Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Specter Speaks, Defends Decision to Leave Republican Party
To continue the Specter theme, I give you this article. Here, he provides more insight into his decision to defect, including his contention that the Republican Party has drifted too far to the right for his liking.
Party Allegiance
Although it was suggested that Senator Arlen Specter had been considering a switch to the Democratic side of the aisle for some time, this certainly was a surprising development. For one thing, this type of action doesn't seem to occur very frequently. Specter is an old senatorial warhorse, currently serving his fifth term representing the state of Pennsylvania as a Republican. While he has always been a moderate, leaning to the left on many issues, to actually change party allegiance, particularly this late in his career, is a significant move. Of course, the most immediate byproduct of this decision is the filibuster proof majority that the switch provides the Democrats in the Senate.
In regard to how this reflects on the party system as a whole, I feel it displays the strength and vitality of the contemporary party structure. The Specter move illustrates how much significance can be attached to aligning with a particular party as well as the importance of party identification in general. If the parties were interchangeable in the eyes of the voting public, then there would be no valid reason to make a change of this magnitude.
I suppose that Aldrich would consider the Specter change of allegiance an example of an ambitious politician who is seeking to maximize his chances of retaining office. Specter has publicly acknowledged that he based this decision solely on his desire to win reelection to the Senate. In addition, it is also possible that he is now properly aligned ideologically with the correct party.
In Culture War?, Fiorina presents a logical and convincing argument that places political elites at the extreme left or right in terms of ideology, while the vast majority of the public rests somewhere near the middle. The fact that this theory is probably accurate makes the Specter shift all the more remarkable. Perhaps this is simply an isolated case of political survival, wherein one opportunistic politician is attempting to capitalize on the momentum and electoral advantage currently held by one particular party, and not something more profound.
In regard to how this reflects on the party system as a whole, I feel it displays the strength and vitality of the contemporary party structure. The Specter move illustrates how much significance can be attached to aligning with a particular party as well as the importance of party identification in general. If the parties were interchangeable in the eyes of the voting public, then there would be no valid reason to make a change of this magnitude.
I suppose that Aldrich would consider the Specter change of allegiance an example of an ambitious politician who is seeking to maximize his chances of retaining office. Specter has publicly acknowledged that he based this decision solely on his desire to win reelection to the Senate. In addition, it is also possible that he is now properly aligned ideologically with the correct party.
In Culture War?, Fiorina presents a logical and convincing argument that places political elites at the extreme left or right in terms of ideology, while the vast majority of the public rests somewhere near the middle. The fact that this theory is probably accurate makes the Specter shift all the more remarkable. Perhaps this is simply an isolated case of political survival, wherein one opportunistic politician is attempting to capitalize on the momentum and electoral advantage currently held by one particular party, and not something more profound.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)