Joseph Lieberman in In Praise of Public Life
On Government Reform:
Term limits result in weak government that governs poorly
The Founding Fathers felt that elected office holders should rotate in and out of public office after a limited period of time. But term limits, which were a feature of the Articles of Confederaion [in the 1780s], were not included in the Constitution
because they didn’t work. Term-limited, part-time lawmakers at the federal and state levels were either weak or absent. We would not want to have a Senate composed of 100 people who had never held public office before. It would not govern well.
Source: Excerpt from “In Praise of Public Life”, p. 19-21
May 2, 2000
On Principles & Values:
Personal faith is his basis for public service
[My faith] gave me clear answers to life’s most difficult questions. The summary of our aspirations was in the Hebrew phrase tikkun olam, which is translated “to improve the world” or “to complete God’s Creation.” It presumes the inherent
but unfulfilled goodness of people and requires action for the benefit of the community. These beliefs were a powerful force in my upbringing and seem even more profound and true to me today. The ideal of service [is] fundamental to my religious faith.
Source: Excerpt from “In Praise of Public Life”, p. 24-5 & p. 30
May 2, 2000
On Welfare & Poverty:
Volunteerism is good but government needs professionals
Millions of Americans find the time to volunteer in neighborhood, religious, or community services groups, and still more millions could. But it is important to acknowledge that government will not function with
volunteers alone. It needs professionals, hopefully some of the best and the brightest, willing and able to serve full-time in positions of public trust to make the government work.
Source: Excerpt from “In Praise of Public Life”, p. 31-2
May 2, 2000
On Civil Rights:
Participated in MLK’s March On Washington
I was in Washington in the summer of 1963, [so I had] the opportunity to participate in Dr. Martin Luther King’s March on Washington, which culminated at the Lincoln Memorial in his soaring “I Have a Dream” speech. For me, this was America at its best.
Hundreds of thousands of us, of all religions, races, and nationalities, joined together peacefully but powerfully to petition our government to right the wrong of racial bigotry.
Source: Excerpt from “In Praise of Public Life”, p. 34
May 2, 2000
On Government Reform:
Instead of “Is it legal?” pols should ask “Is it right?”
People in public office are squeezed by many of the same financial and family pressures that so many others are. But unlike most people, politicians have power, and therefore they are faced with opportunities and ethical challenges others are not.
We are role models. We have voluntarily entered into a contract with the voters that is based on trust. If we violate that trust, our government, our democracy, suffers. So the first question a public figure must always ask himself when making a
decision about his personal behavior or actions, about whether to take an opportunity, is not just “Is it legal?” but “Is it right?”
I ask my staff to imagine how they would feel if they knew that a particular action would be questioned the
following morning in banner headlines on the front pages of the newspapers. The question should not be if it was legal (hopefully we would not knowingly do anything illegal). We called that our “Front Page Rule” and still try to live with it.
Source: Excerpt from “In Praise of Public Life”, p. 50-2
May 2, 2000
On Crime:
Focus on victim’s rights & on expediting procedures
The liberal, criminal rights-oriented theories I took with me from law school ran smack into the reality of violent crime and street crime in my Hew Haven neighborhood. I knew people who were victims of violent crime and muggings; my house was broken
into twice. Fear of crime was constricting freedom and stifling growth. So I began to propose tougher criminal laws, including the death penalty, and to focus more on victims’ rights and expedited criminal procedures.
Source: Excerpt from “In Praise of Public Life”, p. 55-6
May 2, 2000
On Principles & Values:
Good laws protect us from private interests & profit
My consumer and environmental protection enforcement work [as Connecticut Attorney General] reinforced that people need the protection of good laws or they will be cheated, polluted, and otherwise taken advantage of by those who have more interest in
profit or convenience than in doing what is fair & just. There is a relevant insight from the Talmud: “As with fishes, the one that is larger swallows the others. Were it not for the fear of government, everyone greater than his fellow would swallow him.
Source: Excerpt from “In Praise of Public Life”, p. 70
May 2, 2000
On Families & Children:
Outraged at paternal irresponsibility-enforce child support
[As Attorney General, one duty was] to collect child-support debts from delinquent fathers of children who were receiving state assistance. I became outraged at the paternal irresponsibility. I took my case to the
legislature, which gave my office stronger collection laws. Then I beefed up my child-support division. The result was that we collected a lot more support money for the moms and kids of the state.
