David Jeffers

The Specter of Arlen
April 30, 2009

I found out today that Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania is a Republican. Imagine my surprise hearing that Sen. Specter was leaving the GOP for the Democratic Party. When did he arrive? Did I miss something? From what I've seen from Senator Specter’s voting record, a (D) behind his name only seemed appropriate. Perhaps the Specter of Arlen was such an apparition that the GOP completely missed that he really did not embrace the party platform.

The Random House Dictionary defines specter as “a visible incorporeal spirit, esp. one of a terrifying nature; ghost; phantom; apparition...some object or source of terror or dread.” Before I am accused of making fun of a man’s name, understand I respect Mr. Specter’s valiant personal fight against cancer. This column is not intended to be disrespectful to the senator but more to illustrate the feebleness of the GOP’s “big tent approach; move to the center; making ourselves relevant in the 21st Century” nonsense.

In 2004 then President George W. Bush, Karl Rove, and then junior Senator Rick Santorum all decided to support Incumbent Specter over actual conservative Congressman Pat Toomey. While the Pennsylvanian denizen did win the seat, he did not stop the slide to the left of the state nor did Specter stop “voting his conscience”; a conscience unburdened by continual conservative thought. He was Bush’s political equivalent of the Apostle Paul’s “thorn in the side.”

Arlen Specter may have recently opposed Employee Free Choice Act; he did however keep his options open:

“The problems of the recession make this a particularly bad time to enact Employees Free Choice legislation. Employers understandably complain that adding a burden would result in further job losses. If efforts are unsuccessful to give Labor sufficient bargaining power through amendments to the NLRA, then I would be willing to reconsider Employees’ Free Choice legislation when the economy returns to normalcy.”

Contrary to Republican Party of Pennsylvania Chairman Rob Gleason’s declaration that Senator Specter was standing “solidly against this legislation”, Specter once again fools many in the GOP party apparatchik. Senator Specter has a 2008 American Conservative Union rating of 42% and a lifetime rating of 44.47%. Nebraska’s Democratic Senator Ben Nelson has a higher lifetime rating of 47.26%. And the Republican Party, including its leader in 2004 worked for this man’s reelection?

In his response to Senator Specter’s announced departure from the GOP, Chairman Gleason released this statement:

“I am deeply disappointed in Senator Arlen Specter’s decision to leave the Republican Party, as he has benefited from the support of our Party for many years. It is apparent that he chose to act in his own self-interest and put his political ambitions first. The Republican Party has room for conservatives and moderates because we are the Party of ideas.”

With all due respect to Chairman Gleason here is the manifestation of the Specter of Arlen. He somehow is able to phantomlike portray himself as a moderate or a conservative. Mr. Gleason, a politician who votes conservative only 44 percent of the time is a liberal. If we are grading someone and the standard is 90-100% for an “A” and 70-79% is a “C”, how does someone below 50% get to be called a moderate? Would not at least a “C” or “D” grade be required? Is not an “F” a failing grade?

Many inside the Republican Party are claiming that the party needs to be more inclusive; it needs to have more centrist-type candidates. Why, so they too can jump to the Democratic Party? Were not Jim Jeffords and Arlen Specter “centrists”? Was not John McCain the model moderate man for the 21st Century Republican Party? How has all that worked out for the GOP so far?

Many political pundits are spreading the myth that Ronald Reagan built a big tent so more moderates could fit. Ronald Reagan had to build a big tent because his ideals attracted so many people. Ronald Reagan was an ideologue who was principled and did not use political calculation or pragmatism in his decision-making model. Any ideas why? Because he was a leader and leaders make decisions based on principles, not pragmatism. Politicians use pragmatism and polling to determine their next course. And when they do, more and more conservatives get tired of holding their noses and voting for “the lesser of two evils” and either vote third party or do not vote at all. And this trend will only continue.

If the Republican Party truly wants to see a resurgence in political influence across America it needs to remember what brought it to power in 1980; traditional conservatives. The rest joined later.

The best thing that could happen to the GOP is for Senator Specter to take the rest of the RINOs in the Senate with him and open up these seats for real conservatives.