RSS Feed MenuThe conservative rump’s reactions to Arlen Specter’s switch have been predictable and disappointing. In short, the GOP is better off without him, and he should take the other RINOs with him.
Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) summed the feeling up best.
I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs.
Conservatives like Senator DeMint too often seem to mistake the aims of a political party with those of the Christian Church. The purpose of a political movement is not to witness to the truth even as the barbarians breach the walls. The purpose of a conservative political movement should be to steer citizens in the direction of greater personal liberty and social equality.
And sometimes, given the institutional implications in the Senate and with the President, that might mean trimming the sails and backing a person like Arlen Specter in a state like Pennsylvania.
Having said that, it is important to note what Arlen Specter is not.
Arlen Specter is in no way a reform conservative.
Arlen Specter is a survivor whose entire political philosophy is best summed up as baby-splitting, as he attempted to assuage just enough Democrats that he was liberal and just enough Republicans that he was conservative to eke out another election.
But let’s not fool ourselves. While it is critical to note that the Club for Growth conservatives who are happy to have a smaller and more pure GOP are foolish to have forced Specter’s hand, this man should not be a model for reform conservatism.
As Pennsylvania slipped away from the GOP over Specter’s nearly 30 year Senate career, the man has done nothing to create a new conservative presence in Pennsylvania. Rather, he has taken the same old political poles and clumsily attempted to navigate between them.
Specter’s failure is evident even in the statement he released explaining his switch. Specter basically argued today that he did not leave the party of Reagan. The party of Reagan left him. Reagan’s was a big tent party that accommodated social liberals like Arlen Specter. The reconstruction of that big tent was the focus of his short-lived presidential campaign.
But Arlen Specter was not getting smoked by Pat Toomey because he is a social liberal.
He was getting killed because of his compromise on the stimulus. And that compromise was telling because in true Specter fashion it offered absolutely nothing in the way of innovative ideas for conservatives and their spending priorities. Rather, he sliced a bit off the majority position and declared victory. In many ways, his compromise was worse than either of the hardened positions of congressional Democrats and Republicans. It was a compromise that had no purpose behind it other than Arlen Specter’s political aggrandizement.
For all of his posturing as a socially moderate Republican, being pro-choice is not what sunk Specter. He was terrible on tort reform. He blocked the voucher program for poor DC schoolchildren. He longs for the day when he can become Chairman or Ranking Member at the Appropriations Committee, a perch from which he can promote tired and thoughtless spending policies.
From a reform conservative perspective, the low-point of Specterism was his effort to forge a compromise on immigration reform. David Frum has written about the impact of rising social inequality on the GOP’s electoral prospects. An influx of low-skilled immigrant labor has only contributed to this problem.
Yet what was Specter’s solution? Let’s establish in law a permanent underclass of low-skilled workers who will never be able to attain citizenship.
It no doubt would have been politically expedient, and I would say politically wise, for Republicans to support Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania..
But make no mistake about it.
He’s no reform conservative.
Reform conservatives are trying to work their way toward fresh conservative solutions to the problems Americans face today, problems very different from those that citizens faced in 1980.
And Arlen is as tired as they come.
Henry Clay // Apr 30, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Well, after the request of barker 13, I figured that I might as well chime in with something.Just a few points….It seems that there is a mistaken assumption that anyone who promotes “reform conservatism” is a moderate conservative. This assertion was made about me almost as soon as the article was posted. Where does this come from? Certainly not from anything I have written in this article or elsewhere. In this article I managed to take apart Specter for his lame suggestion (the same made by Snowe/Whittman/etc.) that his problems are due to the GOP’s litmus test on social issues AND noted that his real problem was his rather pathetic deviation from the GOP on the stimulus. My view (and it is hardly unique) is that “reform” conservatism should seek better and new conservative answers to the unique problems that Americans face today (rather than going back to the playbook from 1980). The most common proposals associated with reform conservatism do this by recommending a rethinking of the conservative cw on taxes (away from marginal rate reductions and toward greater tax relief for families through larger deductions/credits and payroll tax relief).I have hardly stood up on a soap box for abortion rights, corporate bailouts, and tax increases as the future for the GOP.So while I am no longer shocked by the reaction, I do wonder why it is that folks are so quick to brand “reformers” as “moderates” and RHINOs.Two more very quick points. As for my comment about the conservative movement needing to “steer” people toward the conservative political ends of liberty and equality…I am not sure that this is un-conservative. Isn’t that what politicians do? Isn’t this what statesmanship has been defined as for millenia? Seriously, don’t we admire political leaders who encourage citizens to think about issues in new and different ways, and wouldn’t we value a conservative politician who could convince Americans that the current spending spree of the Administration is the road to national ruin? I’m not sure what the hullaballoo is about this.Unless of course it was because I used the word “equality.” Conservatives, who routinely assume the mantle of true guarantors of the original Constitution, are fond of talking about liberty. And that is great. But they seem to write equality out of our constitutional traditions. This appears to be a rather significant political blindspot given the powerful appeal of egalitarian rhetoric.
