Whitman on Specter

Christie Whitman – she whose tenure as Governor of the State of New Jersey set the stage for the enduring Republican majorities enjoyed here ever since – holds forth in The New York Times on Arlen Specter’s defection to the opposition. This provoked a predictable number of well-reasoned responses so typical of the Times readership.

Let us commence with Heronor’s analysis. She contends, as did The Ledger, that "our democracy desperately needs two vibrant parties".

Why? If the Democrats now have a "big tent", with room for pro-lifers – like Bob Casey – radicals – like Barack Obama and Barney Frank – and "moderates" – like Arlen Specter – could not reasonable policy by shaped within that one Party? Why not simply leave the conservatives – assuming there’s no room in the Democratic Party inn for us – to live in sulking irrelevance?

Parties only exists to advance competing political ideas; if those ideas are already addressed in the context of one Party, which embraces everyone – or, at least, most folks – why should anyone care that 30% or so of the population has little or no effective voice? I mean, who really cares about the troglodytes who concern themselves with unborn children and preachy morality anyway?

Governor Whitman continues:

"We cannot simply be the party of no; we need to provide a compelling counterpoint to the Obama administration’s tax-spend-and-borrow policies."

Well, then, why lament the flight of Specter to the other side, which flight was precipitated precisely because his GOP colleagues said "NO", forcefully, and offered a "compelling counterpart" to the horribly irresponsible Obama policies? If so-called "moderates" bolt the GOP because it refuses to endorse "tax-spend-and-borrow policies", how might we hope to retain them? Put simply, the GOP message of fiscal responsibility sent Specter packing; how might the Party, simultaneously, oppose reckless economic policies and still retain the loyalties of folks who endorse them?

The Governor wrote:

"... Arlen Specter caucused with the Republicans, and he voted with his party 70 percent of the time ... It is a sure bet that his voting record will now change."

Oh? What votes would he cast differently? And why? Not a very principled guy if he permits mere partisanship to color his judgment. If that’s the case, he BELONGS in the Democratic Party, which places little importance on principal or honor. Opposing good policy – or favoring rotten policy – for crassly partisan purposes is idiotic. (I voted against all but one of the budgets Whitman and her GOP successor drafted because, considered at that time, they were irresponsible. Of course, by comparison to what came later, Governor Whitman’s fiscal record looks like a beacon of restraint.)

Finally, Heronor writes:

"In the coming election cycle, we have the opportunity to remind the nation that our party is committed to such important values as fiscal restraint, less government interference in our everyday lives, environmental policies that promote a balanced approach between protection and economic interest, and a foreign policy that is engaged with the rest of the world."

How, I wonder, given the abysmal record of "fiscal restraint" under the last Republican President and the last Republican Congress, might one remind the electorate of that fact? "Well, now, we really mean it. Please, we’re not your father’s GOP." Actually, Specter’s vamoosing might help: "you see? We’ve reformed. Irresponsible big spenders, like Specter, feel they have no place in the new GOP." Given the unrestrained glut of borrowing and spending under Bush and the GOP, we should expect no little skepticism from the electorate. Only horror at the astonishingly irresponsible Democrats, seen at the TEA Parties, might save Republican cookies.

No one – NO ONE – in the electorate gives a damn about what the French think about us, least of all anyone even marginally tempted to vote for a Republican. So-called mainstream environmentalism has been captured by apocalyptic Luddites who view man and all his works as evil, separate and distinct from nature not a part thereof. In NJ, we see the baleful effects of that silliness in the Highlands; essentially no one who actually lives in the Highlands supports the Act. In lieu of the nuttiness that passes uncritically on the left, we should support pragmatic alternatives, such as support for the construction of more nukes.

And, finally, the cryptic "less government interference in our daily lives" presumably refers to those days upon which someone wishes to perform an abortion. (She probably doesn’t mean those days on which you wish to carry a firearm) Never mind that consistent majorities of Americans support substantial restrictions on abortion and that Republicans will NEVER, EVER win the votes of pro-abortion extremists. Kiss off the right to life vote and goombye GOP.

Assuming the GOP manages to recoup its fiscally responsible image by expressly repudiating the last eight years, it loses "moderates" like Specter, who abandoned the Party precisely because it seems to be doing precisely that. Even if the GOP throws right to lifers under the bus, it will not attract the votes of abortion-extremists, who tend to be liberal on other issues as well. Internationally, the GOP might adopt a Mulshine-ish isolationist policy – let the world take care of itself – which has some facial appeal, but produced unfortunate results the last time we tried it in the 1920s and 1930s.

Just now, the population seems inclined to give Obama and the radical left the benefit of the doubt. They’re scared and want government to "do something". The danger lies for the GOP rests on the New Deal precedent: it failed miserably while being hugely popular. Given that the media – what’s left of it – is completely in the tank for Obama, we cannot expect critical reporting. It falls to us to, repeatedly, point out the astonishing irresponsibility of the program and its inevitable failure.

I would dearly love a Party which returned to the policies and principles advanced by Ronald Reagan, as the Governor purports to desire. I share her views that this is precisely the way to win back the hearts and minds of the American people. But we can’t do that while lamenting the loss of unprincipled opportunists like Specter. He skedaddled precisely because the GOP threatened to return to the very principles the Governor contends we should embrace. We can’t have it both ways: we’re either the principled Party of Reagan, or the Party of Specter. I opt for the former, and wish the Democrats a lot of luck with this guy.