by Tony Farruggio
When I heard of Arlen Specter’s recent departure from the nominal ranks of the Republican Party, I actually laughed out loud. As one pundit after another, from both sides of the political aisle, expressed their respective glee or dismay at the presumed “magnitude” of the announcement, I couldn’t help wondering what all these people were smoking (sadly, for months now I have wondered what many of my fellow Americans were smoking, but that is another topic entirely). For the record, however, let us be clear on several points: 1) this announcement is not news; 2) this will not materially affect the pace at which Obama’s extremist agenda devours and destroys the traditional institutions of American life; and 3) this is actually a positive development for the Republican Party. On this last point, many an eye just rolled on the assumption that I am grinding lemons to lemonade, but bear with me a bit longer.
Contrary to what you may have heard on CNN or MSNBC; despite whatever ecstatic hyperbole you may have read in the New York Times or USA Today; and with all due respect to the man’s own pathetic, rambling attempts at self-justification, the fact that Arlen Specter is now an official member of the Democratic Party is simply not news. Make no mistake, all of the aforementioned sources would love to convince you that it is news. Not just news – big news! Why, you may ask, is that so important to them? Not because of anything it says about Specter, but because of what they think it says about you, the reader.
“Look, another moderate, right-thinking, fair-minded public figure has seen the light and come over to our cause. More and more people are awakening to the realization that only liberal Democrats are intelligent enough, and creative enough, and ethical enough to champion the right solutions to all of our collective and individual problems. At this rate, soon our exalted leader will bring us all singing into a joyous, prosperous and righteous tomorrow. Aren’t you glad you’re a Democrat?
What? You’re not a Democrat? What tragic condition of mental disease or defect keeps you wallowing in the muck of ignorance and hatred? You have only two choices. You can either confess your sins and become one of us, or face the isolation, ridicule and ultimate extermination that human filth like you so richly deserve.”
[rhetorical style courtesy of Keith Olbermann (spot on, don't you think?)]
While this mythical construct of “news” may scratch an ideological itch for the left-wing media herd, it is pure fiction. The simple truth is that Arlen Specter’s party affiliation has always been a matter of electoral expediency, and not philosophical conviction. A former Democrat, Specter became a Republican in 1965, because it was his best chance of winning the race for Pennsylvania Attorney General. As long as wearing the Republican label continued to serve his aspirations at the ballot box, there was no reason for change. Nonetheless, after he rode Ronald Reagan’s coattails into the United States Senate in 1980, Specter quickly came to epitomize the philosophical duplicity conveyed in the newly coined pejorative “RINO” (Republican In Name Only).
To the extent that political parties are useful, they offer voters a rough indication of the philosophy a candidate will bring to legislative and executive decisions. Effective representative government requires officeholders to apply their own honest judgment, without undue regard for the tides of public sentiment. Still, we the people cling to the reasonable expectation that our public servants will exercise independent judgment within the context of the same principles they claimed to cherish when they asked us for our support. Since 1964, the American Conservative Union has tracked legislative voting records, and compiled a numerical score for every United States Senator and Representative. These scores range from 0 to 100. A score approaching 100 indicates that a legislator has compiled a voting record that is consistently conservative, while a score approaching 0 indicates that a legislator has voted consistently liberal. Conventional wisdom suggests that Republicans would score consistently higher on this scale than Democrats, and accordingly, a review of Senate voting records showed that Republicans serving in 2008 average 84 points over their entire careers, while their Democrat colleagues averaged 12 points.
Much analysis of John McCain’s recent electoral defeat contends that he was not consistently conservative enough to energize the Republican Party’s core constituencies. A review of ACU’s voting statistics, however, indicates that Senator McCain turned in a career voting record averaging 81 points. Regardless of his “maverick” self-stylings, this record of legislative action places him well within the mainstream of the Republican Party. Sadly, in McCain’s effort to distance himself from the media flogging of the Bush administration, he also distanced himself from what should have been his reliable core of support. Leaving aside further review of John McCain’s electoral foibles, his voting record is instructive as it compares with Arlen Specter’s. Over the course of his career in the Senate, Mr. Specter has compiled a lifetime ACU rating of 42. Once again, for those of you who might have missed it, John McCain (Mr. Just-Not-Conservative-Enough) compiled a career score of 81, as compared to Specter’s 42. Arlen Specter is not just outside the mainstream of the Republican Party. He is not even on the map.
by Michael Ramirez
Arlen Specter is a Democrat today, because he was a Democrat last week, and last month, and last year, and every year since 1965. Relabeling and repackaging himself may make for interesting conversation on the machinations of Pennsylvania politics, but as a reflection of Arlen Specter’s personal philosophy and values, it is simply not news.
