Hating Joe Lieberman
Until now, I was unaware of the existence of LDS (Lieberman Derangement Syndrome). But Emily Bazelon certainly demonstrates it in her farewell letter to Lieberman, published in Slate.
It ain’t no Valentine. Bazelon begins with the following admission:
My corner of Connecticut was covered in ice today, until news broke of Sen. Joe Lieberman’s impending retirement. Magically, a warm glow spread. It was a delicious feeling: the end of the reign of the politician I despise most.
Why do I loathe, loathe, loathe my 68-year-old four-term senator? My feelings are all the stronger for being fairly irrational.
Then why, why, why, oh why, should anyone care what she says? On a blog, perhaps; many blog readers like to read the personal feelings of their hosts, and the more rabid the better. But how is it that a supposedly serious journalist, Slate editor and legal expert, writer for such formerly august publications as the Atlantic and the WaPo, is indulging in this irrational venting of spleen and expecting us to respect her for it?
Just to give you the flavor of the piece, Bazelon approvingly quotes a friend’s unsupported statements that Lieberman’s observance of Jewish law has been more politically opportunistic than sincere. Funny, I hadn’t noticed that observing the Jewish sabbath is a sure ticket to election, even in Connecticut, but who needs to use reason when you’ve got hate?
It gets Bazelon’s goat that Lieberman denounced Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky affair, although I’d lay money on the fact that, had Clinton been a Republican having sex (or not exactly having sex) with Lewinsky, Bazelon would have been one of the first to condemn him. Her problem with Lieberman was that he stuck to principle above party loyalty, because his siding against Clinton was “a gift to the president’s enemies.” Reason enough to hate a person, don’t you think?
Another source of Bazelon’s ire seems to have been when Lieberman took the stand that Catholic hospitals not be compelled to offer the morning after pill to rape victims, and his pointing out that in Connecticut it’s not a long trip to get to a hospital that does.
And what does a phrase like the following mean coming from a person who purports to be a serious journalist, “Lieberman’s unrequited, unquenchable love for the Iraq war?” It not only suggests that Lieberman advocated the war because he’s a bloodthirsty lover of killing, but it makes me wonder how love for war could be ever be “requited.”
Bazelon is unrepentant, and hardly alone in her LDR. In a telling moment, she quotes a friend as referring to “many rounds of playing the peculiar Connecticut liberal cocktail party game ‘I hated Joe Lieberman before you hated Joe Lieberman.'” That may just be the key phrase in the entire piece, because I think what’s happening here is that Bazelon is continuing that liberal cocktail party game among her friends at Slate.
It’s not a pretty game, but it seems like fun to play. As best I can recall, the first time this sort of tone was aired in a supposedly reputable periodical was back in September of 2003, when TNR’s Jonathan Chait came out of the closet with his confessional column that began with the famous line, “I hate President George W. Bush.”
Chait’s piece was curiously like Bazelon’s, or maybe it’s the other way around. Like her, he freely admitted that his hatred had springs that were not altogether substantive:
I think his policies rank him among the worst presidents in U.S. history. And, while I’m tempted to leave it at that, the truth is that I hate him for less substantive reasons, too…He reminds me of a certain type I knew in high school–the kid who was given a fancy sports car for his sixteenth birthday and believed that he had somehow earned it. I hate the way he walks–shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo. I hate the way he talks–blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudopopulist twang.
It goes on, but I’ll stop there—except to say that journalists such as this have no reason to complain about invective in public discourse.
I voted for Joe last time along with most other Republicans since he was a national security liberal. This was his only defection from leftist positions (he toyed with school choice but the union pressure was too strong).
I didn’t understand all the anger in the left (yes Ned Lamont was an old red diaper baby, but still) since Joe organized with the Dems, introduced the Cap & Trade bills and supported obamacare. The more I think about it the more it is that he is a Jew and supports the traditional US role in the world. The old leftist hate of the US as a guarantor of a “liberal” world combined with the new leftist antisemitism is a potent mix.
@ Bazelon, “More old-timer liberal grudges against Lieberman: He denounced Bill Clinton in 1998 over Monica Lewinsky, a gift to the president’s enemies.”
This is the heart of the problem with much of the Left. Nothing, absolutely nothing, trumps the ire of their hatred more than their irrational hatred for domestic political foes. Never mind that these political foes are democratically elected and thus within the sphere of liberalism and the constructs of a free society. No, all sincerity, all principles are forfeited if as much as a pin-prick of damage can be inflicted upon the other side of the aisle. The perspective is devoid of priority. Many things are worthy of very strong opposition in domestic politics but not the words, “I loathe, loathe, loathe…Lieberman (Centrist)” I mean what’s left for the real enemies of freedom if we hate so much within freedom.
