Arlen Specter: Bringing the Political Science
Mark Hemingway offers what I assume will be a typical piece of conservative humor, quipping: “I read that he was switching parties, but I was disappointed to learn he’s still a Democrat.”
Joking aside, a look at the DW-NOMINATE scores shows that in the 110th Senate Specter was exactly what he claimed to be—a Republican who was less conservative than many other Republicans. Maine’s Olympia Snowe was to the right of all the Democrats, but to the left of all the other Republicans. Then Susan Collins was one click to her right. Then there was Gordon Smith and Norm Coleman and then Specter. In the 109 you didn’t have Smith and Coleman trying as desperately to position themselves as moderate for re-election purposes, so it went Chafee, Snowe, Collins, Specter. In the 108 it was Chafee, Snowe, Collins, Specter.
Thus, even if Specter were to reposition himself as the most conservative member of the Democratic Party he’d still have to become more left-wing than he’s been. What’s more, in the past there’s been a tendency for party switchers to suffer from ideological drift. Jim Jeffords went from being more conservative than most Democrats to being solidly liberal, and Ben Nighthorse Campbell went from being more liberal than most Republicans to being virulently right-wing.
49 Responses to “Arlen Specter: Bringing the Political Science”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 28th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
What’s more, in the past there’s been a tendency for party switchers to suffer from ideological drift.
What’s up with that. You’d think these guys, none of them young, would have some strongly held ideological views. Why run for Senate if you don’t? So how to you change your views as thoroughly as Jeffords and Campbell (or for that matter, Zell Miller, who didn’t actually switch) did? I can’t imagine changing my political outlook like that so late in life.
April 28th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
He is going to have to become a pretty solid vote for Obama and his congressional allies if he wants to survive the Democratic primary. I think that will still leave him some room to demonstrate his independence on occasion, but I doubt he will be as marginal as a Nelson or a Bayh . . . more like a Webb I would guess.
April 28th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
But that was just because his name was “Nighthorse”. Change Olympia Snowe to Olympia Nighthorse Snow and she’ll be co-sponsoring the Bachmann-Coburn resolutions to outlaw all renewable energy in order to not interfere with God’s will for his people.
April 28th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I think the most important thing to think about in terms of switchers becoming more like the party is that just about every congressman has only a couple of issues that they concentrate on. Everything is else is either voting with the party or making political calculations in respect to the voters in your state. So the effect is that a person looks like they’ve changed their views but it is probably more true that they never cared that much about many of the issues that they changed their votes on.
April 28th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
After reading Specter’s statement, I feel more strongly than ever that a very strong Democrat should challenge him in the primary. He made this choice to preserve his own power, period. A Senate seat is not a lifetime guarantee, no matter how much our elites seem to think so (see Lieberman, Joe). I am truly outraged by the tone of his press
release, clearly already looking forward to the general election. It doesn’t work that way.
Democrats are so short-sighted and desperate to increase their power at the margins at the expense of larger and more important principles. You’d think reading some of these statements that Arlen Specter is the only Pennsylvania resident qualified to be in the Senate. This corrupt backroom deal is the last gasp of a desperate and wholly self-interested man, and it should be recognized as such, even if it “benefits” the Democratic party.
Rarely have I been so enraged, frankly, at such a relatively minor political event. He refuses to face the Republican primary electorate because he represents “Pennsylvania,” not any one political party. So he’s running in the Democratic primary? And any politician who decides to be a member of a political party and win office through its primary is somehow not truly representing his or her state?
People are casually wondering if the primary field will be “cleared.” This is so undemocratic that it’s maddening.
Where in Specter’s statement does he extol the virtues of the Democratic party, tying his political history to the causes of civil rights and social justice or SOME other at least plausible-sounding narrative? It’s not there.
SHORTER SPECTER: I was going to lose my primary race, so I’m switching parties. But don’t worry, I’m still not voting for EFCA!
