A Message is Sent

In Connecticut this week longtime senator Joseph Lieberman lost a primary election to political newcomer Ned Lamont. Pundits on both the left and the right have had a field day analyzing the meaning of this election. Is the Democratic Party being taken over by "the left wing?" Did voters want to send a message to President Bush about the war? Is Connecticut a fair barometer of the mood of the rest of the country?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I will tell you what I hope is the meaning of this election. Joseph Lieberman was in many ways a great advocate for progressive causes. He was also, as he liked to remind us during the campaign, a senator who worked in a bipartisan manner. He seemed to be a genuinely nice man, well-liked by all who knew and worked with him.

But at a crucial moment in our nation's history Joe Lieberman let us down. He, along with almost all of his Democratic and Republican colleagues in Congress, failed to exercise their constitutional duty to act as a check on the executive branch, the President, in the lead up to taking our nation into war. Instead, he uncritically accepted the reasoning of the President and his advisors. For this he deserved to be held accountable.

Across the country, Americans disagree about many issues. The Congress, appropriately, reflects that disagreement. Democrats and Republicans answer to their constituents and do their best to represent them in making decisions for the country. Although I happen to agree with Democrats most of the time, I recognize that there are good people on both sides of the aisle, and I know good people can look at the same set of facts and come to different conclusions.

But we need something else from our elected representatives when it comes to making decisions about going to war. We are putting the lives of men and women in harm's way; we are threatening to kill others, soldiers, but certainly innocent civilians as well; we are putting our nation's financial health at risk as well, because modern warfare is incredibly expensive; and in an age when war can easily escalate out of control, we are always putting the peace and future of the world at risk when we think about going to war.

We need someone to represent us in government who will ponder this decision with the utmost seriousness. We need someone to ask what it will cost in lives and money, what is the worst case scenario if things don't go according to plan, and whether we have genuinely exhausted every other measure short of war. This is the most important job of our Congress. But it is abundantly evident that in the run-up to the most recent war in Iraq, our Congress failed to ask these questions. In a bipartisan manner, with very few exceptions, they jumped on the bandwagon and marched us off to a war that did not need to be fought, that was not well thought out, and that has had disastrous unintended consequences.

This should not be a partisan issue. Even if Democrats and Republicans and the country itself are divided about the issue of whether a particular war is justified, it is the job of every elected representative in Congress to put aside their partisan differences and join together in the effort to make sure that "this" war is absolutely the only possible response left to us. And when our representatives don't do this than I believe they do not deserve the honor of being our representative.

It is my hope that this is a message that every one of our elected representatives hears this
November.