I moved to Connecticut in 1989 too, I miss New York style pizza, bad.
A real Jezebel and Cruella DeVille that one. A wounded badger has a better disposition. I’m sure she hates Trig Palin too, not only because he is male and the son of Sarah Palin, but because he’s one that got away.
Just one more example of the “Civility is for thee not for me” theme from our friends on the other side of the aisle.
nyomythus: you don’t like the New Haven variety? I like em both.
If i had to guess, I’d put Lieberman in the liberal ca. 1985 category. Pretty much typical of liberals i knew back then that have since gone bat s*** crazy and called it progress.
The problem is Joe still hangs on to that 25 year old antiquated idea of goodness and decency. That one characteristic is what gets him hated by modern libs. And there is no policy position he could ever alter or a vote he could cast that would change that.
I think SteveH has it right. Lieberman is a Pat Moynihan, HH Humphrey, Scoop Jackson old school liberal. Lieberman’s style of liberalism has largely gone the way of the dinosaur. In general today’s ‘liberals’ are anything but liberal; they’re illogical, emotive, and driven by dogma. Its become a cult where everyone drinks the same kool-aid.
BTW, I was not chagrined by Clinton’s relationship with Lewinsky. What I felt was a sense of betrayal of his oath of office when he committed perjury to cover it up.
I find it a bit ironic that the left who consider themselves rational and intellectually superior to every one else are so eaten up with irrational hatred.
1. Never mind that for 2009 Lieberman received a rating of 95/100 from the Americans for Democratic Action and a rating of 20/100 from the American Conservative Union. It’s all about how you feeeeel right here right now.
2. Neo’s biographical link to Wikipedia notes that Bazelon went to Yale and Yale Law (where she holds a research position) and clerked at a federal appeals court.
3. Before today I agreed with the proposition that there is something very very wrong with America’s elites, but this post has brought the point very sharply home.
Joe was somewhat supportive of Israel, but in almost every other issue he was a Leftist.
Remember, he ran with Gore–need I say more?
gs: you may also recognize the last name “Bazelon.” She is the granddaughter of the well-known liberal judge David L. Bazelon.
The very same reasons that Bazelon loathes Lieberman are the reasons that I respected him back when I still thought I was a liberal. It seemed to me that he stood on principle rather than blind partisanship. Silly me, I thought liberals believed in that kind of thing.
Liberals seem to be a dying breed. Today’s Democrats are mostly hard-core leftists, and there’s nothing liberal about them. They are totalitarians.
1. Neo, thanks, I didn’t recognize it but learned it via your link.
2. rick@January 19th, 2011 at 9:25 pm, according to a recent Gallup poll, 61% of liberals have a positive image of socialism.
Neo: Sally’s or Pepe’s? Sally’s rocks. And you can be a Facebook friend of Rudy’s, if that isn’t too infra dignitatem.
Bazelon describes her own thinking on Lieberman as “fairly irrational.”
‘Nuf said.
Just as a thought, Lieberman Derangement Syndrome might not the handle you want to hang on this, given that the acronym LDS has already been claimed by our Mormon friends.
BRD, then how about Lieberman Syndromic Derangement?
Opposite time: I don’t think, given the opportunity, I would vote for Mr. Lieberman based on his voting record, but I really liked the dude because he seems like a “handshake,” straight-shooter kind of guy.
I took a lot of LDS in the 60s and it really messed up my mind.
I thought this was insightful: from Taranto’s WSJ column yesterday.
… This unhinged hatred of Palin comes mostly from women. That is an awkward observation for us to offer, because a man risks sounding sexist or unchivalrous when he makes unflattering generalizations about women. Therefore, we are going to hide behind the skirts of our friend Jessica Faller, a New Yorker in her 30s of generally liberal politics. Over the weekend, she wrote us this analysis of Palin-hatred, which she has generously given us permission to quote:
I am starting out with a guess that this stems from her abrupt appearance on the national scene during the McCain-Obama race. She appeared out of nowhere and landed squarely in a position of extreme attention and media power. Her sex appeal might not have been as much of an issue had she been a known entity with a tremendous, watertight political résumé.
Even lacking that, her sex appeal might not have been such an issue if her demeanor on the campaign trail had been more, well, conservative. But here is this comely woman, in a curvy red suit, giving “shout-outs” during the debate with Joe Biden, giving controversial interviews without apology, basically driving in there, parking the car, and walking in like she owned the place.
I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. But she couldn’t have pulled it off if she were a gray mouse in a pantsuit, and because the devil in the red dress wasn’t orating like a professor, it roused an unquenchable forest fire of rage and loathing in the breasts of many women, perhaps of the toiling gray mouse variety, who projected onto her their own career resentments and personal frustrations.