ChristianMiller // Apr 30, 2009 at 4:18 pm
OK Spartacus, I responded to someone who characterized me and others as thinking all Democrats are all left wingers by citing about ten distinct groups of people who vote Democrat as part of a larger point. You did what just about every Democratic debater has done from the all the way back to the 70’s – zero in on race. While you technically did not misquote me, you mischaracterized what I said by putting the word “all” before you lifted my quote. This is an underhanded method of debate, and for you to try to hide behind a technicality while you deliberately distorted what I said is contemptible. When I bluntly pointed out how you misread my statement, and did so very clearly, you chose to play dumb and not acknowledge the easy distinction and trying to put the burden on me for being unclear. So I, as well as barker 13, called you out on that cheap rhetorical trick. Then you went off trying to nail me down on some remote and irrelevant hypothetical about race, which again is how you Democrats try to gain advantage – like witch hunters. Race was not the thrust of my argument at all. You ignored all the salient points of my main argument in order to focus on some kind of “gotcha” which didn’t even exist and was fabricated by your own distortions, and then expect me to respond to your irrelevant queries.And just for fun here is another amateurish smear of what I didn’t say.”People in this country want government services. (Who said I wanted to suspend government services?) They want unemployment benefits when they get laid off. (Unemployment is an insurance program and I didn’t say anything about wanting to terminate it)They want police and fireman when their safety is in jeopardy.( Now you are really laying it on thick, I don’t remember promoting the abolition of the police and fire departments, funny!) They want their children to be educated and immunized. ( Oh, I didn’t know I was advocating ending immunization programs and for stifling children educations, gee whiz I must really be some kinda crazed nut!) They want social security payments so the elderly don’t become destitute.( I want seniors to starve, what a despicable person I must be!) To suggest otherwise is utter nonsense, and no party will ever gain power by denying the people these services.”(WoW!) What an argument! Oh Spartacus you are devastating! You are arguing with yourself. Get therapy.
ChristianMiller // Apr 30, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Henry Clay,”While it is critical to note that the Club for Growth conservatives who are happy to have a smaller and more pure GOP are foolish to have forced Specters hand…”This seems to be the objection, the common thread of every writer here. On most of the other things I basically agree, although I have even more criticisms of Spector and believe him to be even more damaging to the GOP than you.No one forced Spector’s hand. He votes how he wishes using whatever calculations he makes, and if enough people get fed up with him there WILL be a challenger, whether it comes from Club for Growth or any other sponsor. You can’t hector voters into making an inside-the-beltway political calculation forever, they have a right to dump politicians they can’t stand and/or who willfully aggravate them.I made the point before, but Spector miscalculated in voting for the stimulus, which you rightly cite as the coup de grace on Spector’s prospects. Spector, I believe, was so lulled by having been tolerated and coddled by Republicans similar to those who writer here, that he over-reached. Then when he found his prospect bleak, he blithely changed parties. To me this is complete vindication of why those like Spector (he probably is the only one that craven) should be persona non grata in the party. By the way lots of Democrats are wary of him now too. I know, it is tough medicine, but in the long run it is better. I believe Republicans got themselves into this mess by trading away long-term health and strength for short-term expediency.”But they seem to write equality out of our constitutional traditions. This appears to be a rather significant political blindspot given the powerful appeal of egalitarian rhetoric.”Equality can’t be guaranteed by the state only equal protection and equal opportunity. The distinction is at the heart of the debate and why leftism has infiltrated every aspect of our politics. Just because people like to hear these platitudes doesn’t make it right. And equality, as you refer to it, isn’t in our Constitution, you must be thinking of France.
