MS. O'DONNELL: Senator, you have broken with your former party, the Democratic Party specifically, on the Iraq war. There have been questions. Can you rule out that you may switch to the Republican Party?
SEN. LIEBERMAN: I wouldn't rule it out, but it's certainly not my intention, it's not my desire -
--meaning, presumably, he'd be "forced" to do so by powers out of his control. I hear ya, man. We are all of us pawns of Fate and the playthings of the gods and so forth.
Meanwhile, can someone tell me, in words of one syllable so I'll be sure to understand, how it is remotely "okay" for a member of one party to just decide to jump over to another party? Without so much as a by-your-leave?
Mind you, I'm no big fan of the two-party system. If power corrupts--and take it from me, it does--then the current arrangement in which Democrats and Republicans divide all but one-skillionth of the political power in the country is as corrupt as corrupt can be. What we have is not a marketplace of ideas, but rather a duopoly of power, which I hope to God means "a market entirely dominated by two entities."
Is that so very bad? Yes, it is. It is so very, very bad because, while we want our politics to resemble the Harlem Globe Trotters--nimble, fast, amusing, with snappy music, etc.--what we have are two big fat Sumo wrestlers, locked in a ponderous, mutually-supporting grip and waltzing like drunken elephants around the ring. Yes, block that metaphor, but still: with all the money, power, and influence concentrated in two gigundo entities, the chances for new ideas, new approaches, and new solutions to germinate (let alone grow and flourish) diminish before your very eyes.
Still: if you vote for, say, a Democrat, and he or she wins, the least you have the right to expect is that, no matter how horrible they are in office, they remain in the party for which you voted. Otherwise it's fraud, it's bait-and-switch, it's a slap in the face to anyone who a) votes along party lines, b) contributes money to a party, and/or c) works as a volunteer for a party.
Not only do I find this outrageous and insulting, I find it obviously outrageous and insulting. Oh, sure, someone will say, "Shut up, Ellis. If Joe Lieberman wants to come out of the closet and reveal himself to be the Republican we've always (for the past four years) known he is, for Christ's sake don't stop him."
I know. I'm sympathetic to any argument that defends Joe Lieberman's right to go away--from me, my loved ones, the party I vaguely support, and, in the end, the American people. But not this way. "Not like this," as whatshername says in The Matrix just before she dies. The woman in white with the white hair. Oh you know.
Instead, here's how it should work: You want to change parties mid-session? Fine. Then you file a notice to that effect with the state officials of your current party, which triggers a (X)-day period during which the party looks for a replacement. Say thirty days. You then take part in a run-off election against that replacement. If the replacement wins, you're out. If you win, you can change parties. The election has served as a referendum to validate your change of affiliation. If only twelve people bother to vote because it's an off-off-off year election, that's not your fault if you win, and you can't bitch and moan about it if you lose.
Shouldn't all this go without saying? It's like...I don't even know what it's like.
No, wait, yes I do. It's like, say you're on the board of a synagogue. Your current rabbi is scheduled to retire. So you conduct a search and you hire a new rabbi. The new rabbi signs whatever it is they sign--a five-year contract, say, with signing bonus and salary bumps for hitting performance benchmarks. I'm making this up.
So, anyway, you have this rabbi. And then one day you show up for some holiday service--say Tu B'shvat, which I've heard of but wouldn't know if it mugged me in an alley. And the rabbi stands up to begin the service, and lo! He's wearing a Roman Catholic collar and begins to conduct a mass in freakin' Latin.
You say to him, "Hey, Rabbi, you're supposed to be Jewish and everything. What's with the collar and the Latin?"
He says, "I've decided to change my affiliation. It was certainly not my intention nor my desire, but I made a very difficult decision and now I'm a Catholic priest."
You, somewhat taken aback, reply, "Huh? But we hired you to be a fucking rabbi, man. You have a contract."
"So you did, my son," or however they talk, he says. "And when my contract is up, you can either re-hire me, or hire someone else."
Would that be okay? Would that not occasion expressions of dismay from the congregants?
Okay, I'm done. You get the message. That's what it's like. The voters hire the Senator or Congressperson qua member of the party of which they are a member. Changing parties is--or should be--considered a violation of the terms of your employment, period. And therefore not something to be left up to the individual's whim.
Somebody do something about this.