April 28th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
He refuses to face the Republican primary electorate because he represents “Pennsylvania,” not any one political party. So he’s running in the Democratic primary? And any politician who decides to be a member of a political party and win office through its primary is somehow not truly representing his or her state?
That was a dig at the current PA GOP, not a general comment on political parties.
April 28th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Woot!
April 28th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
What’s more, in the past there’s been a tendency for party switchers to suffer from ideological drift.
kind of like when foreignerpolitical commentators come to America and then start lecturing Americans on how to be American.
Question – do other countries have hordes of foreign (American)right wing politcal commentators all over their media telling them how they should be running their country – or does that just happen in the US?
April 28th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Perhaps you are confusing ideological voting with partisan voting. Nominate scores do not necessarily measure ideology. They can not differentiate voting based on personal policy preferences and voting based on party loyalty.
April 28th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
The ideological drift is more apparent than real.
By this I mean that a large number of “issues” in front of the Senate that are cast as ideological issues are in fact partisan issues. The number of truly ideological votes a senator might take are pretty few and far between. Much more often one can trace the rationale for their voting habits to partisan positioning.
Health care, Stimulus, Employee free choice, global warming, etc. In each of these major issues the bulk of Republican opposition is not due to true ideological beliefs but rather partisanship. Republicans oppose the EFCA not because they are greatly concerned about union voting per se, but because any advantage for unions is seen as an advantage for Democrats (rightly so). The list goes on.
What switching parties does is give Specter partisan reasons to vote with his new party. He’ll still pull the same centrist crap. But from the other side. On something like EFCA I expect him to lead some sort of centrist coalition that demands a watering down of the bill so he can then support it.
April 28th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
een. What’s more, in the past there’s been a tendency for party switchers to suffer from ideological drift.
Perhaps explained by the removal of ideological pressure. Perhaps Jeffords was always a moderate liberal but voted otherwise for reasons relating to party: funding sources, potential appointments, etc. One can imagine a leftward drift for Specter for the simple reason of not having to respond to Club for Growth.
April 28th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Bachmann-Coburn Overdrive?
April 28th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Yea, I’m not a fan of this. Dude is like 70 years old and he’s having an expedient, not fundamental, change of heart.
As soon as he uses the D’s to get re-elected he’ll show his true colors. A D in the primary with Rendell and Obama behind him beats Specter and definitely Toomey in the general.
k1
April 28th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
What’s up with that. You’d think these guys, none of them young, would have some strongly held ideological views. Why run for Senate if you don’t?
The problem here is that you think people run for Senate because they have strongly held ideological views. I think evidence has shown no such thing is true and in fact they run because they want to be in a position of power and priviledge.
I think Lieberman’s a great example of this. After ‘06 he was being a thorn in the Democrats’ side to the point where they strongly considered kicking him out of the caucus. My guess is had they done so he would have been a fairly reliable Republican vote. Instead Obama played nice and he’s voted party-line Democrat almost every single time. Specter seems to me like he’ll be the same way, especially since he already voted with the Democrats something like 50-60% of the time so far this year. It’s not a stretch to think that’ll go to 90.
April 28th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
As soon as he uses the D’s to get re-elected he’ll show his true colors.
You’re missing the point. Specter has no true colors. His only principles are staying in office. And since he’s in a blue state, that means voting in a way that will keep that blue state reelecting him.
That may not be quite the same voting record as a Sestak, but it’ll be pretty damn close I think.
April 28th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
No. In all other countries, foreigners are banned from commenting on politics. In England, I heard that if a TV channel puts on a foreigner, like a Kraut or a Frenchie, they automatically chop down all the TV antennas.
What? What was this about? Tell me this isn’t about Yglesias’ name.
April 28th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
I hope he supports EFCA now.
HAHAHAHA! F–k Yah!
God, the GOP is just killing itself.
Tax Cuts and Glenn Beck. Anyone see that Beck and Malkin are blaming frickin Swine Flu on Illegals. What a bunch of bat shit loons.