Source: Excerpt from “In Praise of Public Life”, p. 71-2
May 2, 2000
On Government Reform:
Using opponent’s personal details is wrong
Opposition research [on candidate’s personal lives] does nothing but demean our politics and defame the people who are its targets. There is nothing wrong with going after your opponent’s voting record or any other evidence of negligence in his public
life, but digging into his bank account, his phone records, his sexual life, and literally his garbage when these things have nothing to do with the performance of his public duties-past, present, or future-is wrong.
Source: Excerpt from “In Praise of Public Life”, p. 76
May 2, 2000
On Principles & Values:
Legislating has become campaigning; wrong focus
The problem in Congress today is that campaigns never end. Legislating has become campaigning by another name, which often means not much legislating gets done. Elected officials at the federal level regularly position themselves for the next campaign.
They focus too much on raising the vast sums of money needed for expensive television advertising, and worry too often about the ramifications of a single vote they cast, for fear that it will come back to haunt them in the next election.
Source: Excerpt from “In Praise of Public Life”, p.124-5
May 2, 2000
On Homeland Security:
Kuwait: Congressional authorization plus use of force
When Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait in 1990, I felt America’s post-Cold War commitment to national principles and international leadership was on the line. I was dismayed by the wide opposition among my fellow Democrats.
To me, their position was wrong. [At a Senate meeting in December 1990], I said, “I definitely think the President should come to Congress for authorization, but I want you to know that if he does, I will support him.”
Source: Excerpt from “In Praise of Public Life”, p.128-9
May 2, 2000
On Homeland Security:
Transform military for post-Cold War
I introduced legislation in 1996 to require the Pentagon to look beyond the near-time horizon, ten or twenty years into the future, to estimate what international dangers the US might have to deal with, and come back and tell us what we should be
investing in now to be sure we will be ready then. The legislation resulted in pulling away from the so-called legacy weapons systems of the Cold War and investing in research & development that would produce higher-tech weapons for the next generations.
Source: Excerpt from “In Praise of Public Life”, p.131
May 2, 2000
On Budget & Economy:
Booming economy from private sector plus government help
We New Democrats believe that the booming economy of the 1990s resulted more from private sector innovation, investment, & hard work than from government actions, but the federal government sure can and did help. The Clinton-Gore administration deserves
tremendous credit for their leadership in the 1993 balanced budget proposal, and the NAFTA & GATT agreements that followed. I believe strongly that both these policies shaped the economic environment in which we have enjoyed such unprecedented growth.
Source: Excerpt from “In Praise of Public Life”, p.132
May 2, 2000
On Tax Reform:
Cut capital gains tax; it has helped economy
Because I have always believed that tax policy can influence economic behavior and I was troubled by the lack of capital investment in our economy during the late 1980s and early 1990s, I supported a cut in the capital gains tax.
I co-sponsored the capital gains tax cut which finally passed in 1997. I believe the record shows it has helped to keep the American economy growing.
Source: Excerpt from “In Praise of Public Life”, p.132-3
May 2, 2000
On Welfare & Poverty:
Enterprise zones spread prosperity to poor cities
The booming economy has raised millions of people with it, but left millions of others behind. Our government can and should do something about it. Influenced by good experience with enterprise zones in Connecticut, I introduced legislation that offered
tax incentives, grants, and regulatory relief to woo businesses and jobs into our poorest urban and rural areas. President Clinton embraced the idea and it was finally adopted in 1997. It is starting to work to spread opportunity and wealth.
Source: Excerpt from “In Praise of Public Life”, p.133
May 2, 2000
On Civil Rights:
Express religious faith in schools, within Constitution
Voices of the people in support of moral standards are beginning to speak out and be heard:- In public places, including schools, where officials, citizens, and students are finding constitutional ways to honor and express their religious faith
- In schools where “character education” programs teach the values of civility, integrity, tolerance, and citizenship
- In the entertainment industry, where a surge of persistent public pressure has prodded the television and motion picture industries
to say that they will work to stem the violent, perverse, and puerile content produced by their companies-we need much more of this
- And in the news media, where the public’s level of faith, trust, and respect has plunged-broadcasters
have begun defining boundaries and retightening the fundamental journalistic standards of accuracy and fairness that have become too loose during recent years.
Source: Excerpt from “In Praise of Public Life”, p.155-6
May 2, 2000
Page last updated: Feb 21, 2019