Specter Is Finally Where He Belongs
April 29, 2009 11 Comments
Sen. Arlen Specter Announced Tuesday He Would Be Switching Parties
Many political pundits claim that Sen. Specter’s decision serves as an indictment of the Republican Party. The party, they say, has shifted too far to the right to allow centrists like Sen. Specter to survive. Specter’s own remarks Tuesday reflect this sentiment: “Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.” For Sen. Specter, the blame rests with a Republican Party that has abandoned him. But, in many ways, it is a healthy sign for the party that Specter is departing.
Sen. Specter began his political career under the Reagan Administration, when the Republican Party experienced its powerful resurgence following the Carter era. Reagan’s Republican Party was established on the foundational conservative principles of low taxes, constrained spending, and small government. For much of Sen. Specter’s early career, he reflected these ideals.
In recent years, however, Sen. Specter has tried to hold firmly to a Senate seat that is quickly slipping away. The challenge began early in the Bush Administration, when Specter angered social conservatives by coming out with heavily liberal views on abortion and stem cell research. The cascade continued as he sought to secure the union vote, supporting union-first legislation at the expense of United States businesses. Throughout, Specter became one of the foremost abusers of earmarks, deftly directing money to specialty interest groups that promised support in his next election. Over the last eight years, it became increasingly difficult to distinguish Specter’s voting record from centrist Democrats’.
Sen. Specter’s most notable and telling departure, however, came just a few short months ago, when he provided a key vote to support the Obama Stimulus. The $749 billion stimulus represents the largest expansion of government since FDR’s New Deal, and is filled with upwards of $400 billion in spending on liberal pet projects. It was, perhaps, the most liberal piece of legislation ever passed, and Arlen Specter was a deciding vote.
Pennsylvanians, recognizing his dramatic shift, have been growing impatient with Specter, who limped into office in 2004 with just 52 percent of the vote. So, when the stimulus vote came down, conservatives across the state decided that they could no longer endure a Republican representing them in name alone.
Proof of this came last week when a poll was released showing strong conservative Pat Toomey with a 21 point lead over Specter in the upcoming primary. So what did Specter do? He jumped ship as quickly as possible, hoping to avoid the conservative backlash that, frankly, he deserves.
In his Tuesday statement, Specter noted that, “It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable…I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.” Specter then went on to say that the “extremes” have taken over in the Republican Party, and that the pushback against the stimulus was unfair and unfounded.
While at first it seems disconcerting to hear Sen. Specter and other political commentators say that the extremes of the party pushed him out, this may indeed show the increasing resurgence of conservatism. During the Bush Administration, Republicans embraced a faulty brand of ‘neo-conservatism.’ The idea was not to keep government small, but instead to spend money on ‘conservative’ initiatives. The line between Democrat and Republican became defined by abortion, stem cells, gay rights, the Iraq War, big oil, global warming, and international intervention.
Will Ronald Reagan Be The New Face of the Republicans?
Foundational conservative principles fell to the background, and the party lost its identity. Now, the party is starting to realign behind its conservative roots.
It is ironic that Sen. Specter claims he is no longer welcome in the Republican Party because it does not reflect Regan’s Big Tent. Reagan’s Big Tent was simple: You were welcome as long as you supported low taxes, small government, fiscal responsibility, and strong national defense. Those are values any American can embrace. But given his recent legislative history and support of a sharply liberal agenda, it is laughable to call Sen. Specter a Reagan conservative. Indeed, for Specter, the exact opposite is true. His switch was simply a matter of political expediency, because Regan conservatism is starting to take hold again. There is no place for a politician who supports a massive spending plan that widens government and increases national debt. There is no place for a politician who favors government handouts, union control, and expansive earmarks.
Arlen Specter may have been a Republican, but he was not conservative. As the Republican Party begins to remake itself on the conservative principles which once made it great, Arlen Specter is finally where he belongs.
-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net
Reagan is dead and so is his big tent. Republicans want more religious values driven candidates. Specter left because the GOP has moved far Right. If the GOP would drop the gay marriage, abortion, anti-immigrant, and for many racist and sexist rants and positions then their fiscal policy might have a chance. Till then, they’re becoming a party of Right Wing Religious Wingnuts. They’ll continue dying, and more people will be jumping ship soon unless the GOP recreates Reagan’s big tent, and actually accepts people of different cultural, sexual, and religious backgrounds.