Oh, the GOP’s gonna be wandering in the desert for alooooooooonnnnnggggg time before they find Canaan.
White resentment & jingoism & “families” and “strong on defense (whatever the fuck that means), ain’t gonna cut it anymore.
And yah, think Specter could win a Dem primary w/o Labor in PA? Fat chance.
You heard it hear first: There’ll be some “superficial” changes to EFCA which well then allow Specter to support it. And let’s be real. Workers & Labor are getting fucked in this economy. Do we really want to fuck over the people, who actually work, and work hard. Because what, only people who sit in front of a computer all day, deserve affordable health insurance and decent compensation?
Man, I’m soo giddy. The GOP better look in the mirror and make some changes. I know the midterm elections usually favor the opposition, but, it looks like this time, the GOP is gonna lose even more seats in 2010 (at least in the Senate).
America — FUCK YAH!
April 28th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Obviously your typical Republican born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
April 28th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
“Virulently right-wing” seems unfair as a description of Republican Campbell — in the 107th and 108th he was the twelfth or thirteenth most liberal Republican. The thing is that he was still significantly more right-wing than when he was a Democrat. (I assume — the online rankings don’t go back to his party switch.)
April 28th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
In retrospect, I’m betting this is all about cloture. I’m guessing that’s the bargain struck by the Senate majority to let him come into the fold.
Specter can vote against every damn Democratic initiative that he wants. We already have the 50 votes needed. As long as he votes for cloture when the time comes. EFCA? Heath Care? whatever the issue. The threshold isn’t the 50 vote majority to pass the actual legislation. It’s the cloture vote.
April 28th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
That’s what I thought. I assumed everyone was assuming that too. Maybe not.
April 28th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Shorter Nathan: Ben Nighthorse Campbell is a typical Republican.
Sure, Nathan. Keep the bios coming. Do Bush next.
April 28th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Never mind Specter — what does this do to/for the GOP in PA? Is Pat Toomey now the face of the GOP in Pennsylvaina?
April 28th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
[...] Matt Yglesias makes a fair point about Specter’s RINOness. DW-NOMINATE scores shows that in the 110th [...]
April 28th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
How does one explain Arianna Huffington, whose record wasn’t one of votes in a legislature, but of advocacy? And yet she swung from being a right-winger to a full-on lefty after getting divorced. I can understand changing one’s position on a few issues, but it smelled fishy to me that she made such a complete switch.
April 28th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Ponnaru, who sometimes has sudden fits of sanity that make him an unusual NRO commentator, wrote that the Club for Growth can now pride itself on helping elect a half dozen Dem Reps and a Dem senator. It is as if he understands that the Club for Growth should be sponsored by liberals, so intent is it on putting radical right putzes in candidate slots for potentially Republican-leaning positions.
But this simple fact eludes the rest of the NRO crowd.
April 28th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I think everyone who says he just wants to hold power are off base. I don’t know Specter that well, but I do know that he has been a (somewhat) moderate (considering where the Repubs are)
Perhaps we could not all be so cynical, and just see that maybe Specter sees what we all see–namely that the Republican party is a bunch of wingnuts. I don’t blame the guy for not wanting to be associated with or judged by Republicans. He’s not a complete partisan hack, he did vote for the stimulus, and he will vote for other Dem. priorities, not the least of which is health care. We need to get away from the idea of litmus testing and party line voting which will kneecap any political party.
I for one am glad to have Specter, not only because it makes Obamas job easier, but because Repubs are gonna be choking and sputtering about this one on TV for quite awhile. I imagine a few heads exploded in dixieland this morning when they found out. This is what we want!! It will only drive them CRAZIER, and thus marginalize their point of view even more!
April 28th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
As long as he votes for cloture when the time comes.
But will he vote for cloture more often now? Who knows. I agree with Nate Silver that it will probably be an incrememantal portion of the time.
