OK, by now I guess we all know, if we care to know, that Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania yesterday became the latest U.S. politician to switch parties (in this case, from Republican to Democratic). The announcement has already caused so much ink to be spilled by such a multitude of analysts and pundits, that I'm not even bothering to provide links to any reports on it. It's an interesting development for political wonks, of course, but I doubt that it has much of the earth-shaking significance people are attributing to it. It's far too early to determine what it means for anyone but Specter himself.
Some claim Specter's switch gives the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority. I don't believe it, even if (as seems probable) Al Franken of Minnesota is finally seated. Sixty Democrats doesn't necessarily mean 60 votes on every issue. Specter has already stated that no one should count on his vote. And, any advantage the Democrats gain here could be lost quickly if Specter still can't get reelected in 2010.
In fact it's not just beer and skittles for the Democrats, who must avoid overconfidence. If they're wise, the Dems will even edge consciously more to the moderate center, in order to get some workable and consensual legislation on the books. Only through clear success in solving some of the country's problems can they hope to buck the historic trend by which the minority usually gains seats in midterm elections.
Some say the Republican party is placed in a weaker position, and will be forced to move more toward the center; yet those Republicans who value ideological purity over winning elections are predictably arguing that they're well rid of Specter, who began political life as a Kennedy Democrat and probably could define himself most accurately by wearing an "Independent" label.
The significance of Specter's announcement lies beyond the political infighting of the next year or two. Will this symbolically important act (reaching the 60-seat threshold) break the trend toward extremism and restore our two-party system to health, could it just intensify divisions and condemn us to another generation of deadlock, or might it have no lasting effect at all? I'm betting on the last answer, but in any case, changes won't start to occur until after the 2010 election results have been analyzed.
Comments