Arlen Specter and the Peril of Democratic Party Dominance
Arlen Specter's recent decision to switch parties was viewed by many Democrats as a great victory. It moved the Democratic Party closer to the magic number of 60 Democratic senators which would mean a filibuster proof majority. It also further demonstrated that the Republicans have not yet finished the downward spiral which really began with the 2006 midterm elections. If a center right Republican like Arlen Specter feels compelled to leave the party because he believes it has been taken over by the extremists, then the Republicans still have a ways to go before becoming relevant again.
Certainly Specter's abandonment of the Republicans is bad news for that party and, at least, in the short run helps the Democrats, but it also is a harbinger of challenges that may arise for the Democratic Party if this period of dominance continues. If the Democrats entrench themselves as the dominant partying American politics, there will be more politicians who, like Arlen Specter, will switch parties, not due to strong affinity with the vision and platform of the party, but out of political necessity or convenience. However, as we are already seeing with Specter, once these people join the party, the party leadership has very little leverage over them with regards to important issues where there support is needed. Specter's statements about the Minnesota senate race are a good example of this. The Democratic leadership does not need to have "Democratic" senators saying that Norm Coleman should retain his seat.
In periods of one party dominance, perhaps ironically, the dominant party can encounter troubles passing their legislative agenda, and governing more generally, precisely because the party is so large. Democrats like Specter, driven largely by their own need to survive politically, will provide votes to the party on some of the major issues, but will not be reliable supporters of the party leadership, nor will they be likely sources of progressive ideas to drive the Democratic agenda. Additionally, if the faction of moderate Republicans becomes more powerful within the Democratic Party, as very well may happen, they will begin to gain power and seniority, potentially taking power away from more progressive leadership of the party. Thus, if Democratic Party dominance, based largely on the inability of the Republican Party to grow beyond its limited base, continues, the Democratic Party will be pulled in too many directions to function effectively.
As more politicians like Specter switch parties, a likely development, voters in places like Pennsylvania will soon follow because the Democrats will increasingly become the only relevant political party in their state or area, making Democratic primaries the most important elections as already is the case in many big cities. Implicit in Specter's message that he did not want to be judged by the far right voters who make up Republican Primary electorates, was that moderate and center-right voters in Pennsylvania should leave the Republican Party as well because their voices can no longer be heard in that party. While this may be a good indicator of Democratic victories to come in Pennsylvania, it also can lead to a Democratic Party that represents such a breadth of views and ideas that it loses any real cohesion.
While one cannot really blame Specter, and others who will, perhaps more quietly, follow for making individual decisions to save their political careers, the political system, and to a real extent the Democratic Party as well, would be better served if these Republicans committed themselves to the more difficult task of taking the Republican Party back from the Limbaugh-Fox News-Palin faction and building a competitive 21st century party.
The notion that our country needs at least two competitive parties is not just a platitude, nor is it necessary solely to hold the dominant party accountable. The presence of a reasonable alternative allows the majority party to have an identity and to stand for something. Without this alternative, the dominant party soon becomes too big and inevitably falters as it cannot be everything to everybody. We see this in many big cities which are dominated by the Democratic Party, but where the Democratic Party seems unable to govern well or to enact a meaningful progressive agenda.
If the Democratic Party continues to draw people, as it has over the last several years, particularly during the Obama campaign, because of a shared vision of progressive change or even because of a shared outrage and the disastrous policies of the Bush administration, the Party can continue to play a useful and progressive role. Once it reaches a tipping point and draws people because it is the only political game in town, the Democratic Party will begin to stand for nothing. If this happens it is only a matter of time before the wheel turns again and the Democrats find themselves where they were in 1994.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
How about if real Democrats (progressive and centrist) take back their party from the Republicans in Blue Dog clothing, and the moderate Republicans (both in the Republican party and the Blue Dog fakers) stop being weenies by leaving their party or simply rolling over and supporting things they don't believe in rather than fighting for those they do within their party. Or at least have the courage to be independent like Sanders. Hey, if they would support all public campaign financing, they wouldn't be beholden to the party and outside forces to run. They could be pulic servants instead of private servents to corporations.
Good point. But I believe the progressive wing of the Democratic Party--the part that counts--should do its part in weaning the centrist and right-leaning members away from their conservative stances. It would do the party well to maintain cohesion while allowing breathing room for debate and diversity. Democratic members who currently have opinions/positions diametrically opposed to the progressive message should be weaned away from their conservatism most thoroughly.
First, let me say, that democratic party dominance is no different than republican party dominance. in fact, there are many who feel there is little difference between the two. No term limits and campaign finance are the main cause of this situation.
However, political parties in general are a poor war to govern a democracy like we have in the US. There are just too many people who go unrepresented, and international politics becomes a complete joke.
