In an open letter released recently, the Rev. Al Sharpton accused Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman of “flagrant race-baiting.”
You may now get back in your chair.
How did this extraordinary accusation come about?
Before a group of Jewish donors earlier this month, Lieberman criticized Democratic senatorial nominee Ned Lamont’s support from black California Rep. Maxine Waters and characterized Sharpton’s presence on the victory stage with Lamont in August as “a remarkable moment.” What exactly this was supposed to mean neither Lieberman nor his spokesmen sufficiently explained, but considering Sharpton’s history of tense relations with Jews, and Waters being one of only 12 members not to favor a House resolution condemning Hezbollah this summer, one can only guess.
A week after The New York Times reported Lieberman’s remarks, Sharpton played the part of the betrayed friend. He had, Sharpton said, shared the stage with Lieberman many times during the 2004 Democratic presidential primary, in which both men were candidates. In addition to accusing Lieberman of attempting to “incite somerace-based hysteria,” Sharpton added the charge that the Connecticut senator was “risking Black-Jewish relations.” The whole fracas had a hint, for lack of a better phrase, of the pot calling the kettle black. Sharpton likely will consider this analogy to be “flagrant race-baiting” as well.
In light of this spectacle, the Yale Political Union’s debate topic and keynote speaker two weeks ago could not have been more apt. “Resolved: Government policy should not be colorblind,” was the subject of the 72-year-old debating society, and the privilege of the first affirmative speech belonged to none other than Sharpton himself. If Sharpton’s accusation of “race-baiting” against Lieberman did not strike the perpetually race-baiting minister as a bit hypocritical, then there was every reason to believe that the irony of his affirming race-based government policies that evening would be lost on him as well.
In his opening address, the president of the union stated that “Sharpton’s powerful oratorical abilities serve only to emphasize to the country the disgraceful inarticulateness and stiltedness of so many mainstream candidates today.” To this compliment Sharpton replied, “I also took note of your comments about my oratorical skills as compared to other presidential candidates, and I don’t think in the middle of a campaign you should talk about Joe Lieberman like that.”
Some students were skeptical of Sharpton’s arguments in favor of an explicitly race-conscious government. One asked, “Why should somebody, say, Sharpton’s son or grandson, who’s clearly not coming from an underprivileged background, why should that person be helped by this government policy when they don’t need it?” Sharpton responded, “First of all you’re making an assumption that my child would not come from an underprivileged background, I guess because I have a suit on.”
This was, in fact, an obvious and correct assumption; Sharpton’s two daughters attended the exclusive Brooklyn Poly Prep Country Day School. Nevertheless, he continued, “My W-2 form is not on my head.” Indeed, it is not. That is because Sharpton — who was reported by The New York Times to have said in a 2000 deposition that he had not filed tax returns since 1998 — probably cannot remember attaching one.
In his open letter, Sharpton feigned wounded pride in describing how Lieberman ruined what was once a beautiful friendship. One does not have to be a serious scholar of American politics to infer that Lieberman’s glad-handing of Sharpton during the 2004 race was more indicative of the senator’s decency than a reflection of his actual feelings toward the reverend. That Lieberman has finally decided to refer to Sharpton in less glowing terms indicates as much a growth of character as it does political gamesmanship. Sharpton, after all, had thrown in his lot with Lieberman’s opponent. “That’s politics,” as Sharpton himself told me.
Sharpton was his usual self: charming, humorous and eloquent. And he embodied these traits without any apparent effort. But so do most demagogues. He received a standing ovation from most of the students in the packed, 350-person room.
In their defense, those in the auditorium are not of the generation that would remember names like Tawana Brawley and Steven Pagones. They do not remember Crown Heights or Freddie’s Fashion Mart. They do not remember Sharpton’s call against “the diamond merchants.” But a simple Google search or reading of the newspaper would remedy such unawareness.
All this discussion of Sharpton and Lieberman makes me feel as if I am comparing apples and oranges, if not turkeys and pineapples. To even mention “moral stature” and these two men in the same sentence is to invite a smirk, if not outright laughter. But, alas, this is the troubling situation in which the Democratic Party now wallows, where one of its preeminent statesmen finds himself on the outs, and the party’s nominee shares the stage with one of the country’s most shameless public figures.
James Kirchick, who graduated from Yale in May, is a writer in Boston.
