Whatever's best for Holy Joe

Lieberman's racially inflammatory strategy may backfire when people remember his history of pandering to Louis Farrakhan.

By Joe Conason

Read more: Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Joe Conason, Joseph Lieberman, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Press, Opinion, 2006 Elections

Aug. 18, 2006 | Ever since Joe Lieberman lost the Connecticut Democratic primary, he has been telling voters that he stands for "a new politics of unity and purpose." Yet he and his supporters have simultaneously pursued an old politics of division and distraction by drawing attention to the two controversial personalities who stood behind challenger Ned Lamont on primary night.

The Lieberman campaign is trying to frighten white voters in Connecticut -- and Democrats in Washington -- by reminding them over and over again that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson support Lamont. This week, the senator's aides told the New York Times that playing the two African-American preachers off against Lamont will enhance Lieberman's appeal on an independent ballot line. "Primary night was the first time that many Connecticut voters saw Lamont on TV, and he's surrounding himself with two of the more divisive and problematic figures in the Democratic Party," said Dan Gerstein, the Lieberman campaign's communications director.

It's true that Jackson and Sharpton, who bustled onto the podium the evening of the primary to grab their share of the Lamont spotlight, tend to be polarizing figures. But what if Lamont had praised an even more polarizing black leader? What would Lieberman say if his rival had reached out to someone really outrageous, like Louis Farrakhan?

If he were honest, he'd exclaim "Great idea!" -- because that's exactly what he said six years ago.

Lieberman can hope to get away with his racially inflammatory strategy only if everyone else forgets not only his habit of sucking up to Jackson and Sharpton but his history of stroking the most bigoted black leader in the world. Evidently he and Gerstein (who was also his spokesman during the 2000 presidential campaign) expect that nobody will mention the embarrassing episode when Lieberman's ambition (and opportunism) led him to praise Farrakhan. Given the laziness and amnesia that afflict the national press corps, they may be right.

After all, the truth about Lieberman's past flattery of Farrakhan (and Sharpton and Jackson) flatly contradicts the mainstream definition of him as a principled statesman. For someone who insistently presents himself as a moral absolutist, the "conscience of the Senate" is in fact a ruthless practitioner of situational ethics. Not so long ago, he liked to talk about his warm conversation with Jackson on the day that he became a major party's first Jewish vice presidential nominee, his eyes moist and his voice emotional as he recalled Jackson saying "something that went to my heart" about breaking down barriers for everyone. Not so long ago, he called Sharpton his "dear friend" and "brother" during the Democratic presidential primary debate sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus and Fox News.

But that was then, and this is now -- and Lieberman is nothing if not a creature of the moment. When someone like Sharpton, Jackson or even Farrakhan can be used to his advantage, he eagerly sidles up and pours on the unction. And when Sharpton and Jackson turn up on the other side, he demonizes them with equal sincerity, which is to say none. Divider or uniter, friend or foe, principle or pander: It all depends on what is best for Holy Joe.

That was why, while campaigning as Al Gore's running mate, he fulsomely praised Farrakhan on a national radio program. During an interview with April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks on Sept. 26, 2000, Lieberman sought to reassure the mostly African-American audience of the black-owned broadcasting group about his mixed record on affirmative action and other issues.

When Ryan asked him about Farrakan's caustic response to his nomination on the Democratic ticket, which included questioning his "dual loyalty" to Israel and the United States, Lieberman responded with a meek appeal for mutual understanding.

"Look, Minister Farrakhan has said a few things, including earlier in the campaign, that were just not informed," he said. "But, you know, I have respect for him and I have respect for the Muslim community generally." Asked whether he would be willing to meet with the infamous preacher of hate, he said: "Of course I would be open to sitting down and talking with Minister Farrakhan. It hasn't sort of come together yet, but I look forward to it ... I'd like to do that. I think that's a great idea ... This is a time to knit the country together more and to make us, as Al Gore always says, the more perfect union that our founders dreamed of." Moreover, Lieberman added, "I have respect for him ... I admire what Minister Farrakhan is doing."

What Lieberman said he admired most about Farrakhan was, quite naturally, the minister's massive effort to register black voters. As Ryan later explained to Bill O'Reilly, the would-be vice president was forthright when she challenged his sudden interest in Farrakhan. "He said, 'But it's time for us to come together.' And he's trying to win. That's basically what it is. He wants to win an election and the African-American vote is crucial."

Next page: "There is good reason why no reputable political leader has been willing to meet with Farrakhan"