Comments on: A note about Arlen Specter

By: Z

Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:20:08 +0000

That’s a fair point, but I disagree—I think voters typically care more about his policy views than which party he caucuses with. They elected him to enact the policies he promised while campaigning. (I see where you’re coming from insofar as one of his campaign promises was, technically, to caucus with the Republicans, but there’s a lot of evidence that Specter was elected in spite of being a Republican rather than because of it. Also, I just don’t think that’s really the top voting issue for most people.) If writing a D instead of an R next to his name means getting those policies he promised enacted more efficiently and effectively, then I think that’s the honorable thing to do.

I guess the bottom line is that I see political parties as a convenient generalization for categorizing people, but that they don’t have moral weight as an institution. You couldn’t betray your party just by leaving it, any more than it’s betraying one’s school to transfer. (Sure, you could betray your old school by telling lies about it, or by telling their football rivals all about the team’s weaknesses. But that’s not the sort of thing we’re talking about.)

By: Mike at The Big Stick

Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:31:38 +0000

I guess I feel like the most honorable thing to do is to leave office and re-run as a Democrat, rather than switch parties during a term.

And I’m not so sure that PA wants him to stay. I think he’s in the sunset phase of his job as a senator as we speak.

By: Z

Thu, 04 Jun 2009 03:21:56 +0000

Well, I think Specter’s responsibility is to move his ideas along by advocating them to all people, not just to Republicans. Political parties don’t have a moral quality in and of themselves, they’re alliances made for political expediency. He also has an obligation to do what the majority of Pennsylvanians want him to do. It turns out (so the polls say) the majority of Pennsylvanians like him and want him to stay in office. Given that, I think it would be irresponsible of him to let the extreme-right 30% of the state veto what the rest of the state wants.

Specter’s been advocating his point of view in every public remark he’s made and in every election he’s run in in the past. I’m not really sure what else you’d expect him to do to try to move the party, and why this constitutes leaving anyone to rot.

By: Mike at The Big Stick

Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:18:35 +0000

I guess my question is, does his responsibility lie in moving his ideas along, or moving the party? If he thinks Republican voters have lost their way, the righteous thing to do is to try and persuade them otherwise and guide them back out of the wilderness.

Or he could stay in office and leave them to rot.