When I was writing my “What the hell is wrong with the MNGOP?” series, a conundrum appeared.
A party – especially a party built around multiple principles, rather than getting swag for constituents – needs to embrace many different variations on the same message.
But…
That same party needs to have a coherent message.
My position: the party needs, on the one hand, to find the things that everyone agrees on. And by “everyone”, I mean of course the overwhelming majority. I suggested (at a Minnesota state party level) Security, Education and Prosperity; I can’t imagine a Republican who wouldn’t support these. The idea would be that everyone – tax hawks, pro-lifers, even moderates – could bury their differences publicly for the greater good of the party. Make no mistake – there is value to having more “R” votes than “D”, even if not all of them are purists for whatever ones’ pet cause is. If you’re a pro-lifer, having a mushy-“choice” Republican is better than having a Dem in the Senate when it’s time to confirm Supreme Court justices, for example. There is a time for being a purist; one of the things, problem or blessing depending on your point of view, with the two-party system is that purism is less important than numbers, even from the purist’s view.
If we lived in a parliamentary system – where everyone can strike out and start a party if they don’t feel their current party reflects their beliefs – it’d be different. Sort of. With enough votes in an area, almost anyone get a seat in a Parliament. Of course, if you have one seat in Parliament, you have to join with other parties to actually affect policy, which means exactly the same compromises that one makes within one of the two major parties we have today.
The complement to “vast majority” is the “infinitesimal minority”. And while I’m the kind of person who’d much rather win that minority over to the majority – especially when the message is something this state and nation need – at some point there will inevitably be some people who realize the party’s not for them.
Arlen Specter was a “60% Republican”. He may have been part of the “infinitesimal minority”, but he was certainly a drag on the party as a whole. And given the immense power his seniority gave him, his many “40%” moments over the years hurt the GOP badly. He was a “Sturdevant Republican” of the lowest order; the only kind of Republican the mainstream media “like”, the one that votes like a Democrat. I’d like to say that Specter is being intellectually honest with his switch…
…but of course it’s not true. It’s naked careerism; the Pennsylvania GOP is moving to the right (moderates defected to Obama during the past election), and his prospects in the primary were bad enough even before that, having barely beaten Toomey in the ’04 primary. Pennsylvania law won’t allow him to run as an Indy like Joe Lieberman did in Connecticut. And so he bailed – to keep himself in office.
I’m not going to say “good riddance” to Specter; Republicans have to get better at finessing, rather than bashing, differences within the party, if we’re going to recover from this past two elections.
But it’s probably a good thing in the long run. In the next four years, Obama is going to take a lot of the luster off the Democrat brand. Of course, we’ll need the GOP to come around with a message to have the vacuum filled when the opportunity presents itself.
And it’s fairly clear that that message is going to have to be pushed up in the party.
Good. That’s what we’re here for.
Adios, Specter. I wont’ say “good riddance” – but you won’t be missed.
Having lived in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania all of my life, and having been a constituent of Arlen Specter longer than I’ve been old enough to vote, I am really pleased by his choice. In some ways, it was hardly news: he’s straddled the fence so long, I felt like I was voting Democrat whenever I pushed the lever for Arlen. Thankfully the system allowed serious Republicans to send a message during the primaries: Keep to the right and we’ll get along just fine. Unfortunately, he didn’t. He kept winning thanks to casual Republican loyalists and fair-weather Democrat friends.
Five years ago, after squeaking past Pat Toomey, Specter faced an eastern PA laborite Democrat Congressman and a strikingly conservative Constitution Party candidate. The Constitution guy siphoned a lot of Specter’s conservative Republican support but Specter still managed to trounce the Democrat. The only way he could have done that — in the same election where PA voters favored Kerry over Bush — was with vast Democrat support.
He can still win with the support of Democrats, now that he is one of them, but I doubt he’s going to be taking many of his Republican supporters with him.
Although I’ve been a conservative for a long time, I’m quite new to the GOP, so I’m sure that I am naive about some things.
But Specter’s exit from the party needs to be looked at in the context of the Tea Parties held two weeks ago. Arlen Specter represents exactly the type of self interested politician that has no moral qualms with spending my tax money like a sailor on shore leave that the Tea Parties were so vocal about.
I understand the complications that come with his defection, but if the GOP is going to prevail in 2010, the party leaders have to demonstrate to the grass roots that they will stick to conservative principles, even if it is painful to do so. Especially if it painful to do so.
The message that the GOP needs to put out now is simple and clear-to all you grass roots folks and Tea Partiers, we did what you told us to do. We held fast to conservative principles and let Specter go. Now help us make up for his vote by putting pressure on moderate Democrats for the next year and a half.
I think in the long run this will probably actually be good for Republicans as they attempt to rebuild their brand image. Out of all of the complaints about the GOP majority, most of which were nonsense, the one that stuck and hurt the most was that under Bush-Frist-Hastert, spending went out of control. Even though Obama-Reid-Pelosi have already proven themselves worse, the GOP is going to need to replace it’s “borrow and spenders” with actual fiscal conservatives.
The fact is that while the MSM is focusing on Specter “moderate” positions on issues like AGW, the reason he was being rejected by his constituents is that he’s been one of the more guilty Republicans when it came to letting spending go out of control. Even back in 1995 when Republicans were actually trying to CUT spending, he crossed over to help Democrats.
I agree with those who say you can’t rebuild a majority with narrow ideological purity tests but you also can’t rebuild a majority by continuing to support the very people whose bad behavior cost you your majority in the first place, particularly when they continue that behavior. When you really think about this is Specter leaving, before he was kicked to the curb, because he didn’t think Republicans engaged in enough pork-barrel spending.
We’re better off without him. Now let’s work to get someone better elected in his place.
How can supporting a fillibuster proof Democrat majority along with the most lefty liberal in the White House be considered “moderate” or “centrist”. Anyone that makes this claim is a LIAR.
Good job, wingnuts! You’ve increased the political purity of your little party. Wouldn’t want any diversity of opinion. Fortunately the Democrats are only too happy to welcome any prominent RINOs you purge from the party. WINGNUTS UBER ALLES!
Unfortunately, Mitch, even the Obama, Pelosi, and Reid can honestly say that they stand for ‘Security, Education, Prosperity’. Saying that they don’t really stand for those things is quibbling about the details.
“Wouldn’t want any diversity of opinion.”
Like a fillibuster proof Democrat majority to silence any differing opinions, eh AssClown.
My Karma just ran over your Dogma
‘even the Obama, Pelosi, and Reid can honestly say that they stand for ‘Security, Education, Prosperity’.’
One tried to surrender our position in Iraq for political gain.
One gave the exact details of US interrogation techniques to the world, including Bin Laden.
And the the other still denies any knowledge of waterboarding because her liberal base would vote her out of office.
Education and prosperity are at least arguable, but none of those three have any claim to standing for the security of this country.
Angry Clown, Specter was ‘purged’ because he voted to spend a trillion taxpayer dollars without reading the f’n bill. You are welcome to him.
Bozo is not so sharp today.
Does Spectre seriously think that the Dems are not going to run someone in the primary against him? And that the hard left D primary voters aren’t going to find something objectionable in his voting record.