// Apr 30, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Franco,To say I zeroed in on race for the purpose of distorting what you said indicates you haven’t read very carefully either your own post or my response to your post. My initial response said that your comment about blacks showed “an ignorance of the black support that some Republicans have received.” I did not call you ignorant or racist or anything else derogatory. I merely pointed out that you were unaware of the ability of some Republicans to garner support from blacks, in large part because they speak in terms that are not offensive.I also was not trying to focus on some irrelevant part of your post. In my initial response I said I would address the rest of your post later, which I did. In my post to barker, I also clearly identified your other points as “larger points.”Lastly and most importantly, I did not say that you were in favor of eliminating police, education, social security, etc. You said that people should not look to the government for solutions, but should instead require only that government referee the free market. Well, each of the services I listed constitutes a solution to a problem that people have, be it a lack of safety, under educated children or poverty in old age. People will continue to look to government for solutions to these problems. If conservatives and Republicans want to govern, they better come up with a government solution to those problems because there’s nothing to suggest that people are going to rely on the free market to address these problems.The fact that you’ve defended the existence of government-funded schools, cash payments to senior citizens and police and firemen suggests that you now believe government does, and should, provide solutions. That’s ok. In fact, that’s good, but it conflicts with what I characterized as a juvenile view of many conservatives that a political party can maintain power by restricting the role of government to nothing more than a referee of the free market.Incidentally, upon more careful re-reading of your initial post, I acknowledge that it is ambiguous and capable of being interpreted in the way you intended.
ChristianMiller // May 1, 2009 at 6:08 am
Spartacus, “I merely pointed out that you were unaware of the ability of some Republicans to garner support from blacks, in large part because they speak in terms that are not offensive.” Now remember, this is in response to my passing statement, “then there are the blacks who think anyone with an “R” after their name is some kind of closet racist.”Now, in response your assertion above, I said that Bush and Schwarzenegger didn’t receive much more support from blacks than most other Republicans – about 10%, which is minuscule. You did not refute that statement, you in fact ignored it, and went on to ask me a hypothetical and conflated two basically unrelated statements of mine:”Can you please explain how the fact that 90% of black people vote for a Democrat means that blacks believe Republicans are racists? If only 60% of blacks voted for Republicans would that mean that blacks do not think Republicans are racists? Or would it mean that only 60% of blacks think that Republicans are racists?”Then there was this non-sequitor.Right now, 80% of the country has chosen to disassociate itself from the Republican party. Has 80% of the country become racists? Even someone with your limitations can probably see the nonesense in this.”It doesn’t matter how many blacks I think believe Republicans are racist, it only matters that many do (which was my point, in passing) and that Democrats use the FACT that 90% of blacks not voting R is somehow proof that there must be some racial meaning behind that fact. (you also ignored that point) And I will tell you that many Democrats, black and white, like to imply or assert that Republicans are racist. Is that too difficult for you to agree with?Then you go on in the second paragraph of the above quote to make an absurd and illogical association, as though it follows, and have the nerve to say “anyone can see the nonesense (sic) of this” I am laughing as I type. It is hilarious! And you expect me to answer these silly questions? I am only doing this now to reveal you to others as being an emotional partisan who is incapable of reading a sentence and paragraph as written, and as someone who can’t process logic, apparently because of an existing belief system.I have a libertarian streak, but I am far from being an anarchist. There is nothing in the general debate of smaller government that implies that one wants to eliminate police and fire department or rob old people of their entitlements. You exaggerate your opponents arguments and then attack the straw man. It is as juvenile a debate tactic as saying “Oh, so if you are against the Iraq War, I suppose you want to do away with the entire Defense Department. Please tell me what we are going to do if we can’t defend ourselves?”You have a dire black and white outlook, devoid of nuance when reading your opponents, and yet give yourself great leeway and license to hide behind technicalities when you attack unfairly. I’ll not have any more discussions with you, and I’ll ask, once again, why are you here? You are a partisan Democrat. There are millions like you and many sites you can visit. This site is a place where I go to disagree with my Republican allies not to get into silly disputes with true believers who are intellectually dishonest, and may not even be able to realize it themselves.