I agree with your point that Republicans need to embrance a wider variety of individuals, especially from different cultural, sexual, and religious backgrounds. That is exactly why Reagan’s legacy needs to be carried forward. Reagan’s Big Tent was never about social or cultural issues, but instead about small government, low taxes, fiscal responsiblity, and strong national defense. Anyone from any background can enbrace that.
The GOP has certainly made a huge mistake painting itself into a very narrow social and cultural corner. Hopefully, it can be remade on the values that matter most in governance. That is beginning to happen, and that’s exactly why Specter is out. He was pushed out because of his vote on the stimulus, which represents large liberal government and wasteful spending–it had nothing to do with the social issues you described.
Pingback: Specter Is Finally Where He Belongs
Specter just voted against Obama’s budget. The GOP is giving up its moderates.
Do you think that being a Republican and conservative go hand-in-hand?
I hope that they begin to–the party is beginning to remake itself on Reagan’s principles, and conservatism will be what carries the party back. There’s no place in conservatism for politicians like Specter who willingly back legislation like the stimulus.
It’s a great question though–what will define the Republican Party going forward? Reagan’s conservatism (small gov, low taxes, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense) or Bush’s neo-conservatism (low taxes, high spending on ‘conservative’ social issues, international intervention)…I hope the former, as that’s what has made our country successful.
Yes, successful. Like having one of the highest birth mortality rates of civilized nations. Like having some of the lowest test scores. Like being one of the unhappiest nations. Like being a nation where millions are without health care. Like having millions of homeless people. Yes, very successful.
What would you suggest to improve those shortcomings? If it is large government liberalism, than your solution has already been proved unsuccessful by the test of history. If your solution consists of liberal talking points on the need for socialized, universal healthcare, then you have failed to observe the multi-year waits for basic procedures in Britain, or the low levels of high impact care in Canada. If your solution consists of government handouts and welfare, then you do not understand the notions of government inefficiency, bureaucratic abuse, and the injustice of high taxation. Any dollar a government wishes to spend on one person is a dollar that government has taken from another. Every country has problems, and liberalism fails because it tries to solve those problems through a false and unjust sense of government utopia.
That’s funny that you mention liberal talking points when conservative talking points is all you offer. None those ideas have been tested by history. What you call a failure other countries is not supported by the evidence. Government inefficiency is a myth created and exploited by conservative government officials; if people that believe that are in control then how else would you imagine they would operate? None of these programs needs to be a socialized system.
You offer nothing to solve these solutions, only your opinion that they can’t be solved. I disagree.
When, then, has socialism worked? In Russia? In China? In Canada? In Europe? Also, as I asked before, what is your solution to the problem?
My solution is simple: Less government, less taxation, less spending. This places more money in the hands of the people who have worked to earn in, accelerates the economy through consumption and investment, and upholds the liberty of private property and individual rights. It has been what’s made the U.S. unique since it’s founding. That is simply undeniable.
Also, why do you think government inefficiency is a conservative myth? What stake do conservatives have, especially when run by a Republican president for the last eight years, in criticizing their own government bureaucracy?
The fact of the matter is that government programs, while attractive in theory, are flatly inefficient and wasteful. There are 8 Dept. of Agriculture workers for every one U.S. farmer. Welfare is abused more than any other government program. Socialized medicine would follow the same path.
What is your solution?
I didn’t say socialism worked.
Your solution is the same basic formula for survival of fittest, like the animal kingdom. We are not simply animals, we can do better. I’m denying your undeniability.
Your example of farmers to D of A workers may be true, but consider the expansion of corporate farms and the death of the family farm life in America; a direct result of little regulation on major corporate interests.
Government programs, at this point, are sometimes inefficient and wasteful because…surprise, corporate interests are given more thought to versus the common good of America. Your idealistic approach of less government will only assure that corporations will be taking over America, something they’re pretty close to right now.
Regulate, regulate, regulate. Corporations are given too many rights, and not enough responsibility.