8/08/00 10:25 a.m.
Lieberman v. Gore
On
affirmative action, this ticket is far apart.
ith
Al Gore's selection of Senator Joseph Lieberman as his running mate, proponents
of equal treatment under the law should, finally, have an eloquent spokesman
for their cause on a presidential ticket. But less than twelve hours
after the first press reports that Gore had chosen him, Lieberman appears
to have reassured at least one civil rights leader that he will not aggressively
push to ban affirmative action preferences in a Gore administration.
Lieberman will thus be in the uncomfortable position of upholding laws he has said repeatedly are discriminatory and unconstitutional.
It's a common practice; the moment a presumptive presidential nominee chooses his vice presidential candidate, opponents and the press point out policy differences on the new ticket, big and small. George Bush called Ronald Reagan's supply side theories "voodoo economics," then promptly adopted them for the campaign. Dick Cheney has already fudged some of his congressional votes, saying now he'd probably vote for a Department of Education, and for additional Head Start funding.
But Lieberman's opposition to preferences is different. He has for years been one of the most visible and vocal critics of racial preferences in America. If Al Gore's assignment had been to select a Democrat who has — forcefully and frequently — argued from a directly-opposite viewpoint, he would have chosen Joe Lieberman. Ironically, he is to the right of George W. Bush on this most-debated issue of racial politics.
Unlike many public figures, Lieberman's opposition to race and gender preferences was not revealed on a campaign questionnaire or in response to journalists questions. To the contrary, Lieberman, as Chair of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, held a news conference calling for an end to race-based preferences — even as President Clinton reaffirmed his support for them. Lieberman courageously challenged Democratic Party orthodoxy on race. His language was bold, his critique devastating. "The current system of group preferences has to end," said Lieberman at the DLC press conference on August 5, 1995. "They were only intended to be temporary, aimed at combating racism. But it's actually fueling division between the races," he added.
Lieberman's words echoed ones he spoke on the Senate floor just two weeks earlier.
"Affirmative action is dividing us in ways its creators could never have intended because most Americans who do support equal opportunity and are not biased don't think it's fair to discriminate against some Americans as a way to make up for historic discrimination against other Americans," Lieberman said. "For after all, if you discriminate in favor of one group on the basis of race, you thereby discriminate against another group on the basis of race. In discussing this subject the other day, a young man offered me this simple wisdom about this subject, that we all learned from our mothers and fathers — two wrongs, he said, do not make a right."
Gore has had very harsh words for those who hold such views. "Morally blind," they are. Purveyors of hate, "tolerant of intolerance." Gore seems to have overcome such reservations about Lieberman's views. And Reverend Jesse Jackson, who had already spoken to Lieberman by early Monday afternoon, says Lieberman will disavow, or at least quiet, his stance on preferences. "He supports affirmative action now," Jackson said on a conference call with reporters today. "He will have to be clear in his support of the law."
But "the law" is one of several things Lieberman cited as reason for his opposition to affirmative-action preferences, and he thinks it says precisely the opposite of what Jackson does. "In my own view, Mr. President, most government programs in which race, gender or similar status are dominant factors will not survive the Supreme Court's new Adarand test." Lieberman's comments in 1995 so rankled Jackson that he penned a four-page letter to Lieberman to express his disappointment, calling the Senator's remarks "particularly irresponsible." In the same letter, Jackson urged Lieberman to engage in a discussion "based upon analysis, not anecdotes, and upon history, not hysteria." But Jackson, who has already endorsed the vice president, today called Gore's selection of Lieberman a "bold breakthrough." "With one bold decision, Al Gore has helped to knock down another barrier, to expand the tent," he said, referring to Lieberman's Jewish heritage.
But it's what Jackson didn't say that may be more instructive. He wasn't nearly as effusive when a reporter asked him if he intends to campaign with Lieberman. "I will be supporting this ticket," he replied. Reminded of his 1995 exchange with Lieberman, Jackson responded: "The Democratic Party supports affirmative action. The Republican Party does not. He will have to honor the law."
Jackson's reaction is precisely the response anti-preference activist Ward Connerly expected. "I think [black leaders] will mute their concern and do what the party did eight years ago," in supporting Bill Clinton. Connerly, who serves with Lieberman (and, interestingly, Lynne Cheney) on the board of directors of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, calls Gore's pick "a fascinating choice." "I'm shocked in a pleasant sort of way. I have enormous respect for him. He is such a decent man and his views are so antithetical to Gore's, there could be a lack of enthusiasm from the Democratic left," Connerly said. "I think their turnout could drop 10 percent."
The question, of course, is to what extent Lieberman is willing or able to muzzle his own views on preferences. Clearly Gore chose him because he is widely regarded and highly respected across the ideological spectrum as an independent, thoughtful lawmaker. He fought against obscene lyrics with Bill Bennett, he ripped the "immoral" behavior of Bill Clinton, and he has sincerely argued for more civility in public discourse. He is a welcome dose of authenticity and "straight talk" that has for years been absent at the White House.
For example, he would surely disapprove of the racial demagoguery President Clinton engaged in last week, suggesting Dick Cheney wanted to keep Nelson Mandela in jail. And, one suspects, he would voice opposition to the reported plans of the Gore campaign to run ads on predominantly black radio stations highlighting and misrepresenting that vote.
But will it — can it — last?
"You can't defend policies that are based on group preference as opposed to individual opportunities," Lieberman said in 1995. Lieberman may have to do just that.