American Traitor
Benjamin GayedToday Senator Arlen Spector became the 13th U.S. senator to defect from his party since direct senatorial election began in 1913, also likely handing the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority. Though nothing may be done at this point to save the seat, we can ask how appropriate it is for an elected official to switch sides mid-term?
Senator Spector’s argument for switching is that his political philosophy is now more aligned with that of the Democrats than it is Republican party philosophy. But what about the people who elected this Senator to his post as a Republican? Don’t those people have a fair expectation that he remain in that seat for the duration of his term? Ulimately, isn’t any elected official a public servant commissioned to represent his voter-base?
If an official were faced with a decision between what is better for the country and what will appease his voters, I would argue that the official should choose what he considers right. However, as Sentor Spector claims he has always voted his conscious on each issue, I am not sure how changing parties could be justified along the lines of the country’s need. Even if changing parties (or any other major decision done for the good of the country but contrary to the voting-base’s expectations) were necessary, it would seem the official should at least disbuse his voting-base of their expectations with his thought process - which specific issues are troubling him and why this particular change is, or was, needed.
So what do people think? Giving the Senator the benefit of the doubt that this change were something he felt needed to be done, should this be permitted? If so, what should the proper etiquette be considering the expectations of the party members and other voters who placed him there?
More generally, if an official has a stance on an issue which is contrary to what he/she knows his voting-base would think appropriate, shoud he represent his voter-base as commissioned to do, or vote according to his own logic and conscience? Perhaps each is appropriate at different times, and if so, how would he know which action were appropriate in the dilemma at hand?
As a side note, it is interesting that almost half of those who have chosen to defect from their party have done so in the last 15 years…
“In war each side may find a traitor on the other side very useful. But though they use him and pay him, they regard him as human vermin. So you cannot say that what we call decent behaviour in others is simply the behaviour that happens to be useful to us.”
-C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
April 28th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
“which specific issues are troubling him and why this particular change is, or was, needed…”
$.
April 28th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Well, I am more interested in the general questions about a representatives duty to his voters, but if I were interested in discrediting Senator Spector, I would probably point out that his claim is that the Republican party has moved too far to the right since he joined in the Reagan era. Seems to me like the conservative, anti-government policies which defined the Reagan era have been increasingly unpopular, even in the Republican party (at least until the most recent Presidential election).
I would also point out that as recently as March 17th, 2009, Senator Spector was quoted saying that there was no way he would leave the Republican party. In his own words, “The United States very desperately needs a two-party system. That’s the basis of politics in America. I’m afraid we are becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party with so little representation of the northeast or in the middle Atlantic. I think as a governmental matter, it is very important to have a check and balance. That’s a very important principle in the operation of our government. In the constitution on Separation of powers.”
With respect to the more general issue, I would also point out that in the statement released today by Senator Spector explaining his decision is interesting in the fact that he explains the conflict between his political philosophy and the Reublican party’s has lead to this decision to switch parties, and he then goes on to claim that “[he has] not represented the Republican Party. [he has] represented the people of Pennsylvania.” There seems to be a disconnect between his decision-making process (at least as he has explained it) and this last statement about voting for the Pennsylvanian people.
What if public officials had to request the voting base approve the party switch by popular vote? Seems reasonable to me. He would have to explain his stance, and would only be allowed to do this with the rubber stamp of the people he represents.
April 28th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Maybe I could restate that second-to-last paragraph a little more clearly. Senator Spector, after explaining that his decision resulted from a difference between his political philosophy and the Republican party’s on the whole, goes on to say, “On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania. I have decided to run for reelection in 2010 in the Democratic primary. ”
It seems non-sequitur, if not even contradictory, to claim that his source of trouble is a conflict between his own views and the larger Republican party, and to then conclude that he should switch parties so that he can continue to represent…the people who elected him, as a Republican. In other words, he does not address whether his own views reflect the views of the Pennsylvanian people he is supposed to represent.
I’ll now restate the question I posed in the last comment…
What if public officials had to request the voting base approve a party change by popular vote? Seems reasonable to me.
April 28th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
This changes nothing. This turd has been a Democrat in Republican’s clothing for years. In fact, I was just describing one of my friends the other day as a Spector-Lincoln Chaffee Republican, which is to mean, not a Republican (as opposed to the Reagan-Limbaugh-Coulter wing I happily occupy) and now I am going to have to change that description (or maybe not). The people in Pennsylvania, who elected a mealy-mouthed, yellow bellied, noodle spined Republican who votes with the Democrats most of the time, probably are not going to care that he switched parties. He doesn’t owe the people of Pennsylvania anything - they voted for him knowing full well what he is. You can’t murder your parents and claim sympathy because you’re an orphan.
April 28th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Putting Keith’s comment another way–
There are two main theories of representative federalism. One theory is that all elected officals are direct instruments of the people–that is, they are simple conduits for the will of their electorate, regardless of how they feel about it. At the next election, the voters judge how well he served as a mirror of their wishes.
The other theory holds that an official is elected because his constituents trust his intelligence, judgment, and character. His obligation is not to be a mirror of their will, but to excercise the virtues for which he was elected to the best of his ability At the next election, the voters judge again their trust in his independent judgment.
Under either theory, I don’t see what, exactly Benjamin believes Specter to have betrayed. Assumably, Specter’s constituents of nearly 30 years are well aware that he is
well left-of-center politically, even though he wears the Republican tag. He doesn’t appear to want to change his beliefs or his voting record–only his label. Pennsylvanians still have the same intelligence, judgment, and character–such as it is–that they have elected four terms running. Pennsylvanians still have what they intended to buy when they elected him, whether considered in terms of a mirror of the popular will or an independent decision-maker.
I would guess that the way his constituents feel about his decision is less akin to the shock a wife must feel if her husband unexpectedly announces he is gay, and more akin to the irritation a wife who knows her husband is gay might feel at having to undergo the public shame of him coming out the closet and filing for divorce.
I’m not endorsing Specter’s decision. I think it displays a contemptible moral cowardice and practical foolishness that is sadly characteristic. I am saying that while he may be a coward and a fool, he’s not a traitor to his voters (who know what he is), or to conservatives (to whom he has never given allegiance in the first place).
April 28th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
As usual, Jeremy has captured what I was trying to say, but with eloquence. It must be that Notre Dame training. I think the real shame is that Spector was ever allowed to call himself a Republican in the first place.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
At the risk of being contrarian, Keith, could one not as easily say that the shame lays with the millions of people who likely considered themselves political or social conservatives who consistently voted for a man who clearly was neither?
I’d say more, but Jeremy already made the points that I was going to make.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Don’t apologize for being contrarian, I would expect no less.
I confess not knowing much about Pennsylvania politics, but perhaps the social and conservative Republicans did not have a choice. Maybe they had to hold their nose and vote for Spector, like I had to hold my nose and vote for McCain. If you would have read all of my post, you would see that I said that the voters of Pennsylvania got exactly what they deserved.
April 30th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
You did indeed say that. I see that I repeated you. Great minds apparently do think alike.
I stand with my colleague, Tom Lyons, however, in saying that there is no such thing as “no choice” when it comes to voting: http://www.theonlyorthodoxy.com/2008/09/09/in-defense-of-voting-third-party/.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
And I stand firm in saying that as between Obama, McCain, and a handful of nut jobs, I had no choice.