I read that rather than vilifying Senator Specter, I should reflect on why he made the big leap. I have.
Says Specter:
I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.
We could have told him that years ago.
Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter has ratified his several years’ of behavior and officially become a Democrat. It’s a silly notion, really, because Specter doesn’t fit really well in either party. My problem, though, has been that as a Republican who was out of step with the vast majority of his party on many things related to the judiciary, he has been allowed the very powerful Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. He should have been assigned chairman of a committee related to areas on which he was in agreement with his party overall.
And then there is the silly business about protecting incumbents. Though Specter was an all-around thorn in President Bush’s side, Bush refused to back a truly conservative primary opponent to Specter, so Specter clung to power. And power is what this is all really about.
When someone switches from the majority to the minority (without it shifting the balance of power to once again put the defector in the majority), I’ll be open to claims about their bravery and character. That is not the case here. Specter has admitted this is in a move to keep the power and prestige of his Senate seat:
I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. … And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.
Translation: I want to keep right on being a Senator, and I’ll bribe the people of Pennsylvania with federal money to make it happen.
His move is not surprising. He, like many—maybe most—politicians, has grown addicted to the power it brings. He stayed with the Republicans for the last few years because they were daft enough to allow him what he wanted, especially his chairmanship. He will now hitch his wagon to the Dems as long as they give him the concessions he wants. He’s a political opportunist (probably a redundancy in terms), and he capitalized on his opportunity to survive against a strong conservative opponent in the upcoming primary. No one said he’s not shrewd. It would just be nice to see such dedication to principle rather than survival.
Apparently President Obama has called to welcome Specter to the party. This is probably a blessing for conservatism. If you give President Obama a cloture-voting, 60-seat majority in the Senate (combined with a large majority in the House), their policies will be unstoppable. And nothing converts the citizenry to conservatism like life under a liberal regime.
RNC Chairman Michael Steele actually made an inteligible comment this time:
“Let’s be honest—Senator Specter didn’t leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don’t do it first.”
And so, it is what it is. No huge loss; just a small man serving his personal interests. You know, just another day in Washington, D.C.
One comment
Comment by RSU Prof on May 4, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Stunning that politicians like Specter tend to adopt careerist perspectives. From my perspective, Sen. Specter’s performance on “Meet the Press” this Sunday offers rich testimony to the good senator’s fondest wish to have his cake and eat it, too. I would sincerely hope that Specter faces a serious Democratic primary challenger, someone like Joe Sestak (who, as I understand it, is hardly a raving liberal, but who would likely be more liberal than Specter).
In short, I agree with you that Specter’s loss is not particularly damaging to the GOP. This sort of shifting is a pretty regular feature of our two-party system. In 1980 and 1995 you saw considerable movement of southern conservatives from the Democratic Party, and now NE moderates are increasingly defecting from the GOP. Whether it is advantageous to either party to be “THE liberal” party or “THE conservative” party is another question altogether. Our parties have tended to be of the “catch-all” variety, and I don’t think that either party benefits from clasping too ferociously to so slender an electoral reed as ideological pretensions, be they liberal or conservative.
I am minded also of David Souter’s retirement as an indication of this slow extinction of NE patrician conservatism. Say what you will of Souter, his retirement might a more consequential presage of the end of conservative of a conservative era, and the inauguration of more liberal politics. Feel free to accuse me of wish fulfillment