Last Tuesday, the front page of The New York Times was emblazoned with some of the most exciting political news since Obama's victory in November--—Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania plans to switch parties and run on the Democratic ticket in 2010.
This increases the likelihood of a 60-vote Democratic majority in the Senate, which would allow the party to enact legislation without the threat of Republican filibusters. This possibility in itself, however, is not the reason for my excitement. I identify as an independent and generally feel that rigorous and consequential debate is an important part of our legislative process. Under most circumstances, I would regard the prospect of an impotent minority party as a cause for concern. The circumstances surrounding Specter's decision, however, merit unique examination.
My excitement about Specter's announcement stems from my belief that his move will actually increase the possibility of meaningful debate in our legislature. Specter has emphasized that, if elected, his vote will not belong to the Democratic agenda. His voting record in the Senate supports his claim of independence and speaks to his willingness and ability to pursue aims that diverge from the trajectory of his party. Specter is, above all, a man of principle and a legislator of the classic mold who vigorously propounds his appreciation for the constitutional separation of powers and for the role of contentious debate in the legislative process.
Some commentators have already expressed concern over the Democratic Party's warm acceptance of Specter, who demonstrated a conservative stance toward Bush-era tax cuts, the Iraq war, and the Military Commissions Act. Why, these commentators wonder, would the Democrats embrace a member who is likely to express opposition to important elements of their agenda?
Well, perhaps because they accept the validity of perspectives that deviate from the ideological norms of their party. Perhaps because they see the value in a caucus composed of diverse viewpoints. The Obama administration offered meaningful overtures to the GOP during the development of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, overtures that were publicly scorned by members of the Republican leadership such as John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Michael Steele. The virulent and divisive attitude exemplified by these figures is symptomatic of the current GOP mindset ,which seems to regard the legislative process as a bureaucratic street fight and appears increasingly devoid of a coherent political philosophy.
Obama and many of his supporters appear willing to consider input from opposing perspectives. If there is a political incentive—a 60-vote majority, for instance—for the president to find common ground with moderate perspectives on the right, one that does not force him to engage a combative, unreasonable and ideological minority in Congress, I find it likely that he will take the opportunity to broaden the appeal of his agenda. Specter's defection represents an opportunity to elevate the political debate in Washington. If the Democratic leadership handles this situation with care, they could be in a position to cut off fruitless influence from the ideological far right while simultaneously initiating a more meaningful collaboration with moderate conservatives.
There is no doubt that political calculations factored into both Specter's decision and the Democrats' enthusiastic reception of the news, but we should be cautious not to draw the wrong lesson from this fact. It is true that Specter's odds of winning the Pennsylvania Republican primary have decreased with the rising popularity of his conservative challenger Pat Toomey, but it is worth noting that 200,000 Pennsylvania Republicans switched their party affiliation and joined the Democrats during the same period. This is a shocking number and reflects the diminishing appeal of a Republican Party that increasingly defines itself based on a combative, far-right ideology. Specter understands that his odds of remaining in office will increase with his defection, but his choice to pursue that course of action may not reflect malign political ambition, but rather his desire to continue representing the emergent moderate majority in Pennsylvania.
Eamon Doyle is a junior majoring in postmodernism. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