barker13 // May 1, 2009 at 8:20 am
Re: Franco; 9:17 AM –Right back at ya, Franco. (*NOD*)”As to Spector’s voting habits any percentage of him voting with Republicans has to be stipulated that I don’t always agree with Republican votes and many of these bills are bad either way Republican or Democrat because there are all kinds of compromises within the bowels of these bills.”EXCELLENT OBSERVATION! Shows real insight. A totally logical yet apparently underappreciated (by some) point. Heck… I wish I’d thought of making it first!(*LAUGHING OUT LOUD*)Now just to take a moment to note something about “personalities” that’s been on my mind, allow me to say this:Franco has a distinctive style. I certainly have a distinctive style. I urge those of you out there who tend to confuse confidence with clownishness to bear in mind that whatever “stylistic” differences we individually showcase here, none of us seem to be dummies (though krove is a bit snarky and knee-jerk for my taste at times).I’m a pretty smart guy. Franco’s a pretty smart guy. Brutus… I wouldn’t want to tangle with him (or her?); I’m guessing I’d get my clock cleaned. Mike K – the Doc – obviously an intellectual heavyweight.On the other hand… when those to the “Left” of me are right… are correct… make a valid point… I’m always gonna be the first to offer a (*NOD*) or even a (*THUMBS UP*)My style is… er… heavy-handed. It bugs some. Obviously this doesn’t “bother” me… in fact it amuses me. But sarcasm and even condescension are one thing. The name calling is another. And for God’s sake… if we’re not all going to be intellectually honest and refrain from manipulation and distortion when attempting to make our various cases on various issues… what’s the point?Oh, yeah… and last but not least… I still wish Frum and certain other “contributors” would show posters the courtesy of responding to direct questions and requests for clarification. BILLP.S. – Chekote… always enjoy your posts. Marcus… you too. Anyone I haven’t mentioned by name or “handle,” you know how I feel via my exchanges with you individually.
barker13 // May 1, 2009 at 8:43 am
Re: Henry Clay; 2:16 PM –”Well, after the request of barker 13, I figured that I might as well chime in…”(*WINK*) (*NOD*)”The most common proposals associated with reform conservatism do this by recommending a rethinking of the conservative cw on taxes (away from marginal rate reductions and toward greater tax relief for families through larger deductions/credits and payroll tax relief).”Aahhh… I was wondering what “reform” conservatism was!Well… if you’ve read my various posts on this general topic and recall my positions you’ll know that I’m definitely NOT a “reform” conservative. Responding directly to your proposals… umm… what about the SPENDING side…???”Larger deductions… more tax credits…” Putting aside the inherent social engineering aspects of such a platform, how exactly are you imagining governmental operating expenses, capital projects, debt repayment with interest, interest on the existing (expanding) debt, future unfunded liabilities…(*TAKING A BREATH*)…where’s the money coming from…??? Are you counting on supply side trickle down on steroids or have you perhaps discovered the secret of alchemy?(*CHUCKLE*)”My view (and it is hardly unique) is that “reform” conservatism should seek better and new conservative answers to the unique problems that Americans face today (rather than going back to the playbook from 1980).”OK. As far as it goes, that is. But this is like saying you’re in favor of “doing the correct thing” without being specific about what the right thing – or in this case, policy – is (or should be).I mean… “reform.” Unless you’re specific in defining exactly what you see as “reform” it’s like saying you’re “against waste,” or “for protecting the environment.” I mean… we all are, Hank. (*GRIN*)Anyway… thanks for responding to me and I hope I don’t come off to you as an automatic critic nor automatic booster of anything besides what I actually… er… criticize or support.BILL
barker13 // May 1, 2009 at 8:57 am
