Skip To Content
Back to Opinion

What Joe Wrought

Senator Joe Lieberman’s departure from the presidential contest was the right thing to do, given his inability to gain ground with the voters. But it leaves undone some of the big tasks that Lieberman took on when he joined the race. For his campaign was more than just a run for office. It was a quest to challenge some basic assumptions in our political system. With his withdrawal, the questions he sought to raise remain unanswered.

Lieberman’s most important challenge was to our party primary system. By putting the nominating process in the hands of the parties’ most passionate loyalists, the system forces candidates to aim for the fringes and arguably contributes to our growing polarization. Lieberman challenged Democrats to look past their partisan passions and choose a centrist who could unite Americans in the fall. In effect, Lieberman was asking Democrats to choose a candidate they didn’t agree with because it would be better for the country. Was the mission hopeless, or did he fail for other reasons?

Lieberman’s other big challenge was his bid to become the first Jewish president in a nation whose citizens are overwhelmingly Christian. A generation ago, a Jewish president seemed all but inconceivable. Today, with nearly every other barrier in society broken down — including Lieberman’s own appearance on the 2000 Democratic ticket — it seemed the time was ripe to topple the last barrier. Lieberman and his backers asserted that America was ready. Some even suggest that to say otherwise is to surrender to bigotry. But was it ready? We still don’t know. Surveys show that no more than 10% or so would refuse to vote for a Jew for president, or at least would admit feeling that way to pollsters. How many of them voted in Democratic primaries? How many others looked at the candidates, weighed the electability factor and opted for a contender who didn’t carry a handicap walking in the room?

To be sure, Lieberman made more than his share of missteps. His long delay in entering, characteristically insisting that ethics required he wait for Al Gore to act, put him at a disadvantage in organizing and fundraising. His folksy demeanor, so essential in backroom Senate negotiating, put him at a disadvantage on the campaign trail, where he was unable to show the fire voters looked for.

Lieberman also may have misjudged his fellow Jews. His backers assumed that ethnic loyalty would lead Jewish voters to put aside their opinions on the issues and to vote “as Jews” rather than as liberals, populists, doves or whatever else they might be. It was an odd assumption for a candidate who insisted from day one that he was running not “as a Jew” but as an American. His fellow Jews proved no more willing than he was to reduce themselves to a label.

In their disappointment, some Lieberman loyalists now complain that the Jewish community failed a test of courage. They suggest that many Jews shied away from the candidate because they feared putting a Jew in the White House would stir antisemitism. That, they say, is cowardice. But is it? Extremists around the world have lately raised complaints of “Jewish control” in Washington to a fever pitch, based on the visibility of a handful of midlevel administration figures. Imagine if they could say it about the commander in chief.

In a world of terrifying new dangers, who’s to say where prudence becomes cowardice?

Coming into February 2004, all these questions remain unanswered and perhaps unanswerable. We are all in the dark, and people of good will come down on all sides.

But we are closer to knowing some important truths about our nation and ourselves because Joe Lieberman had the courage to put himself on the line.

It should not be forgotten that Lieberman was able to present himself as a credible candidate in the first place precisely because he has established himself over the years as an essential figure on the national stage. He remains that and more.

I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward’s award-winning, nonprofit journalism during this critical time.

Now more than ever, American Jews need independent news they can trust, with reporting driven by truth, not ideology. We serve you, not any ideological agenda.

At a time when other newsrooms are closing or cutting back, the Forward has removed its paywall and invested additional resources to report on the ground from Israel and around the U.S. on the impact of the war, rising antisemitism and the protests on college campuses.

Readers like you make it all possible. Support our work by becoming a Forward Member and connect with our journalism and your community.

Make a gift of any size and become a Forward member today. You’ll support our mission to tell the American Jewish story fully and fairly. 

— Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO

Join our mission to tell the Jewish story fully and fairly.

Republish This Story

Please read before republishing

We’re happy to make this story available to republish for free, unless it originated with JTA, Haaretz or another publication (as indicated on the article) and as long as you follow our guidelines. You must credit the Forward, retain our pixel and preserve our canonical link in Google search.  See our full guidelines for more information, and this guide for detail about canonical URLs.

To republish, copy the HTML by clicking on the yellow button to the right; it includes our tracking pixel, all paragraph styles and hyperlinks, the author byline and credit to the Forward. It does not include images; to avoid copyright violations, you must add them manually, following our guidelines. Please email us at [email protected], subject line “republish,” with any questions or to let us know what stories you’re picking up.

We don't support Internet Explorer

Please use Chrome, Safari, Firefox, or Edge to view this site.