I am amazed at how people still abhor her. I personally do not. I don’t feel she would be a good choice to run this country, but she does not deserve the horrific treatment she gets. I can tell you, being privy to the endless, incendiary rants this past week about her, coming from hordes of liberal women–age demo 25 to 45–they rip her to pieces, they blame her for everything, and the jealousy/resentment factor is so clear and primal. I’ve never seen anything like it.
We’d say this goes beyond mere jealousy. For many liberal women, Palin threatens their sexual identity, which is bound up with their politics in a way that it is not for any other group (possibly excepting gays, though that is unrelated to today’s topic).
All the above should be in quotes, except the first line. Taranto had a good deal more to say; the column is titled “Palinoia, the Destroyer.”
I think his friend’s theory is that it’s a kind of malignant envy on steroids. “Walking in like she owned the place.” How dare she be so successful, married to such a great-looking, macho guy, have several kids, and be a happy conservative? NOT ONE OF US?
All we can do is continually defeat them in the voting booth. That’s it.
Well, and hope that one day we don’t have to defeat them in the streets.
It seems that for Liberals, expressing hatred is thoughtful and therapeutic (and utterly truthful).
It seems that for Conservatives, expressing hatred is violent and criminal (and utterly depraved).
The only thing that might make this go away is the utter devastation of the Democratic Party at the polls.
Unfortunately (even if necessarily).
Because then, the Conservatives are likely going to get a bit too big for their britches.
In which case, they’ll have to be taught a lesson, too.
Again.
Ad infinitum, ad nauseum…?
Sigh.
On Palinophobia: it could be fairly described as mass hysteria rooted in profound social anxieties. How long will it take for its victims to become aware of their affliction? A long time, probably.
We should expect a steady drip of stories of women who wake up and ask, “What was I thinking?” Each time it will be treated as a shocking new discovery. I don’t think that this will happen at a rate that will make a difference to the mass consciousness of the urban upper and middle classes, or those who wish to join them. They have the ability to cut off communications they don’t wish to receive.
Lieberman Derangement Syndrome is another manifestation of the beleaguered flock’s need to silence the heretics: they want to continue to believe.
Awesome Wretchard today (as usual):
“Perhaps the reason why the left is almost incandescently furious at Sarah Palin is because she refuses to play their little game. Since she doesn’t use their dictionary she is pilloried as illiterate. By using Oldspeak words she ipso facto gives offense. It is this stiff-necked refusal to get with the word program that may paradoxically give her the political strength. Those who’ve accepted the vocabulary of politesse, aka Newspeak, have unwittingly surrendered. Pre-surrendered, in fact, for the dubious honor of acceptance into quality society.”
Barry, you speak of human nature. Which, as we all know, has yet to change – as far as the written word can see.
Beverly quotes James Taranto quoting Jessica Faller:
I don’t feel she would be a good choice to run this country, but she does not deserve the horrific treatment she gets.
I’d sign that.
Moreover, the more serious our predicament becomes, the more blatant is the failure of conventional wisdom–and the less there is to lose by taking a chance on a candidate who is not business-as-usual.
Gail Collins joins her far left compatriots in dumpling on Lieberman after he announced his intention to not to seek re-election.
It used to be noted columnists at prominent newspapers would pay tribute to those who devoted their career to public service when the public servant announced his retirement. But not the angry hate mongers at the New York Times. They use it as another opportunity to denigrate Liberman because they disagree with how he performed his service.
It’s hard to fathom how low the NYT has sunk since the turn of the century.
The sentiment here is worthwhile, but I still don’t like the left’s dislike of a particular Jew to deny the Mormons their Latter-Day Saints acronym.
When I have unhinged, irrational hatred my first impulse is NOT to publish it on a blog or anywhere else. I usually try to get a good night’s sleep. Maybe Emily should try some Midol. Oh, that was nasty. I’m sorry.
In our previous ruminations on why the Left has left the mask drop we considered overconfidence and desperation.
We should also have included a collective (oh, the irony!) psychotic break. Maybe they’re just so far out of touch with reality that they don’t realize how they sound to people who are not themselves unhinged.
such formerly august publications as the Atlantic and the WaPo
I don’t think that they’re august publications any more. More like december publications. Late december. Almost newyear’seve publications, in fact.
My father, a lifelong liberal Democrat, has revered the NYT all his life to such an extent that even now, when he’s in his 80s and too infirm to drive, my mother’s first task every morning, rain, snow, ice or shine, is to head out to town to pick up his paper — which he then spends a good part of the day reading. Last weekend, we were visiting, and Mr Whatsit happened to remark, in the course of a conversation about Fox News, that the NYT has a liberal bias and can’t be trusted to report the news honestly. My father staggered us: he AGREED (and then went back to reading it.) When it’s come to this, I’m telling you, that paper’s credibility is gone and its days are numbered.