All I can say to you Judge is that Obama really has you fooled. Obama may not have started the Iraq war but he is escalating the one in Afghanistan, he is rethinking his position on detaining people indefinitely and he has defended most of Bush's arguements in court. It is time for us progressives to wake up and smell the coffee and realize that Obama is not one of us! The bankruptcy vote, the credit card vote, the corporate bailouts, and the exclusion of single payor advocates at the health care summit shld make this very clear. Having democrats in control of the presidency and the congress does us no good if they are controlled by corporate interests and this is what we have. Until we have spending limitations placed on our political campaigns the interests of the public will always be subserviant to the interests of corporations regardless of which party is in charge.
A good test is approaching with health care reform this summer. The moderate blue dog democrats and republicans will unite in opposition. More moderate dems were elected last go around in 2006 than progressives which is going to make truly substantial progressive actions such as health care reform difficult The current administration has too few progressives and is already in trouble with the farther left members of the party. And for those that long for a more hawkish administration, escalation in Afghanistan looks to be indefinite and trouble is brewing in Iran and North Korea.
Well, Mr. Mitchell, I think you do not necessarily have it correct. There is NO guarantee that the Dems in PA will vote for Mr. Specter just because he has switched parties; and there is NO guarantee that an aspiring Dem will choose not run against him in the primary and win. Being a "new" Dem does not guarantee Mr. Specer anything, except that he no longer has to deal with repugs only in the PA primary.
The repugs under Carl Rove were working to make the repugs a "permanent republician majority" in Congress; see where their arogance got them? The same could very well happen to the Dems; but generally we do not take each other for granted or have the same "control" in the same manner as the repugs. There always seems to be more Dems with the Repugs on any given issue, then vice versa.
Dems have a way of emploding over various issues and torture and dealing with Gitmo may just be two such issues.
I do wish them well however; but, don't take it for granted that a Dem label get you the Dem's vote.
WTF? I don't see the President and his party starting wars and calling those who they disagree with " socialist.''
"Once it reaches a tipping point and draws people because it is the only political game in town, the Democratic Party will begin to stand for nothing."
Already has happened. Politicians saw the way the wind was blowing and joined the dem party solely to get elected. specter wasn't the first by any means.
Blue dog dems are going to be the norm.
I think what we may see happen is the eventual disappearance of the republican party as we know it. and the moderate "blue dog" democrats will eventually break off into their OWN party. Then we'll be back to a 2 party system of progressive liberals and moderate democrats (who will somewhat resemble the actual ideals of republicanism - not this current racist "we don't stand for anything" garbage they spew out now)
I would say that one party rule has worked very well in our major cities like Detroit, DC and St. Louis.
Too late, it's already happened. Corporate interests completed their takeover of the Democratic Party during the Clinton years, and conservatives own the party now. Why do you suppose congressional Dems did nothing to stop Bush, Rahm is White House chief, and Obama has flopped on every major promise?
Progressives need to leave the Rethugs to hospice, leave the Dems in the hands of the cons, and get behind invigorated Labor or Green parties. It's the only end-run around corporate ownership of our government.
Spector should be a good test case for your objection. He will have to vote on significant legislation before any PA primaries. If he fails to stand with the Dem's, he will face opposition in the primaries.
You are assuming that the public will vote for "anyone" based on a party affiliation, which is wrong headed, as there is a growing majority of people that are labeled as independents who's vote is based on "values" not on a "party designation".
As a voter registered to a political party , their are many of us who still have brains and vote for the person, not the party.
Not enough though.
Whats more important is that we have two parties, the party of Corporates and the party of the people. It doesnt matter anymore which political party they belong to. Its how they vote and today too many vote for the party of corporate control. Money buys votes, votes win elections and mpney influences lagislation. The corporates now have all the money, past present and future so they will remain in power!
Public financing of elections is the only hope we have--the only way to get representatives to answer to people rather than the dollar. Last two votes regarding bankruptcy and credit card limits should tell you where the D party is headed and who they represent. We have to support progressive challengers to "Red Dogs" who I personally think we should rename "establishment" Democrats or DINOS. If a Repub wins, so be it, what's the difference?
The only real "change" we get from Obama may be the Supreme Court, so that's a good thing at least.
The thing we need more than a healthy multi-party system is a Constitutional amendment that helps us strip the importance of money from political campaigns. The problem is campaign financing. The parties might not be such suck-ups to corporate interests if they didn't have to rely on them - nor the candidates who can attract them. Like starving cancer cells from blood, stripping out money from the political system will help cure the patient.
My main nit with this is that the author perpetuates the media myth of Specter's "centrism." He is called "center right Republican" here. He is not near the center politically. He is a solid conservative and has a massive voting record to conclusively prove it.
Specter is a talker, though. He will grab headlines by speaking about problems with legislation to make him tolerable to moderate voters. He SOUNDS reasoned and credible, so people smile and think, "Arlen's on the job!" But what people then miss is that he rarely ever opposes the legislation (or appointee) he publicly whines about. He has been a very reliable R for 30 years. The price that his peers have paid is having to listen to him pontificate on issues that "concern" him before he swings back to tow the company line.
Exactly right. Listen to some of FDRs speeches and you reallly get how far right the country has moved.
You got it. specter is all talk no action.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
