History can certainly attest to the valor that lies in disobedience. People who have made a profound impact on the world are those who went against the tide and followed their own convictions, instead of being subservient to the desires of another person or group.
Likewise, in the political world, too often politicians are coerced into a certain set of standards decided by parties and groups. Elected officials are often labeled as ""bad"" or ""treacherous"" if they make decisions on their own accord.
Joe Lieberman is a prime example of a politician who is subtly casting off the chains of his party's rhetoric. He does not bind himself to principles and ideas that he is not sincerely dedicated to, and for this Democrats oppose Lieberman for being a so-called traitor to the party. Although he is the not enjoying great popularity, and it seems he has gambled away his political career, Lieberman is just the kind of political dissident our country needs.
When parties create malicious labels for their dissidents, they unknowingly hurt themselves and demonstrate their hypocrisy by strengthening partisan bitterness. For example, the Democrats are categorizing Lieberman as an infidel, yet have the audacity to call Mark Green's allegiance to President Bush ""cronyism."" In this case then, the word ""loyalty"" really holds no validity because it is only being used as a tool to both arouse animosity towards the opposition and to extort obedience from its members.
There is no value in blind loyalty if it is being utilized simply to perpetuate the party itself, because it is not helping the people. This is an unfair double standard that is more present in politics today than ever before.
Denouncement of this blind loyalty would be beneficial for the country as a whole. Surrendering to a certain set of beliefs advocated by any party or group does not prove loyalty. In fact, it is disloyal because true fidelity involves sincere dedication to one's own principles in spite of the threat of adverse consequences. All party loyalty proves is that a politician is willing to put partisan interests ahead of his constituents and the common good.
By being a true individual willing to stand by his convictions, Lieberman demonstrates personal integrity, something rare in the political realm today. He is not about to engage in political prostitution by selling himself to the Democratic Party. Instead he has chosen to protect our country by choosing his own broader agenda, which he feels would best serve public interests.
Moreover, integrity is essential for promotion of equality because it stands in direct opposition with narrow petty self-interests, which only benefit a few. When politicians cater to limited interests, the people they are supposed to be working for are neglected. They are forced to bear the cost of politicians' self-centeredness through decreases in social welfare and economic efficiency.
In the face of constant change, politicians in this country need to stop being blindly loyal to their parties. No longer can politicians ask ""how high"" when their parties tell them to jump.
By only offering limited support, the political fate of our nation is subject to the whims of influential, narrowly self-interested partisan politics. We need candidates who stand by their beliefs in spite of the threat of alienation and castigation by their respective parties in order to promote equality and progress for all—candidates like Joe Lieberman and our very own Russ Feingold.
