Why Should the Democratic Party Support Specter's Switch?

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania became a Democrat today (statement here) after seeing some brutal recent poll numbers between himself and former Club For Growth president and Republican primary challenger Pat Toomey.

Details are still emerging, but several things deserve highlighting:
1) Harry Reid had been pushing Specter along this path for some time.
2) Specter's statement makes clear that he's still voting no on the Employee Free Choice Act, and might even vote against cloture.
3) But, fear not. The SEIU (and presumably the rest of labor) is on board Specter's primary campaign.
4) So's the DSCC and PDP.
5) It's unclear at this moment what kind of promises, in terms of committee assignments and seniority, were afforded Specter by the Senate leadership in order for him to switch, but I think it's safe to assume that he won't go to the back of the line (see: Joe Lieberman I-CT).

Left-leaning media are falling all over themselves this afternoon, describing what a coup this is for the Democratic Party. And as much as I'd love to play along, I can't this time. I want off the train.

I can't think of a single incident over the course of the last eight years that better illustrates my frustration with the Democratic Party. Let's take a step back and see what the world looked like yesterday, because I think yesterday the future of Progressive causes in the United States looked a bit brighter. Impossible, you say? Let's review.

Yesterday, these were the possibilities for this Senate seat, from most to least likely:
1) Tommey wins the Republican primary and loses the general election to a random Democrat.
2) Specter wins the Republican primary and wins the general election.
3) Specter wins the Republican primary and loses the general election to a random Democrat.
4) Tommey wins the Republican primary and wins the general election.

Today, here are the possibilities:
1) Specter wins the Democratic nomination and wins the general election (overwhelmingly likely).
2a) Specter wins the Democratic nomination and loses the general, presumably to Pat Toomey.
2b) Specter loses the Democratic nomination and another Democrat wins the general.
4) Specter loses the Democratic nomination and some Republican wins the general.

My question for Harry Reid, the SEIU, and DSCC, the PDP, and everyone else that wanted Specter to flop and issued proclamations of support for him today, is this: What in the hell is better about that second list? Put differently, if Specter's going to flop, why shouldn't the Democratic establishment have done everything possible to defeat him in a primary match-up, against a Democrat that will, you know, support a Progressive Democratic agenda? If Specter wins the Democratic primary you can always hop on board at that point, and back his candidacy as the prohibitive favorite.

Some of you might be thinking, "That's all well and good, but what if Specter wouldn't have flopped without first attaining Democratic establishment, labor, and committee/seniority support?" My ineloquent answer to that would be, "Fine. Who gives a shit? Stay a Republican. Good luck in the primary." At which point the Democratic establishment should do everything possible to help Toomey hammer Specter during the primary match-up. Because after all, the best possible outcome is for any feasible Democrat to be matched up with Toomey in the general election.

The thought that scares the hell out of me is that Specter's Democratic establishment support stemmed from the fact that Specter's chances against Toomey as the Democratic nominee would be better than another generic Democrat's. This is undoubtedly true, but how spineless do you have to be to mortgage the house against that slightly increased risk? It's like Harry Reid woke up today and decided he'd rather have a quarter for sure than a 50% chance at $1 million.

This would make more sense if Specter hadn't been among the most moderate voters in the Republican caucus, or if there was any indication he wouldn't correspondingly be among the most conservative voices as a Democrat, but there's no reason to think that at all (as his EFCA stance illustrates). It might also be different if he were 40 years old, with an evolving ideology. However, he's 79 years old. It's very likely that this will be his last term. It's also quite likely that instead of a Democratic incumbent in 2016, you'll have an open seat, and that your Republican opponent will be a lot less crazy than Pat Toomey.

Again, if Arlen Specter wants to run as a Democrat, it's a free country and he should file the paperwork. But I cannot for the life of me understand why, under the circumstances, anyone interested in Progressive change should offer him any additional incentive whatsoever to make the switch.

Friday

Doesn’t seem to be much going on requiring my wholly unique perspective. Torture, the Minnesota election continues to drag on interminably, the Republicans are doing what they do best: obstructing the appointments of people with wholly mainstream views aided and abetted by their fellow traveler’s among the Democrats. I do not understand how a minority, after losing two consecutive election cycles, including a pretty stinging presidential defeat, continues to think that burrowing deeper into the conservative catechism is the way back on top.

