Appointment in Connecticut

In a few days, Democrats of Connecticut have an electoral appointment with their senior senator and long-time public servant, Joe Lieberman. When I began to write about the effort to purge Mr. Lieberman from the senate by some elements in his own party months ago, not many seemed to be paying attention, including perhaps Mr. Lieberman and his staff. But far left political blogs made it a cause celebre, and it was soon picked up by the mainstream media as well as disgruntled Democratic activists in Connecticut and around the country who were spoiling for a fight.

And a fight it is. Mr. Lieberman has held a view that is not now shared by a majority of Connecticut Democrats on the war in Iraq. On most other questions, regardless of the spin put out by his detractors, Mr. Lieberman has been a progressive Democrat, albeit a moderate, and loyal to his party. He has also brought great honor to his party and his state by his performance as state attorney general, senator and as the Democratic nominee for vice president of the United States in 2000.

Trying desperately to justify their attempted purge, Mr. Lieberman's opponents have contrived a whole bill of attainder against him, but that is a plain deception. Mr. Lieberman is to be purged solely for his "heresy" of supporting the war in Irag, and for honoring the great American tradition of a bipartisan foreign policy.

As a negative media blitz unfolded, Mr. Lieberman's poll numbers fell. The numbers of his opponent, Ned Lamont, began to rise. Mr. Lamont is the rich heir to a Connecticut fortune and a political gadfly who is willing to try to buy his election to the U.S. senate.

It is quite possible that Mr. Lamont could win the primary. Recent polls indicate he has drawn even with Mr. Lieberman, and possibly ahead, although it is possible that he has peaked, especially after the Lieberman campaign, initially floundering and paralyzed by the assault, pulled itself together to fight back.

For the remaining days of the primary campaign, Mr. Lieberman is touring the state and its communities to reconnect with voters. He has tried to remind voters of his service on behalf of the state as a senior member of the senate. But he has not budged on the Iraq War. He acknowledges that many Democrats do not agree with him, but he has long made this issue one of personal principle.

Former President Clinton has campaigned with him, strongly endorsing him. It is instructive to note that Clinton, the shrewdest Democratic political figure of recent times, has called the move to purge Lieberman "the nuttiest idea I ever heard."

Connecticut Democratic voters might decide that decades of extraordinary public service are trumped by this issue. That is their right. But they will not, I must point out, be punishing Joe Lieberman if they do so, They will be punishing themselves.

First of all, they will not necessarily be rid of Mr. Lieberman. Should he lose the primary, he will be on the ballot as an independent. He could still lose in November, but the GOP has a very weak candidate, and Mr. Lieberman is especially strong with moderate Republicans and independents. Combined with his residual support among Democrats, even if he loses the primary, it is not now likely that he would not be re-elected in November.

What will Democrats have thus gained? Nothing. They would be taking a step backwards. Mr. Lieberman will continue to vote as a moderate progressive Democrat, and likely will vote for the Democratic leadership, but he will be free, as he was not free before, to break with the Democrats when his political principles lead him to do so. As a member of the minority party, Mr. Lieberman has no powerful chairmanship. If the Republicans keep control in 2007, they would be able to offer him a chairmanship, even as he maintained his "independent" status. (I am not saying that Mr. Lieberman would accept such an arrangment, but no one could legitimately criticize him for doing so.) If control of the senate is very close (the best, I think, the Democrats can hope for), they will have weakened a previously strong bond. In short, defeating Mr. Lieberman is lose-lose for the Democrats.

On the other hand, his opponents would feel very good if he loses. The bloggers could feel new self-importance for a few weeks, and Bush-haters everywhere could assume that they did a "gotcha" on the president. The only problem with these short-lived satisfactions is the price the Democratic Party would pay. Unhappy with the president's policies, but so far unimpressed with Democratic alternatives, the vital group of independent and centrist voters who really determine every national election would then understand that the Democratic Party had gone to the far left where Mr. Howard Dean, Mr. Jim Dean, Senator Russ Feingold, Senator Ted Kennedy and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, et al, want them to go. If I may say so, this is not likely a likely winning strategy for November, 2006 or 2008.

American history usually comes up on the side of principled politicians who support a larger vision. Not always, but most of the time. I think history will so reward Mr. Lieberman. I am sympathetic to voters in Connecticut, and all overAmerica, who are restless and unhappy about Iraq. I am, too. I wish Mr. Rumsfeld and his colleagues had figured out the political terrain, and the enemy, earlier. I wish war did not have great suffering, that it proceedeed to an outcome quickly, and that the world were not so complex a place.

I don't have to answer to any voters, but I am sticking to my long-held contention that President Bush's initiatives in the Middle East, with all their shortcomings, remain the best policy we could have had in the face of an implacable enemy.

I would not presume, other than my comentary above, to try to influence the Democratic voters of Connecticut what to do on August 8. But I do want to remind everyone that each election has consequences beyond its result.

In your hands, not mine, Democrats of Connecticut, is the fate of your political party in the years ahead.