on the Senate floor?
If you feel such a personal and professional warmth towards George Bush that you’ll gladly engage in kissy-poo with him, then one can only discern that you accept that our current president’s actions: “…personify our betterness in an inspiring way, to express in what he does and is (not just what he says) a moral idealism which, in much of the public mind, is the very opposite of politics.” — remember Joe, these are your words on presidential inspiration and moral idealism. Otherwise, where is your outraged speech on the Senate fllor?
No, Joe, I’ll take my chances with Ned Lamont if I’m in a battle with the Tom DeLay-ites. I want Ned covering my back–he can better discern who is trustworthy and who is a scammer and he isn’t back living in the Senate of some decades ago where trust was appropriate and agreement actually meant something.
Joe, in today’s political climate, you have to earn the respect of your Republican opponents, make them fear you to at least some degree before rapprochement can even be a possibility. If you are willing to play the avuncular patsy then don’t expect us to fall in lemming-like as you anchor yourself and the Democratic Party into longterm minority political status.
Joe, what is wrong can be summed up in five words: Karl Rove wants you re-elected. ‘Nuff said.