But hey, it’s Friday, and you can even speed on the highway.

C'mon, Baby, Joe Didn't Mean It

Well, the Democrats are going to let Lieberman keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. I can’t say this comes as much of a surprise, although I find it disappointing. I’ve never much cared for Joe Lieberman, and his actions in the campaign this year should have resulted in some sort of substantial punishment from his erstwhile compatriots. Would he really have started voting and caucusing with the Republicans on issues that he had heretofore voted liberally on simply out of spite? That’s hard for me to believe, which makes the Democrats unwillingness to punish him all the more frustrating. See Steve Benen on the case for stripping Lieberman of his chair.

All that being said, I also understand why the Democrats have done it (see Ezra Klein for the case). Having (possibly) sixty caucusing votes is a whole lot different than fifty-nine, especially as conservative Democrats like Max Baucus and moderate conservatives like … uh, the Maine Senate delegation and Arlen Specter are going to be under intense pressure to not be the 60th vote to break a filibuster.

All of that may be true, but it’s unsatisfying and leaves the door open for Lieberman to pull this kind of nonsense whenever he wants. Perhaps, if that’s the case, the Democrats can take action down the road. Let’s just hope that Reid has Lieberman on double super secret probation.

Reign in Hell

Daniel Larison answers a question I asked:

I think they might have avoided mentioning how beautiful Obama finds the Islamic call to prayer, I think they might have eschewed ever referring to his middle name, and I think they could have worked much more strenuously to stress how embarrassingly “pro-Israel” Obama’s positions on Palestine, Lebanon, Iran and the like have been. I take it for granted that his admirers and supporters want him to win, and I assume they are savvy enough to understand that imputing sympathy with Muslims is exactly what Obama’s opponents want people to believe about him, so I have never understood why they have been so keen to talk about those aspects of his life and family history that separate him from most Americans’ experience.

I think this reveals a few things about the two major parties, their approach to campaigning and the American public. Obama’s appeal to the rest of the world and his engagement with the outside world on a level deeper than “USA #1” sloganeering isn’t a bug, it’s a feature for progressives. The idea that the Obama campaign should have actively tried to hide that to appease a group of bigots who are unlikely to vote for him is absurd. As someone who currently lives outside the US, I can say that people here in Eastern Europe are much more excited about Obama than McCain – and with good reason. Obama at least gives the rest of the world the courtesy of pretending that they have cultures worthy of respect. And as a side note, I live close to a mosque, and the call to prayer is beautiful. If Obama loses the election because of people and attitudes like the ones Daniel discusses, it doesn’t have anything to do with Obama and his supporters.

In campaigning, Democratic candidates tend to be more principled than Republicans. (“Republicans,” as opposed to “conservatives”) Look at the campaigns this year. Democrats are always knocked for being weak and on the defensive, because Republicans are more than happy to lie, slander and play political hardball. This is often presented as an admirable trait. When progressives say they like Obama in part because he has an understanding of and even an appreciation for Muslim culture it’s not because we think that it’s going to help Obama get elected. It’s because that’s what we think. The idea of hiding that because it would make Obama more electable is absurd and distasteful to me. Now, could this cause Obama to lose the election? I suppose. I think that would be a real tragedy for the country. But I would much, much prefer that Obama and his supporters run a campaign where they don’t try and pull a white curtain across their candidate’s problematic characteristics.

I don’t think that the Democrats are the holders of all good thoughts, or that the Republicans are simply cynical power addicts (I think they’re much more than just simple cynical power addicts), but clearly they don’t have a problem with naked cynicism when it suits their purposes. Progressives have only recently had much say in the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Up until Bush, most progressives were content to say, “I’m taking my ball and going home” when candidates didn’t carry through on promises (see Nader, Ralph). Evangelicals are much more closely tied to their party’s powerbase and are hence much more reluctant to leave the coalition, even though it’s not as if the GOP has ever followed through on all those sweet nothings they whispered into Christians’ ears before taking advantage of them.

What it comes down to is: where progressives see a qualification, others see a liability. What is disgusting about the whole thing – even more than the thought that people would not vote for a candidate who is not Muslim based on how they feel about Islamic culture – is the fact that there are people out there willing to take advantage of those people to gain power. I think we already know that quite a few Republicans are familiar with Milton.