Arlenmania is Running Wild
Obviously, the big news today was Sen. Arlen Specter's (?-PA) switch from the Republican to Democratic parties. But how big of news was it? It was big news in terms of the 24-hour news cycle mainly because it's a slow Tuesday and there's not much else to talk about. In fact, it's possible that the timing of this (very) surprise announcement was orchestrated to land on just such a day. In the long term, though, the impact is harder to measure.
Unlike when James Jeffords switched from the Republican to Democratic caucus in 2001, this switch does not change the balance of power in the Senate, but it does put Democrats closer to the much overhyped number of 60 U.S. Senators. When Al Franken of Minnesota is seated (and it's a matter of when, not if; and I've been meaning to blog about that matter for a while now), Democrats will have those 60 seats, equal to the number of votes it takes to end a filibuster. The problem is that cloture votes (the technical term for voting to end a filibuster) are often not party-line votes. Democrats have already invoked cloture on several contentious bills by winning the support of a few moderate Republicans, often including Specter. Further, more moderate Democrats will sometimes cross lines to stand with Republicans on cloture motions for certain bills they oppose. Given that Specter has pledged to help Democrats and support President Obama's agenda, it's likely that he will side with Democrats on most, but probably not all cloture motions. However, he might have very well done that anyway.
In the end, the number is instances where Democrats get exactly 60 votes for cloture, consisting of 59 votes from the pre-existing Democrats and the final one from Specter, is probably going to be pretty small. And some of those instances likely would have occurred even without this party switch. So as far as the operation of the 111th Congress, this is likely not much of a game-changer.
However, this switch is part of a larger narrative about the marginalization of the Republican Party and it's contraction into an extremist and regional minority party. I've talked about this in an earlier post, about how many of the northeast Republicans I respect have either abandoned the GOP or been vocally opposed to its lurch to the hard right. Specter joins a long list. The buzz on other blogs has been about whether Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), who is even more moderate to liberal than Specter, will jump over next. I personally think she's more likely to run for governor than to switch parties, but the point is, it's very hard to be a moderate and feel at home in the Republican caucus. (Or be a woman. Shortly after the Specter switch, the GOP announced it was creating a panel to help re-brand the Republican Party. There was not a single woman on the panel. Methinks me see part of the problem.) Specter's switch is not a seminal moment in party politics. It's just another drop, albeit bigger than most, in a long, slow drip.
This should, however, make the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate election bully good entertainment. Specter will run in the Democratic primary, and party leaders have pledged their full support and are trying to clear the field of challengers. A lot Pennsylvania Democrats are deeply unhappy at the thought of having Specter as their nominee. Personally, I have major problems with the effort to clear Specter as free a path as possible. The nominee for Senate should be chosen by the voters of the state, not by the party leaders. They may well choose to support Specter. I personally have liked and respected Specter a lot for a long time. However, Pennsylvania is a state of over 12 million people that gets exactly two U.S. Senators. "Like and respect" is, in and of itself, not enough to convince me that someone is the best choice in the entire state for such an important position. As such, I'm withholding judgment on whether to support Specter until I see just how effective and support he is as a member of our caucus. Either way, I very much would like to see a strong, progressive challenger to Specter in the primary. Not only is it good for democracy, but it's likely to pressure Specter into making better, more progressive votes for the rest of this term.
On the Republican side, the conventional wisdom is that this clears the field for ultra-wingnut anti-government activist Pat Toomey to win the Republican nomination. That's possible, but Toomey is utterly unelectable in a general election in Pennsylvania, and national Republicans know this. Someone will step up and carry the flag for moderates in the Republican primary. That person has their work cut out for them in the increasingly radical GOP, but will certainly garner some votes, especially since it will be someone who has not spent 30 years making enemies among conservatives the way Specter has. Particularly if Toomey's vote is split by someone with deeper ties to the socially conservative wing of the party, a moderate could very well slip through. If that happens, Democrats would have a competitive race on their hands instead of a cakewalk. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me terribly if neither Specter nor Toomey were on the ballot in November's general election.
