In times of polarizing political debates, many of us understandably long for bipartisanship and independence from politicians who represent us. We want politicians to look at every issue that confronts them with as much impartiality as possible and make a sober decision, regardless of the party to which they belong.
Nobody likes a rubber stamp, someone who cannot think for themselves and always toes the party line. Most independent-minded people tend to think United States citizens agree more than they disagree, and where they do not agree they can compromise. ""Can't we all just get along?"" one might ask. Unfortunately, the answer is often no.
Our country's two main political parties now disagree fundamentally on practically all of the important political issues. Gone are the days where many conservatives could call themselves Democrats and liberals could call themselves Republicans; both are practically extinct.
Fewer congressmen dissent from the votes of the majority of their party than ever before. It is exceedingly rare that a party label will not tell you exactly where a politician stands on the issues.
This sounds like a good argument for politicians to be more independent. But what is a politician's job? It is to be the voice for his constituents.
A politician can choose either to reflect consistently the views of his constituents as a delegate, or vote based on conscience as a trustee. Few politicians solely employ one of these roles but rather balance the views of their constituents against what he personally believes would be best for his constituents and the county as a whole.
Being a pure trustee will inevitably cause problems, which Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., realized when he was defeated in the Connecticut Democratic Primary by his little-known challenger Ned Lamont on Aug. 8.
Lieberman had took independence to the extreme by continuously bucking his party on one of the most important issues of the 2006 election: the Iraq war.
Connecticut constituents as a whole, and Democrats in particular, overwhelmingly believe the war was a mistake in the first place, is not going well and that troop withdraws should begin within months—all of which are at odds with Lieberman's position. There was also a growing perception that Lieberman was too close to the president. President Bush actually kissed Lieberman on the cheek following his 2005 State of the Union address.
Sen. Lieberman has always been known as something of a foreign-policy hawk within the Democratic Party. He has consistently stood by his original vote for congressional authorization of the Iraqi invasion and has rarely criticized the war's conduct.
At some point, praise and support for the Iraq war became intolerable for most Democrats in his state, and they were justified in not renominating him.
There was a good case to be made that his position undermined congressional Democrats because Bush could always point to him and say, ""Hey, here's one Democrat who supports me!""
In addition, Lieberman would criticize fellow Democrats who disagreed with him on the issue, providing further ammunition to Republicans who wanted to highlight divisions amongst the opposition.
Sen. Lieberman tried to make the primary about extreme anti-war liberals purging a moderate voice within the Democratic Party in favor of an ideologically pure Democrat. This failed because it was simply not the issue.
The country is very divided right now on many critical issues, and with Republicans dominating Washington, a vigorous opposition party is required.
What use is it to have a senator known for working with Republicans if he never challenges them on such critical issues as the war in Iraq and the limits of executive power?
In December 2005 Lieberman stated that Democrats should be careful about partisan attacks on Bush because ""in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril.""
Ironically, the lesson from the Connecticut primary seems to be that congressmen scorn the views of their constituents at their own peril as well.
