Sen. Joe Lieberman, it seemed, had carved himself a nice path down the middle of the road. But in the end, the ride was just too bumpy.
As my colleague Fred Brown likes to say, there are no ruts in the middle of the road.
Lieberman, a Democrat who declared himself an independent five years ago, said last week that he won’t seek re-election in 2012. His brand of politics, he said, doesn’t fit in today’s political spectrum.
His brand of politics is centrism. He does what he thinks is right for his state and country, even if it doesn’t always comport with his party’s ideals.
Is there really no room for that in our political process? Is there no room for moderates, whether they’re moderate liberals or moderate conservatives?
Maybe not.
Look no further than Colorado’s statehouse, where moderates have been getting marginalized (and squeezed out of office) for years.
It’s not that they don’t have a “base,” so to speak. A third of Colorado’s electorate is unaffiliated for a reason. They don’t feel comfortable as Republicans or Democrats.
Yet at the polls, we’re often forced to choose between two extremes. That can be blamed, partly, on a caucus and primary system that gives party hardliners the first crack at vetting candidates.
But the bigger problems, I think, are these political litmus tests given to our elected leaders by powerful outside forces — unions, environmentalists, pro-lifers, anti-tax crusaders — to see if they’re true Democrats or Republicans.
If a Democrat looks to be getting too cozy with business, labor unions will pour cash into a primary opponent. That’s partially why Sen. Michael Bennet ran scared for much of his first two years.
And heaven forbid a Republican look soft on taxes. Or gay rights.
Conservative Gov. Bill Owens forever will be branded by some on the right as a traitor — or worse, a RINO (Republican in Name Only) — for leading the effort to pass Referendum C in 2005, which the far right saw as a tax hike.
It’s difficult for our leaders to act in the best interests of the state when they’re worried about getting whacked by their own party.
And, worst of all, the people who can actually pass these purity tests — those folks who can’t see shades of gray — often are the ones you don’t want in office.
Four decades ago, after campaigning to keep taxes low as governor of California, Ronald Reagan took a look at the books, swallowed hard, and told voters in his inauguration speech that he’d be asking for a tax hike.
Today, Grover Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform would take the Gipper out at the knees for even uttering such a thing.
Only the pure can survive in a political world where shades of gray are not allowed. Is it possible there’s no longer room in American politics for the likes of Ronald Reagan?
It’s been suggested we need a third political party for the masses in the middle, but it would never work. Even though 35 percent of Americans consider themselves to be moderate, the middle is mushy. It’s tied together only by one common thread: It feels left out from the extremes of the left and the right.
The middle is a mash-up of political ideals, but for decades it was a guiding force in the country.
So what happens to government if there’s no one left in the middle? When the perfect continues to be the enemy of the good?
I think we’re seeing it right now. The wild swing from President Obama’s leftist wave in 2008 to the 2010 conservative tidal wave had a lot to do with Democrats overreaching, but it also was a result of the vast middle’s dissatisfaction with politics in this country.
With the moorings of the middle missing, we shouldn’t be surprised when the tide whips left again and takes out another Joe Lieberman.
If there’s one left.
Editorial page editor Dan Haley can be reached at dhaley@denverpost.com. Follow him on Twitter at .
