A lot has been written over the past three days about what the Specter defection means for the Republican party. But every lesson for them is potentially the same lesson for us.
Writing on newmajority.com and repeated on The Huffington Post, David Frum writes:
For years, many in the conservative world have wished for an ideologically purer GOP. Their wish has been granted. Happy?
As we move forward from our tremendous victories in 2006 and 2008 and continue our movement for "more and better Democrats", Frum's comments are cause for thought. Which we will do after the break....
I love watching Frum sticking it to his fellow Republicans who have cast him out (as they do with anyone who dares to question their divine right, the emperor's lack of clothes, or any right-wing orthodoxy). This time he's relishing the Specter defection and rubbing their noses in it.
The Specter defection is too severe a catastrophe to qualify as a "wake-up call." His defection is the thing we needed the wake-up call to warn us against! For a long time, the loudest and most powerful voices in the conservative world have told us that people like Specter aren't real Republicans -- that they don't belong in the party. Now he's gone, and with him the last Republican leverage within any of the elected branches of government.
For years, many in the conservative world have wished for an ideologically purer GOP. Their wish has been granted. Happy?
Let's take this moment to nail some colors to the mast. I submit it is better for conservatives to have 60% sway within a majority party than to have 100% control of a minority party. And until and unless there is an honored place made in the Republican party for people who think like Arlen Specter, we will remain a minority party.
(emphasis mine)
So what does that have to do with us?
I'm not suggesting that we face the same magnitude of problem--as a matter of fact, where they are going too far in moving to the right, I believe (like many here) that we have not gone far enough in moving to the left. We need to continue to press forward with robust progressive solutions for the host of challenges we face.
But the biggest challenge may be in how we pick our fights. Our history has been that we fail to have enough backbone to use our majorities in congress (or even our minorities) to press our agenda. The Republicans have proven far more effective on both counts. But this is a leadership problem. If we can't do a better job of holding together against a relentless and unprincipled program of obstruction, the temptation may be to try and go overboard in punishing or challenging conservative Democrats. If that is the case, we risk repeating the mistake the Republicans are making to our detriment.
There is a time and place for mounting primary challenges to DINOs. But it is not a step to be taken lightly. We need look no further than Lincoln Chafee and Arlen Specter to see the possible result. There is a political calculation to be made. The republicans have repeatedly primaried moderate incumbents with hard-right challengers who have unseated the incumbent and then gone on to lose the seat to a Democrat.
Challenging an incumbent Blue Dog or DINO is a harsh step that should be used cautiously and sparingly. If we were to do so with every Blue Dog or conservative Democrat, we would see our majorities shrink, especially in the Senate.
It's an attractive sounding proposition--if we don't like them, go after them in their next primary. Unfortunately, that can easily backfire if we don't think it through. The more effective (and far more difficult) course is to develop better leadership and party discipline in both houses of Congress, and this is where the GOP clearly has us at a disadvantage. There will be cases where we should primary a DINO (Lieberman, anyone?), but only when the right conditions are present.
And what about Sen. Specter?
There's been a lot of talk about whether to challenge Sen. Specter in the Democratic primary next year. I think this is premature. As I see it, there are several issues to consider:
- How he votes over the coming months. The first year is critical to any presidency--if Pres. Obama wants to move on Healthcare, Education, and Energy Independance/Global Warming it is critical to get on it this year. We'll be watching to see if Sen. Specter helps or hinders.
- We have to pick our fights. A lot will depend on where our best opporunities are next year.
- It's important to gauge what signal we are sending. If Sen. Specter makes a good faith effort to support the caucus and the President, it seems ungrateful to repay it by primarying him. Plus it could backfire by creating a sympathy vote or him. I think we need to tread very carefully here.
- There is also the question of what PA voters want. If, in fact, Toomey is the nominee, we don't want to do anything to assist him.
So I think we need to watch very closely and consider the consequences of any action we might take.
-----------------------
We're closing the gap in electing more Democrats and increasingly we're working towards electing better Democrats. The challenge, IMHO, is going to be knowing when to apply the tool of primarying a DINO.
The challenge with Evan Bayh and his merrie band will be knowing how to play it. What we need is another LBJ to work them over (or as Francis Urquhardt would say, "give it a bit of stick"). I fear they are going to be an ongoing problem and it will be interesting to see how the President deals with it. Like many here, I continue to worry about Reid and Hoyer.
I want to rub the noses of some of these turncoats as much as anyone sometimes--but I don't want us to end up driving more of them out than we can afford. The Republicans brought this on themselves. Can we learn from their mistakes?