Entangled Alliances

photo credit: MBK (Marjie)

The big political news from America is that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter (not pictured)  has announced he’s leaving the Republican party and joining the Democrats. This came as a bit of  a bombshell to Republicans, since it means there will be 60 Democrats in the Senate. What’s so exciting about 60? Only that it’s the number needed for a filibuster-proof majority. In other words, Senate Democrats now have the votes to cut off debate on any legislation and head straight to a simple majority vote. This means – in theory at least – that Democrats can now pass any bill they want through the Senate and Republicans can’t do anything but sit on the sidelines and moan about it. Of course, in practice it’s not that simple – but then you didn’t think it would be, did you?

The rationale for Specter’s defection was fairly low on the list of honourable reasons to switch parties. Arlen Specter was one of the most moderate Republican Senators. He has a long history of defying the Republican party and voting with the Democrats, the latest example being his February vote in favour of Obama’s stimulus package, which infuriated his party’s base. He is also up for re-election in the 2010 mid-terms and, unsurprisingly, was facing a significant challenge in his state’s Republican primary from the seriously right-wing Pat Toomey, who’s being generously funded by a  conservative political action committee called The Club For Growth. Now, The Club For Growth have a hilarious record of funding right-wing challenges to sitting Republicans, only to see their candidates  failing to beat the incumbent yet still weakening them enough so that that they then go on to lose to a Democrat in the general election.

However, given that most Republicans now despise Arlen Specter as a Democrat in everything but name, the polls showed Toomey beating him heavily in the primary, despite the involvement of the chronically incompetent Club for Growth. Specter’s defection to the Democrats is therefore a matter of simple political survival – he could no longer be re-elected as a Republican. He could’ve gone Independent, but this way he (probably) avoids being challenged by another Democrat.

So the move was great for Specter. But was it good for Democrats?

On the face of it, the answer is an emphatic yes. This was another blow for the ailing Republican party, made all the more psychologically devastating by the effect of the magic 60. Republicans are now one step closer to being a regional party that only represents the bible belt and the Mormon states – a national party they are not. Moreover, given the huge legislative battles in store this year – healthcare reform, climate-change, The Employee Free Choice Act – the 60th vote in the Senate could not have come at a better time for Democrats. Or so the argument goes.

However, I’m not convinced that this news is all good for Democrats. If Specter had remained a Republican, he would’ve been thrashed in his party’s primary by Toomey – who would then have gone on to be thrashed himself by a decent Democrat in the general. Equally, if Specter had avoided primary defeat by going Independent, then Democrats would have had a harder task but he still would’ve been eminently beatable. But by allowing him to switch to their party, Democrats might have lost the opportunity to elect a more progressive candidate in 2010 – or at least someone who doesn’t think the flat tax is a good idea. Of course, Specter could still be challenged in the Democrat primary -  several Democrats already seem intent on taking him on – but with Obama having pledged his support for Specter and the Democratic leadership pleading for an uncontested coronation, defeating him in a primary is not going to be an easy task.

Moreover, Specter’s symbolic offering of a 60th vote will seem less important come December 2010, since Democrats are already predicted to gain at least three to four  Senate seats in the midterms. Looking at the long-term picture, then, I would rather have a Democrat representing Pennsylvania who wasn’t a Republican for most of his career. Of course this ignores the fact that, with massive legislative battles on the horizon, Democrats need that 60th vote now. But, even though he now has a (D) next to his name, will Specter provide it?

The evidence suggests not. Take, for example, the Employee Free Choice Act (or EFCA). This might not sound as glamorous as health reform or climate change legislation, but don’t be fooled. It’s a bill that would completely reform labour law, in particular giving workers the right to choose for themselves the method by which to form a union and thus freeing them from the coercive, intimidating tactics of union-hating employers. Back in 2007, Specter was the only Republican to be for it, but now he is, apparently, firmly against it- a position he emphasised in his remarks explaining his defection.  Climate change legislation, too, is something that he’s been active in undermining. All told, when Specter said in his remarks that he would not be another Jim Jeffords – a Republican senator who, back in 2001, switched to the Democrats and immediately adopted a liberal voting record – he was sending his new party a warning they would be ill-advised to ignore.

That said, despite Specter’s insistences that he won’t suddenly do the Democrats bidding, history tells us that  defectors do tend to heavily adopt the voting habits of their new party. Indeed, it’s possible that now the shackles of being a Republican are cast off (and how heavy the bondage must be!) Specter will find it much easier to accept liberal positions.  Moreover, there will be enormous pressure on him from left-wing lobbyists. This is especially true for labour lobbyists – they’ve been pushing him on ECFA for a while, but as long as he was in a primary fight with a right-wing opponent, he was never going to bite. Now he’s jumped ship, however, he might find that not only is he more amenable to labour’s influence but he might have to obey their wishes on ECFA, at least if he wants to win an election as a Democrat in union-heavy Pennsylvania. Finally, he does have a promising record on healthcare reform, although now that Democrats have the possibility to pass a healthcare bill through a process called “reconciliation” – a complicated way of saying you only need 50 votes – then Specter might not be needed anyway.

I could keep on speculating like this all day (no, really, I could talk this up for hours…) but the upshot is that it’s probably 50/50 right now whether Specter’s defection will turn out to be a success for Democrats in the long-term.  The best case scenario is this: Specter is the vote that gives America universal healthcare, or a cap-and-trade-system, or union reform – or all three! He is then defeated next year in the primary by a Pennsylvanian Democrat with a more progressive and  less, well, Republican record. Worst case scenario: he votes against all the major bills mentioned above and then manages to fend off a Democrat primary challenge, leaving us stuck with the centrist, semi-conservative Specter at a time when we no longer need him for the 60th vote.

Only time will tell…