5/6/09 Link

Kind of relating to the blog post this week, here's a short article I found that talks about how Arlen Specter has tried to win the support of fellow Democrats since making the party switch. The article says that Specter recently withdrew his support for Minnesote Republican Norm Coleman, who is competing against Al Franken, who would give the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats in the Senate. The article also says that Specter was stripped of his seniority, which significantly limits his political influence

5/6/09 Post

Arlen Specter’s recent switch from the Republican to Democratic Party shows the continuing ideological differences between the parties in Congress. As one of the last moderate Republicans, Specter often crossed party lines to vote with the Democrats. He was one of only three members of the GOP to vote for Obama’s stimulus package, and has butted heads with fellow Republicans over many issues throughout the years. However, I think Specter’s crossover really illustrates the candidate-centeredness of the current U.S. system. Even though Specter was one of the most moderate Republicans, he still voted with his former party most of the time. Specter only crossed the party line on specific issues, which makes sense for a moderate/centrist, but some Democrats have said that he is more talk than action. Fellow Pennsylvania Democrat Joe Sestak, a state Representative, has said that he is “not sure Specter is a Democrat yet” and has hinted at possibly running against the incumbent candidate in the Democratic primaries. Specter himself said that after conducting polling and speaking with personal contacts in Pennsylvania, he decided to switch parties because his prospects for reelection with the Republican Party were bleak. Specter said the Republican Party has changed greatly since he joined in 1980, and after voting with the Democrats on the stimulus package, his chances for reelection with the GOP looked uncertain. Specter said, “I simply was not going to put my 29-year record before the Republican primary electorate”. Specters switch shows the candidate-centeredness of current American politics, as well as the ideological divisions between elites and the parties in Congress. There is more party unity and less crossing of party lines in Congress today than even in the 1980s, when Specter started his career with the GOP.

I think Fiorina would attribute Specter’s switch to the continuing polarization of political elites. After the switch by the Southern Democrats to the Republican Party, the parties’ ideologies were clearer than they had previously been. For the average voter, it doesn’t seem to make sense that a Democrat would regularly support Republican issues. The party should be a shortcut for the voter, but this doesn’t happen if a politician regularly strays from their stated party. As party elites have polarized, the policy differences between the parties have continued to show through Congressional voting. Specter was one of only three Republicans to support the stimulus package, and this angered the Conservative Republican elites. Pennsylvania is a closely divided state, and does not largely support either major party over the other. Philadelphia is the major city, which votes largely Democrat. The remainder and geographic majority of the state is much more rural, and usually votes Republican. There are differences in levels of support for each party between counties, but neither party dominates the state overall. This has worked well for Specter, because he has been able to enjoy support from the rural areas, but his moderate position gives him support from the major city as well. Thus, according to Fiorina’s argument, Specter’s current situation is a result of actions taken by the political elite. Specter is concerned that the Republican elites will take him out in the primary because of his support of the Democrats. Pennsylvania’s actual citizens may not feel as strongly about Specter’s crossing of party lines, but the elites are forcing the public to take sides, so Specter chose to switch parties himself before he was forced out during the next elections.

Aldrich would point to Specter’s party switch as a problem of collective action and ambition. Specter’s main goal is to be reelected, and if the GOP cannot help him achieve that goal, there’s no real reason for him to continue with the party. As a moderate/centrist, Specter has crossed party lines, overall weakening the GOP coalition. This is a collective action problem, because Specter’s actions undermine the “brand name” of the Republican Party. By straying from their ideology and positions, some would say that Specter was weakening the party. Having a “big tent” is important, but there should be limits to how far a party member can stray, otherwise there’s really no reason to continue to include them. If the party should act as a shortcut for voters, inner divisions can cause confusion over its stance on the issues, weakening the entire institution for its members. The conservative party elites have had enough of Specters moderation, and no longer saw him as beneficial to the GOP. As Specter saw his chances of reelection with the party as slim, he decided that being a member was no longer in his interest.

This is possible in 2009 precisely because elites are so polarized. There are very few moderates left, especially Republican moderates, and it seems that the GOP doesn’t see them as important or beneficial to the future of the party. Even though Obama has continually called for bipartisanship, party elites really don’t want to see this happen. Though it sounds ideal in theory, bipartisan actions weaken the ideologies of the parties, and blur their differences on issues, which is pretty much the opposite of the direction the parties have been moving as of late. With only three crossover votes for the stimulus package, the GOP has really been trying to strengthen its coalition, and Specter stood in the way of this. Specter just seems to be too moderate for the Republicans, especially since the conservative element of the party is most influential today.