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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You were ahead of the game in this one huh - you posted a link to this a week ago! I think your argument is interesting, but I think that Spector doing this could signal more politicians to "jump ship" and swap sides.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the switch illustrates the strength in the division between the parties (thus, creating a strong party system). I doubt that any other member of Congress will switch parties though. This move was unique. Even though a politicians main goal is to be reelected, and be a member of a party that has the potential for majority status, GOP'ers in the Senate have a better chance at gaining majority status than those in the House. Since 1980, the Senate has changed hands eight times. Specter did this only for reelection purposes, not ideology.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brandon here. Specter's switch points to a strong party system in that it illustrates the ideological division between Dems and Republicans. However, at its base, the switch was just a rare political move intended to assure Specter's re-election.
ReplyDelete