Bloggers and political analysts from the right and left have commented on Senator Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic party. So too have politicians. And most of them are missing the forest for the trees.
The focus has been on Specter's obvious political motive, on the whether this switch will give the Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate once Al Franken's election in Minnesota is certified, on how the decision was reached, who influenced it, and what guarantees Specter obtained before announcing his switch.
According to most reports, the Democrats have guaranteed the Senator that he will not face primary opposition, that he will be able to put his case before Pennsylvanians in a general election. And that is what Specter wanted.
In exchange the Democrats near the magic number of 60 -- the filibuster-proof Senate -- and that is what they want.
A great deal for everyone. Right? Wrong! These factors all seem trivial if one focuses on the forces that led Senator Specter to become a Democrat.
The real problem is that Specter does not have a home. The Republican party has become so homogeneous, so monolithic that the mere mention of Ronald Reagan's Big Tent draws derisive laughter. Specter became persona non grata to conservative Republicans with his vote in favor of the President's stimulus package. His Republican party no longer welcomed him.
Maine's two moderate Republican senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, have responded to the desertion of the only other moderate in their caucus. In a New York Times Op-ed, Snowe argued that Specter need not have been lost, that her party must reach out to moderates to succeed. She is right, of course, but she has been pleading that case for a long time -- and it falls on deaf ears.
Senator Collins will stay in the GOP because it is good for the party and would be bad for the country if she switched. Her last point might be debatable -- the country has and can survived worse -- but Senator Collins is right about the implication of a party that narrows its appeal.
I am struck by the congruence of four political events -- seemingly unrelated but all of a piece. The first, is Specter's party switch, caused at least in part by ideological extremism in the Republican party. Specter could not stay in the Republican party, because Republicans would not accept him; his fatal flaw in their book was negotiating with the enemy, specifically the Democrats and President Obama.
The second is the national fetish with assessing President Obama as he reaches 100 days in office. He has done a great deal in a short period of time. Mostly, in my view, he and his associates have learned how to govern. They came in as smart but inexperienced. They learned under fire. The question is what lessons have they learned.
The President ran as a conciliator, reaching out to Republicans in Congress in his first months in office. On the stimulus package, on the budget, and on large legislative initiatives he has received no positive feedback from his efforts. But he persisted. His style is non-confrontational. His strategy has been to go to the public over the heads of GOP legislators, to have their constituents convince them to work with him.
One possible response to the Specter switch would be for Obama to move further to the left, to take the gloves off, to govern without seeklng GOP support. The proposed strategy on getting a vote on health care using the reconciliation process to avoid a possible filibuster was evidence that this strategy is under consideration -- and that was before the Specter announcement.
That response would be a mistake.
While politicians in this country move further toward ideological extremes, the majority of our citizenry remains closer to the center. Citizens away from the Beltway want solutions to problems, not clinging to ideology, certainly not Washington one-upsmanship.
The third and fourth events are further from the public view, but may well give us the best insights into the future. Yesterday Kathleen Sebelius was confirmed at Secretary of Health and Human Services, completing the Obama cabinet. But the delay in confirming Cabinet officers, caused largely by partisan and ideological bickering (but also in part by poor vetting as the administration sought to apply stringent ethics standards) has led to large gaps in public officials below the Cabinet level. The kinds of individuals put forth for these positions and how the Republicans in the Senate respond to nominees will speak volumes for governing in the three years ahead.
Similarly, the Senate is reviewing the nomination of President Obama's first judicial appointment, the elevation of District Court Judge David Hamilton of Indiana to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Specter switch might make confirmation easier, but how the Senate handles the process merits our attention.
On these matters, the ball is now in the Republicans' court. Here are their choices. They can continue to resist all of President Obama's proposals, be overrun by Democratic majorities, and pout. If the economy improves, if Obama remains popular, they will face overwhelming and deserved defeat in 2010 and again in 2012.
Or they can move from the party of "NO" to the party of "Let's see what we can find to agree on." Rather than attacking Obama and hoping for failure, more Republicans can work with him, look for partial solutions to problems on which they can agree, and move on. The politics will take care of itself.
The Specter switch should be more than a wake-up call for Republicans. It should be a sign for all in Washington that the governing process is out of whack. It is time to get back to the business of solving the nation's problems, not winning partisan battles.
L. Sandy Maisel is director of the Goldfarb Center for Public Affairs and Civic Engagement at Colby College.