So that's where the Specter defection leaves us. It's a great storyline for Democrats, one more in the longer story about the death of the Republican Party in the northeast. I was very excited about it, not least of all because my long familiarity with Arlen himself. But as far as how it affects the rest of the 111th Congress, the 2010 elections and beyond, there are many more moving parts in play than the pundits really seem to grasp.
Unlike when James Jeffords switched from the Republican to Democratic caucus in 2001, this switch does not change the balance of power in the Senate, but it does put Democrats closer to the much overhyped number of 60 U.S. Senators. When Al Franken of Minnesota is seated (and it's a matter of when, not if; and I've been meaning to blog about that matter for a while now), Democrats will have those 60 seats, equal to the number of votes it takes to end a filibuster. The problem is that cloture votes (the technical term for voting to end a filibuster) are often not party-line votes. Democrats have already invoked cloture on several contentious bills by winning the support of a few moderate Republicans, often including Specter. Further, more moderate Democrats will sometimes cross lines to stand with Republicans on cloture motions for certain bills they oppose. Given that Specter has pledged to help Democrats and support President Obama's agenda, it's likely that he will side with Democrats on most, but probably not all cloture motions. However, he might have very well done that anyway.
In the end, the number is instances where Democrats get exactly 60 votes for cloture, consisting of 59 votes from the pre-existing Democrats and the final one from Specter, is probably going to be pretty small. And some of those instances likely would have occurred even without this party switch. So as far as the operation of the 111th Congress, this is likely not much of a game-changer.
However, this switch is part of a larger narrative about the marginalization of the Republican Party and it's contraction into an extremist and regional minority party. I've talked about this in an earlier post, about how many of the northeast Republicans I respect have either abandoned the GOP or been vocally opposed to its lurch to the hard right. Specter joins a long list. The buzz on other blogs has been about whether Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), who is even more moderate to liberal than Specter, will jump over next. I personally think she's more likely to run for governor than to switch parties, but the point is, it's very hard to be a moderate and feel at home in the Republican caucus. (Or be a woman. Shortly after the Specter switch, the GOP announced it was creating a panel to help re-brand the Republican Party. There was not a single woman on the panel. Methinks me see part of the problem.) Specter's switch is not a seminal moment in party politics. It's just another drop, albeit bigger than most, in a long, slow drip.
This should, however, make the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate election bully good entertainment. Specter will run in the Democratic primary, and party leaders have pledged their full support and are trying to clear the field of challengers. A lot Pennsylvania Democrats are deeply unhappy at the thought of having Specter as their nominee. Personally, I have major problems with the effort to clear Specter as free a path as possible. The nominee for Senate should be chosen by the voters of the state, not by the party leaders. They may well choose to support Specter. I personally have liked and respected Specter a lot for a long time. However, Pennsylvania is a state of over 12 million people that gets exactly two U.S. Senators. "Like and respect" is, in and of itself, not enough to convince me that someone is the best choice in the entire state for such an important position. As such, I'm withholding judgment on whether to support Specter until I see just how effective and support he is as a member of our caucus. Either way, I very much would like to see a strong, progressive challenger to Specter in the primary. Not only is it good for democracy, but it's likely to pressure Specter into making better, more progressive votes for the rest of this term.
On the Republican side, the conventional wisdom is that this clears the field for ultra-wingnut anti-government activist Pat Toomey to win the Republican nomination. That's possible, but Toomey is utterly unelectable in a general election in Pennsylvania, and national Republicans know this. Someone will step up and carry the flag for moderates in the Republican primary. That person has their work cut out for them in the increasingly radical GOP, but will certainly garner some votes, especially since it will be someone who has not spent 30 years making enemies among conservatives the way Specter has. Particularly if Toomey's vote is split by someone with deeper ties to the socially conservative wing of the party, a moderate could very well slip through. If that happens, Democrats would have a competitive race on their hands instead of a cakewalk. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me terribly if neither Specter nor Toomey were on the ballot in November's general election.
So that's where the Specter defection leaves us. It's a great storyline for Democrats, one more in the longer story about the death of the Republican Party in the northeast. I was very excited about it, not least of all because my long familiarity with Arlen himself. But as far as how it affects the rest of the 111th Congress, the 2010 elections and beyond, there are many more moving parts in play than the pundits really seem to grasp.
posted by Ithakid | 8:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home