Love your enemies, for they will tell you your faults.

-- Benjamin Franklin

Might William F. Buckley be "one of the reasons Senator Joe Lieberman is having such a tough time running for reelection in Connecticut"? In his recent column, Buckley reminisces and wonders:

. . .[T]hough Lieberman did not move one inch rightward, we of the Connecticut Right made common cause with him in the defeat of Weicker. And, two terms later, he was designated by candidate Al Gore as running mate in the race against George Bush, which happily Lieberman lost. However, his early backing of the Iraq war, along with such as John Kerry and Al Gore, was a hard commitment and now he suffers for it. The hard-leftist gang, dominated by George Soros and Barbra Streisand, came up with a peachy young man in Greenwich who is rich and handsome and seeks to replace Lieberman in the Senate. Guarding against the possibility that Ned Lamont would win the primary, Joe Lieberman decided over the weekend to begin amassing the support he would need to run as an independent (as Weicker had done when he ran for governor in 1990). It is, in Connecticut as elsewhere, the ideological minorities that are best represented in primary contests, and Lieberman is willing to give up his seat but only in a contest in which all Democrats figure. Lieberman will probably win the primary but if not, he will probably go on to win as an independent.

But the narrative returns to the 50th anniversary dinner, at which Lieberman and I were seated at the same table. In the days that followed, the Democratic blogosphere gave Lieberman hell for showing up at my party, reading into his presence there ideological courtship, never mind that Lieberman has been a stalwart Democratic 95 percent of his times at bat.

But in looking into Lieberman's vulnerabilities I discovered in Wikipedia this item: "Following his 2005 State of the Union address, President Bush, after shaking lawmakers' hands, abruptly grasped Lieberman's head in both hands and kissed him on the cheek. At first, Lieberman’s staff humorously referred to the embrace as ‘some kind of Yale thing.’

Interesting that Lieberman's voting record won't save him.

One of my pet peeves is the use of guilt by association to conflate friendship and political treason. I've experienced it firsthand, as a libertarian with friends on both sides of the spectrum. In general, I have learned that left wing ideologues tend more towards an inquisitorial mindset in personal matters than do their counterparts on the right. Leftists make a much bigger deal of these things, and it's as if they're looking for deviation, and, far from being tolerant of it, they think it's something to expose and condemn. In general, the conservatives I've known (even extreme conservatives) do not care about personal friendships with leftists. Leftists, on the other hand, tend to react -- ballistically, like this -- to anyone associated with the "right wing."

You'd almost think morality was involved, but I don't think that's quite it, as in these matters, even the most morally conservative moral conservatives don't seem to consider friendship a moral issue.

Yet such conservatives often think all leftists are evil, every bit as much as extreme liberals think all conservatives are evil, so something else is going on.

I don't like to let politics stand in the way of personal friendship, and I try not to let it. So why the difference? Are leftists more concerned about these things? Is that because they're more concerned with appearances? If so, why?

I don't think politics should be incompatible with friendship, but I do think that for some people the politics of friendship is more important than friendship itself.

They don't know what they're missing.

MORE: The friendship-as-treason hypothesis finds confirmation here:

the most popular campaign button among the Nedheads displays a photo of the moment when George W. Bush, after his 2005 State of the Union, embraced Lieberman and planted what appears to have been a kiss squarely on his cheek. It might as well have been a kiss of death, of the sort that Michael Corleone gives his treasonous brother Fredo in The Godfather, Part II. For Lamont supporters, the photo symbolizes all that is wrong with Lieberman's approach to politics. One volunteer told me that, when it came to Lieberman, "It always seemed that every time he reached across the aisle, he was compromising our side's principles."

Hatred seems to be the hottest new political litmus test.

UPDATE (07/09/06): In another remarkable example of this phenomenon, Philadelphia Weekly columnist Brian McManus manages to condemn the Grateful Dead for the crime of having Ann Coulter as a fan!

As for Coulter's affinity for the Dead, it makes complete sense when you think about it.

What other artist or genre could Coulter have named that would've offered such a vivid snapshot of her utter unhipness?

Metal? Too edgy.

Steely Dan? Too ironic.

Soul? As a general prerequisite, you have to be in possession of one to listen to Marvin, Sly, Mayfield and the like. Obvious no.

That Coulter's favorite band is the Dead is perfect. Let's face it: If complete and total musical know-nothingness had a poker tell, it'd be an enthusiastic and unapologetic proclamation that you love the Grateful Dead "for their music"—something Coulter does several times in the jambands.com piece.

Maybe the recording industry could consider paying hated figures to endorse the competitors' music. Would such reverse psychology work? Or are fans so confident in their tastes that it wouldn't matter?

As for me, I'd still like the Dead even if Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore both announced they were Deadheads.

I suspect other Deadheads would be equally non-plussed, because angry Dead-bashing goes back for decades. But does all music work that way?