To me, the more important thing is that Democrats will now have absolutely no excuses. With only 59 votes, they were able to claim “filibuster” any time they wanted to. Now, they can do so only if one of their fellow Democrats supports the filibuster.
Everything that happens in the country is now on the Democrats.
April 28th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Never mind Specter — what does this do to/for the GOP in PA? Is Pat Toomey now the face of the GOP in Pennsylvaina?
Yep, Toomey and Santorum. PA is now sort of a microcosm of the U.S.: the PA GOP is still popular within certain regions of PA, but has been almost entirely wiped out in the moderate areas, and it is pretty much nonviable statewide. The only discordant note in this story is AG Tom Corbett, but that is mostly because of his personal popularity in Allegheny County, and I am not sure that popularity will translate to another office.
April 28th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
But will he vote for cloture more often now? Who knows. I agree with Nate Silver that it will probably be an incrememantal portion of the time.
Yeah, it’s about cloture, and Al is right that everything is now on the Democrats, or will be when Franken gets in.
So it is about power. Spector will vote for cloture but he wll get anything he wants in exchange for the vote.
Whatever, Senators are independent assholes, responding only to fear and greed. That’s why they want and get the job.
I’ll be pissed if part of the deal, like with Lieberman, is fighting or not supporting a Dem primary challeger against Spector, but I expect that, too.
April 28th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Compared to Bob, I’d be totally comfortable with the DSCC promising to usher Specter through the primary in exchange for a solemn promise to vote for cloture every single time. He can do whatever else he wants, the deal is the primary in exchange for cloture.
There’s a lot of good policy that can be made much more easily with this deal than without it.
April 28th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
He really just ruined the chances of PA getting a real democratic senator. It’s a short-term gain, and a long-term loss.
April 28th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
“Dude is like 70 years old”
Specter is 79. 70 isn’t particularly impressive for a US Senator, the Southern members of which body often live up to ages of between 400-500 years old.
April 28th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Like many other commenters, I think the best part of this news is the (correct) impression that the Republican party is increasingly imploding into a far right regional party. (Maybe the DNC should consider a tit for tat resolution calling on them to change their name to the Confederacy Party.) That Specter was primarily motivated by political expedience, while well known to politcal junkies, will likely fly under the radar of casual news consumers. Despite the switch, Specter will probably continue to be a marginal vote on many issues. I think the best substantive upside will be on nominations, where Specter will be under far less political and peer pressure to join reflexively obstructionist Rethug filibusters. Thus, I’d day that things now look brighter for Dawn Johnsen at OLC and Obama judicial appointments in general.
April 28th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
70 isn’t particularly impressive for a US Senator, the Southern members of which body often live up to ages of between 400-500 years old.
Wow. That’s even better than pure Numenorean blood, which only gave thrice the lifetime of ordinary mortal men.
April 28th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
People are casually wondering if the primary field will be “cleared.” This is so undemocratic that it’s maddening.
Agreed. Specter is free to switch horses, but he deserves a real test from his left flank (or, just as validly, from a moderate Dem who has been a Dem for a while). No free pass to the general election, please!
April 28th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Oh yes, we DEFINITELY need a Democratic primary. Specter might WANT to be the Democratic nominee, but he definitely has to EARN it. Who are the likely candidates?
As for the future. Specter can’t have TOO many more years in the Senate. At least with him being a Democrat it would be uncontroversial for the Dem Governor of the state to appoint a real Democrat to the seat should Specter croak or step down due to health reasons before 2016.
April 28th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Another issue no one here has discussed is the timing of this switch.
How far out is the PA Primary? Over a year away?
By switching now, Specter gives an immediate boost to Obama’s legislative agenda, assuming he actually joins his new party’s caucus. Strictly speaking he could have waited up to a year to make the switch and still pull it off.