Re: Franco; 4:18 PM –Sparky… first of all… as a gesture of good faith… would you agree with me that Franco deserves a gold star for using the word “salient” in a sentence?(*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*) (Just trying to add a bit of levity here folks…)Seriously. Sparky. Just admit it. You took a cheap shot and got caught.To my FELLOW POSTERS… while the silence? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to start a blog war here, but jeez… can’t we all speak out for common standards…??? Shouldn’t we all decry mischaracterizations and distortions of each other’s positions?Again… this aint a “sport.” We don’t have to limit ourselves to rooting for “our” team vs. there team and thus turning a blind eye to an official’s bad call when that bad call benefits us and works to the detriment of our “opponents.”I say ALL conservatives – and yes, ALL liberals – and everyone in between should stand up for honesty, integrity, and intellectual honesty… call it “fair play.”Re: Spartacus; 8:58 PM –(*SIGH*)Sparky… all I can say is that in my not so humble opinion… you need to hold yourself to a higher standard.’nough said…BILL
ChristianMiller // May 1, 2009 at 11:29 am
Barker, thanks for the praise. I enjoy your comments and said something to that effect on some other thread here. Anyway you are being a bit too naive IMO about Sparky and others. They CAN’T be intellectually honest or hold themselves to higher standards. There is a difference between logic and expressing and advocating a belief system. Many come to have belief systems based on knowledge, logic and applied reason, and we are willing to continually amend or even completely change, based on evidence. Then there are others who start out with a belief and look for facts and rhetorical tricks -whatever is at hand, to support the belief system. And it goes way beyond confirmation bias.I will not argue with these people any more than I would argue with a Mormon an Evangelical or Baptist, Catholic (I’ve done that – took a room with a Theology Prof. A very nice man, but we got to the idea of Papal infallibility, and his position was that essentially, if the Pope makes a mistake, the mistake is made real and no longer a mistake. How do you refute that?!?? ) a Muslim or a Scientologist. (All that said about religion, I still respect it because Who knows? Who am I to say people shouldn’t have beliefs?) It is a waste of time. I did indulge Sparky just for fun. I don’t expect much from him.
barker13 // May 1, 2009 at 11:50 am
Re: Franco; wrote 16 minutes ago –”Anyway you are being a bit too naive IMO about Sparky and others.”Understand, Franco… I fear you’re correct… it’s just that I feel I’ve gotta try.(*SHRUG*)(Jeez… you see the b_t_h slapping that Brutus is giving Otto over on another thread… painful to watch – Otto is fighting way out of his (intellectual) weight class.)Anyway… it’ll be interesting to see if my remarks get any response from anyone other than you.BILL
// May 1, 2009 at 12:32 pm
barker,I would have no problem admitting I took a cheap shot if that’s what I thought I did. If I had been taking a cheap shot I would not have said repeatedly that if Franco did not intend his post to be interpreted in the way I interpreted it, that’s fine and the ambiguity in his post should not be held against him. Instead, I would have insisted that he intended the post to be interpreted the way I initially interpreted it. I even ignored his subsequent comment about low black support for Shwarzenegger because I do believe that his comment about blacks was not part of his larger point.As for Franco’s larger point, he said the following:”The idea of looking for solutions itself is Statist and therefore not conservative. . . . Government can’t solve problems and those looking to government to be anything more than a referee for the free market are Statists. . . . Conservatives – real conservatives, know that government is not the answer . . . “When I then point out that, contrary to his juvenile assertion, government does solve problems and it has to be more than just a referee of the free market, he responds with the following:”There is nothing in the general debate of smaller government that implies that one wants to eliminate police and fire department or rob old people of their entitlements. . . . You exaggerate your opponents arguments and then attack the straw man.”So, he says government can’t solve problems and it should be nothing more than a referee of the free market. I respond to his words by identifying real problems that government does solve and demonstrating that a political party has to advocate for more than the role of government as referee of the free market. And by doing that, I have somehow picked out a straw man? Look, all that any of us can do on these sites is respond to the written words of other posters. We can’t respond to what might be in anyone else’s head – only what they write. Where is the sense in taking an extreme position like government should only referee the free market, but then later saying you don’t intend anything that extreme and anyone who responds to that is creating a straw man?Come on!