Posted by
Andrews on Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:23:34 PM
In
Best of the Web today Mr. Tarranto argues the exact opposite of
my thoughts on Specter's defection. Arguing that it places principles over pragmatism, he makes the case that Republicans would have been better hanging onto Specter and maintaining the threat of a filibuster.
I would disagree with his position. While I cannot speak to one argument (that Specter will likely win reelection as a Democrat), as it is too far int he future and depends too much on local and national sentiment which can change quickly, I will address the filibuster argument. As it is common knowledge that Specter not only had liberal sympathies, but would also sell out even on issue where he leaned farther right, and as not only Specter, but two other Republicans showed a willingness to sell out over the budget, any Republican threat of filibuster was a hollow sham, and everyone knew it. To hang on to Specter purely for such a show is simply senseless. It is better to make common cause with a few blue dog Democrats, maybe make some moderate concessions to some conservative Democrats, than to make concessions to Specter. After all, the blue dogs are likely more conservative and would demand less than Specter would. More importantly, blue dog Democrats are less secure in their seats than Specter thinks he is in his, so it is likely they will be aware of the risk of appearing too liberal, and may be pressured into opposing Obama in a way Specter would not.
So, yes, it is largely a symbolic change, getting rid of Specter, but an important symbolic change. Do not forget that McCain lost support from the outset, and lost more and more as he tacked right and left. Nor was the 2006 loss of congress unrelated to the leftward drift of congress. And finally, let us not forget that fiscal responsibility and small government are not just "conservative" issues, but popular with many moderates as well. So losing a big government, big spending Republican like Specter may be symbolic, but it is a very important symbol, a first step in returning the Republicans to the party that won on small government and reduced spending in 1994 and 1980. Of course they need to follow up on that first, symbolic step, but I think if they do the gains will far outweigh the "loss" of the hollow threat of Specter's possible filibuster.
POSTSCRIPT
Let me make my position clear, Specter's removal from the party is not sufficient to prove the Republicans are the party of small government and reduced spending, but it was necessary. A Republican party without Specter could still be filled with RINOs and gain no popular support, but a party
WITH Specter would never be taken seriously as being for small government and less spending, and thus would have no chance at gaining widespread support on those issues.
And I am aware that conventional wisdom says the Obama victory shows spending and small government don't matter to America, but I think that is nonsense. Obama did not win because he promised spending and big government, he won because both candidates promised big spending and big government. Thus, those who wanted small government and less spending had no candidate, and those who wanted both picked Obama as he offered more of the same than McCain. That does not mean it was a defeat for small government, it just means that, among those fond of big government, Obama was more popular.