Joe Lieberman Hates ‘Gridlock’

Last week, CNN’s website featured an op-ed by erstwhile-Senator and vice-presidential candidate Joe Lieberman promoting “The 2024 presidential alternative many voters will want.”

Lieberman hates gridlock: “Today…no one can reasonably argue that the two parties aren’t ideologically distinct. The core problem in Washington, DC, is that they’re too divided to get much done.” […] While undoing the divisions plaguing our political system will not be simple, there is one step that can be taken – and it begins with giving voters a real alternative in the 2024 presidential election.

“Most often, when Americans cast their votes for president and vice president, their ballot has only two viable tickets: one nominated by the Democratic…the other by the Republican Party. But what would happen if they had a third viable option?”

Lieberman’s “third viable option” would be created by “No Labels,” a political organization he co-chairs.

Lieberman: “Since early 2022, our team has been diligently working across the country to obtain ballot access for a potential No Labels ticket…” […] “…[I]f No Labels were [to form] a presidential ticket, the presidential candidate would be a Democrat and the vice presidential candidate would be a Republican, or vice versa.”

Lieberman ventures even further into fantasyland: “[T]he Biden administration already may be beginning to recognize the imperative of appealing to the commonsense majority. President Joe Biden recently signed into law a Republican measure to strike down a Washington, DC, crime bill reducing penalties for those who commit violent crimes, and he announced more stringent border control policies.”

Lieberman apparently imagines that blue cities’ violent crime rates are dropping rather than soaring, that America’s borders aren’t wide open, and another illegal immigrant surge for which Biden administration policy bears responsibility isn’t expected in May.

No Labels was formed in 2010 by members of Congress who were unhappy with how they were being labeled. To discourage others from labeling them, they proposed banning useful labels, formed a coalition and labeled it “No Labels.”

No Labelers labeled themselves as a force for “good” by seeking to reduce Washington’s partisan labeling. But in order to reach their label-less goals, the No Labels coalition had to label “who and what they’re not” – only less charitably than they themselves disliked being labeled.

Got that?

Don’t worry if the irony hurts your head a little. Tortured, non-introspective, self-serving “logic” is a Washington staple. After years there, Joe Lieberman is a skilled practitioner.

Following their formation, Slate writer Christopher Beam summarized: “Everything you need to know about…No Labels is contained in its slogan: ‘Not Left. Not Right. Forward.’ It’s smug. …And it ignores the whole reason politics exists…not everyone agrees on what ‘Forward’ is.”

Indeed.

More Beam: “No Labels says it will raise money for moderate candidates who embrace…the ‘three C’s: co-sponsors, common ground, and civility “

Bingo! Suffocating platitudes aside, when political motives are in doubt, look for the financial interest.

At Forbes, John Tamny observed: “[No Labels’] call for political harmony is…nothing more than a bipartisan surrender to big government forces…seeking to enhance the mandate of our national political class.”

Tamny was – still is – right. America’s existential problems – spending and debt – resulted from entirely too much centrist cooperation.

It’s simple: When one side proposes and the other opposes more spending and programs (or claims to), compromise always results in at least some, sometimes massive increases in both. The “elite” and special interests always benefit.

Mr. Lieberman, Democrats and Republicans, especially No Labelers, were never “too divided” to increase the national debt to an unimaginable $31 trillion-plus, or propose additional increases.

As No Labels originally used them, the words “compromise” and “civility” came across as self-promotion and political posturing packaged as “policy” in order to attract favorable publicity, public support and campaign cash. Nothing has changed.

They claim to want things “nicer, ” but, in fact, No Labelers are central to America’s problems.

Politics today may (or may not) be nastier than it was years ago, and lowering Washington’s partisan sound level may be worthwhile, but what America really needs are far fewer big-government centrist dealmakers and far more limited-government game changers.

Frankly, gridlock may be the only chance to preserve America until government can – hopefully – be placed into the hands of smarter, wiser, more-principled and courageous public servants.

No Labels-style centrist compromise will only make things worse.