Joe Lieberman's Uneasy Balance
American humorist Charles Farrar Browne (under his sobriquet of Artemus Ward) once commented, "My pollertics, like my religion, be of an exceedin' accomodatin' character."
The same could certainly be said of vice-presidential candidate Joe Lieberman, whose politics and religion can apparently accommodate him and one another splendidly, much to the dismay of the left and the irritation of the right.
The American public's first intimation of Senator Lieberman's easy morph between being a Serious Political Person and a Serious Religious Person came, of course, just over two years ago on September 3,1998, when he stood before the Senate and sternly addressed Bill Clinton's scurrilous conduct.
"The transgressions the President has admitted to are too consequential for us to walk away and leave the impression for our children and our posterity that what President Clinton acknowledges he did within the White House is acceptable behavior for our nation's leader…. It is wrong and unacceptable. I am afraid that the misconduct the President has admitted may be reinforcing one of the most destructive messages being delivered by our popular culture – namely that values are essentially fungible," said Senator Lieberman.
We now know that all this was apparently some carefully calculated bluster designed to show the American public – some of whom were understandably leery about the idea of the Big Boss schtuping the help and then vociferously lying about it – that the Democratic party is really, really serious about this whole Famlee Valyews thing that Republicans keep droning on and on about. Senator Lieberman held the Senate in thrall as he played his role of Serious Religious Person; when he took his seat for the vote, however, he "walked away." This, in spite of the fact that his scathing remarks about the President could have made Jack the Ripper seem like a fine fellow in comparison.
Al Gore's choice of Lieberman as a means of combating Clinton Fatigue was a wise one: here we have a man who can really talk the talk and make an excellent impression on the scandal-weary citizens of the country who might still be a bit squeamish about voting Republican. Presidential hopeful George W. Bush claims to have Jesus in his heart, and Jesus tends to make voters nervous because of the whole dying-for-the-sins-of-the-world thing, because most don't really feel that they have any sins that they need to be saved from. As an Orthodox Jew, there's no fear that Joe Lieberman will make Al Gore uncomfortable by talking about Jesus. Indeed, when Lieberman recently responded to his critics by saying that the Constitution grants us the right of "freedom of religion" rather than "freedom from religion," Al Gore felt free to warmly affirm his running mate's thoughtful assessment of the historic document.
But sometimes Lieberman's two personas trip him up. It's a sorry sight when Serious Religious Person falls flat on his face in front of the politically expedient outstretched foot of Serious Political Person.
The Senator recently enthused about a Medicare prescription drug plan that "serves the spirit of the Fifth Commandment, which demands that mothers and father be honored," according to an Associated Press news release. In consideration of his remarks about the President on the Senate floor, could this comparison be more disturbing? Here is a candidate that thinks nothing of using God's Holy Word as a tool to forward a government-funded program, and never mind the fact that only two Commandments down is a stricture about adultery, followed by "You shall not bear false testimony."
In Lieberman's view, it would only be right for us all to embrace this Medicare legislation as a way of being godly people: The President himself gets a free pass in spite of making hash of the Commandments. This could remind one unpleasantly of Al Gore's comment that the President has made "mistakes" when he was asked about Clinton's alleged rape of Juanita Broaddrick.
There is something deeply flawed with this sort of reasoning.
What is wrong here is that God seems to truly have no place in Senator Lieberman's plans for the future if he is elected along with Baptist Al Gore. What Lieberman is practicing is not godliness, it is religion – an adherence to a set of rules in order to satisfy a minimum standard of behavior, absent of a desire to actually know God and obey His word out of personal devotion.
Great care must be taken when making observations about another person's faith. But when that "faith" is so often compromised (as in was, in the opinion of so many, by Lieberman's decision to support the legalities of the American genocide called "partial-birth abortion" with his senate vote) one has to wonder what – or who – is being served by these frequent quotations of scripture. More plainly, whose agenda is Lieberman trying to forward? God's? The Democratic party's?…
With that question still unanswered, I must concur with Barry Lynn, who serves as the head of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Mr. Lynn recently commented, "[Lieberman's frequent remarks have] gone way beyond what is appropriate for the political season. Your ability to understand Scripture…is not appropriate here."
September 8, 2000
Shelley McKinney is a political writer whose work regularly appears in several Internet journals. She takes great pleasure in exposing the politically correct for their lack of logical thought.