So what of the much ballyhooed fear of Democrats obtaining that congressional Holy Grail: the veto proof majority?! Umm…really? I mean…seriously? Are those paying attention still asking that question at this point? With Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe (ACU rating: 12), and Susan Collins (ACU rating: 20) practically caucusing with Democrats, they already have the super-majority they claim to want. If conservatives, libertarians and constitutionalists actually believed a party head-count would shield us from Obama’s assault against America, the events of February’s Porkulus debacle should have shattered that delusion.
Arlen Specter’s defection this week is not a loss to those defending the rights of the individual, because he was never manning a post in this fight to begin with. What hope there is in slowing America’s decline lies not in Republican numbers, at least not until the next election, but in the off chance that members of Obama’s own party will begin to recognize the backlash brewing for the irresponsible orgy of spending and abuse of power now under way. Having turncoats like Specter swell their ranks only makes it more difficult to evade their culpability when the bill comes due. In the final analysis, the Senate did not lose a Republican this week. The Republican Party was finally freed from the burden of supporting a hard core Democrat, who has long relied on the coffers of the RNC to finance his election campaigns. Think of it as campaign welfare for Democrats. Specter has just been reformed.
So let us get back to the matter of how this development is good for Republicans. The idea seems preposterous to those swathed in the Hopium-smoke haze of the Obama media herd. Then again, when does their coverage describe anything as good news for Republicans? Specter’s departure is good news nonetheless. In between sullen rebukes of his Pennsylvania Republican constituents on Tuesday, Specter flatly admitted that he had little chance of surviving a primary challenge from any principled conservative opponent. Aside from this being a startling admission of his own crass motives for jumping ship, the statement begs the question of why Specter thinks he’ll fare much better against a proven conservative in the general election. He bases his confidence on two key suppositions, namely: that the active support of President Obama will guarantee him the Democratic nomination, and that the Republican Party has shifted far to the right, while Pennsylvania voters remain moderate centrists. Miscalculation in either or both of these assumptions will not only be Specter’s own undoing, but may also show Republicans the key to recapturing their own moral courage and electoral viability.
First, the assumption that Obama’s support assures the nomination ignores some critical factors. By late 2010, Obama’s benediction may not be quite the platinum standard it is today. A still languishing economy, showing little if any “stimulation” from this year’s spend-a-palooza, will become a drag on both Obama’s credibility and Specter’s. Like it or not, Specter is now just as closely identified with this left-wing big government orgy as Obama is. Specter argues that Republicans did not have the votes to prevent passage of Obama’s spending priorities, and he is right about that. But by not taking a principled stand against an insanely peremptory Senate cloture motion, Specter personally ensured that the most devastating single blow to economic prosperity and individual liberty in American history would become the law of the land with absolutely no meaningful debate, open discussion or even cursory review. As the long-term effects of Obama’s first 100 days are more fully realized (despite the best propaganda efforts of his personal media herd), the truth of Specter’s complicity will become a political millstone he may not be able to carry.
On the matter of Specter’s second assumption, that Republicans have shifted too far to the right, the truth is a bit less commonly reported. As the Democratic party has lurched precariously leftward over the past several decades, sympathetic voices in the press and academia have willingly shifted the entire framework of political debate leftward with them. These Democrat heavy institutions have taken the liberty of continually defining and redefining left, right and moderate to suit the needs of the moment, offering no tangible reference to the terms’ historical moorings. If Republicans now occupy the extreme right end of this revised political continuum, it is only because the entire spectrum of comparison has shifted so far left it threatens to fall off the margin of the page.
The real question for future elections, in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, is whether voters will continue to allow the press to define the political debate as they have in years past. In this respect, 2008 may prove to have been a watershed year. During the last election cycle, and in the months that have followed, the open political partisanship of national media personalities was placed on display in a manner completely unprecedented. We have yet to see a real test of the damage to their own credibility the media have done with all their tingly legs, and “teabag” jokes. The 2010 Senate race in Pennsylvania will be one such test. If all goes well, Pat Toomey or an equally unapologetic conservative will face off against Arlen Specter, not in a primary, but in the general election. Republicans will have the opportunity to see which vision of their party still has a role to play in America’s political future. That is very good for the Republican Party, and it is the greatest gift Arlen Specter could have given his former allies.
Contrary to the opinions of well-meaning, but misguided pundits like David Frum, candidates do not lose elections because their principles are too conservative. Candidates lose elections because their principles are too conspicuously absent. Voters have a right to public servants who share their beliefs on the stump, and then live those beliefs once in office. Saying you want a big tent that is open to everyone is a lovely notion. But your ideas have no substance, your philosophy has no soul, and your tent has no shape if no one is willing to put a stake in the ground. In that case, why pitch a tent at all?
George Washington once said, “A slender acquaintance with the world must convince every man that actions, not words, are the true criterion of the attachment of friends.” Interesting. I knew Arlen Specter was somewhat older than the average American, but I had no idea Washington knew him personally.