My assumption is that the timing has to do with clearing the field in the PA Democratic primary. Had he waited until early 2010 there most certainly would have been one or more well-funded Democratic primary candidates who would have been much more loath to step aside. By jumping now I suspect Specter is hoping to preempt his strongest opposition before they gather strength.
We’ll see how it plays out. But I REALLY REALLY want to see him get primaried.
April 28th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
My only comment is that some people here want litmus test for candidates as much as the Republicans do. That is why they have been losing elections. Just because they have been dumb enough to move away from the center does not mean that the Democrats should follow them in the opposite direction. If the Dems keep bringing moderate candidates to swing states, they will keep beating the wingnuts and goals will be achieved> Maybe not as quick as some hope, but they will make incremental progress without doing so drastic that the backblow ruins the effort. Be patient, please. This is a large effort that will take years to accomplish, but at least we can see that things are starting to get done. None of this stuff happens overnight, and you will scare people into voting the R’s back in if you don’t take things one step at a time.
April 28th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
How does one vote after switching parties? Might depend on if somebody’s got you by the sack, or not.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Well. color my face red. No sooner did I note above that Specter’s switch might not mean much substantively, but would probably at least help avoid filibusters on nominees such as Dawn Johnsen, then Specter specifically declared his opposition to her nomination at his press conference. (Again, it may not be clear if the this meant he’d vote against cloture or just against her substantively. But I’m not hopeful.) Quite seriously, if Specter is not even going to be coopertative on a nomination like this, the Democrats have zero interest in assisting him, either in committee assignments or in primary support next year. This is especially true since this seat is almost a certain Democratic pickup against Toomey or any similar candidate.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
the deal is the primary in exchange for cloture.
I guarantee that was not the deal. It wouldn’t even be asked, it would be so insulting.
Spector’s cloture votes will now always be negotiated. That is still likely a big net plus.
Legislation will now be a little more progressive that what was previously possible, but a little to the right of what was previously desirable.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
If you’re on the left, isn’t the legislation that gets passed always a little to the right of what was previously desirable, bob?
April 28th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Another interesting thing is that Specter is an example of the relatively rare species double switcher. He started his political career in Philadelphia as a Democrat but ran for DA against his old boss on the GOP ticket while still a registered Dem. He switched registration only after he was elected. So pure careerism then as now.
April 28th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Arlen has been a corrupt mob hack from his early annenberg/palumbo days. When izzy spann was his scooter libby at déchért whére he partnered after losing a run for mayor. What he has done his wholé life is to look out for himself. It will be specter/kennedy revisited chemo brains and balls softened;théy won’t make it to nov. But his son shanin will continue to be the fixer for trillion dollar casés with thé b.o. Mob.this is another eddie the fart and comcast achievement. Put thatcasino in d.c. Immanüel is a fellow shmohawk.
April 28th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
The Republdican party is heading for extinction.
That’s sad because many Americans support their smaller government, less spending philosphy
Many people just can’t stand their anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-enviornment,pro Christian, pro white, pro gun
position.
And the Rush Limbaugh Taliban Christian wing of the Republican party has made it clear that if you can’t buy the entire package, you need not apply
April 28th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
And Lieberman didn’t even need to become a R to go off the right-wing deep end!
April 29th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Just another example of a politician looking out for himself to keep his power. Hopefully he will lose which is what he deserves. The sad thing is that all of the politicians live in a different world than the rest of us. They have better healthcare, better retirement, almost unlimited expense budgets – for these reason we have the societal problems we have in the mentioned areas. Let’s push for our Congress and Administration to have the same healthcare we have, no pension, and the same retirement and watch how fst things improve for all of us. This is just another distraction from the fact they don’t understand because they don’t have to deal with our situation
April 29th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Spector will be 80 in February 2010. If re-elected for another 6-year term in November of that year, he’ll be a month shy of 81 when the new Senate meets in January 2011. Apparently, he is convinced that the people of PA cannot live without his octogenarian presence in the US Senate. I am betting he is wrong.