Last week at the DP we held a political face-off in the Opinion office, where Eliot and I took the online test at Politicalcompass.org. So who proved the bigger wackjob between us? Eliot. And who was the bigger political wackjob? Eliot, again. He finally conceded how "normal" I am. By "normal" I guess he means "moderate." Thanks, Mav.
So while I don't adhere to a strict dogma, I am somewhat ambivalent about the political mavericks (no pun intended) in our government today. Zell Miller? Awesome, although he's out come January. John McCain? Not a huge fan, personally, but I can respect him.
But one who really gets under my skin, as I have no qualms admitting, is none other than Penn alumnus and Philadelphia-seasoned Arlen Specter. While Specter remains popular in the state, he's enjoyed something of a love-hate relationship with his Republican colleagues and conservative constituents.
As unfathomable as this may sound, I used to be an even greater political junkie than I am now. I knew even in high school of Senator Specter's antics, that he's the proverbial thorn in the Republican trunk. But further suspicions of Specter arose last fall when a friend of mine (who interned last summer for the New York State Democrats, to give you a sense of his ideology) commented how much he admired Specter and agreed with him on many issues. I later learned that my friend shared substantially more in common with the senator than I did.
Don't get me wrong; I don't dislike Specter solely because I often disagree with him. I dislike him, generally, because I believe he's smarmy, overtly self-interested and overall more of a liability than an asset to the Party. I don't like how he tried to shrink George W. Bush's first tax plan as much as possible and frequently voted with Democrats, but that's philosophy. I really dislike Specter's mysterious transition to strict conservative creed around springtime in 2003. All of a sudden, Specter magically morphed into the Barry Goldwater of the 21st century, strongly supporting Bush's second tax cut and whole-heartedly endorsing the Iraq war. What a coincidence that at roughly the same time Pat Toomey was eyeing his Senate seat. Impeccable timing, of course.
Republicans house a range of philosophies; not everyone resembles, say, Specter's colleague Rick Santorum. Debates and dissent are constructive in deliberation. Hampering the opposing side is the stuff of politics; serving as the human road block to your own party, a role Specter has filled since his election to the Senate in 1980, is counterproductive and antagonistic.
Specter is currently poised to chair what might potentially prove the most crucial and strategic committee in the Senate -- the Judiciary Committee. The next four years could easily bring vacancies to the Supreme Court; Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Chief Justice William Rehnquist remain on the bench despite declining health, and Sandra Day O'Connor has expressed her intentions to retire. Arlen Specter could make or break President Bush's nominees to fill those slots, and he has experience in that field.
For one, he led the crusade against Robert Bork, a 1987 conservative Supreme Court nominee. Specter claimed he just wouldn't feel "comfortable" with Bork on the bench. Shortly thereafter, Specter supported Clarence Thomas' ascension to the Court but later announced his dissatisfaction with Thomas' performance. Lest conservatives forget, Specter also strayed from Republicans to denounce President Clinton's impeachment proceedings in 1998. He has accumulated a robust track record in his career.
Because of Specter's so-called indiscretions in the past, Senate Republicans quietly promised to keep Arlen on a short leash at his helm in the Judiciary Committee. Party leadership concluded that keeping his seat Republican surpassed other matters, despite his inclination to agitate. Like Franklin Roosevelt said of Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza, "He's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch."
As the election fervor started to bubble, I considered quietly throwing my support behind Pat Toomey in the primary and general election. I reasoned that Republicans would preserve their majority in the Senate, thus allowing me to backhandedly vote away Specter, even if in a long shot. My theory collapsed. In the end I backed out of the primary completely and ultimately supported Specter, believing that his presence on the ticket might help President Bush win Pennsylvania. That plan worked well.
Part of me wants to step back and respect his judgment. And then the other part wonders what he intends to do with my vote during the next six years. At this point, Specter's acquired nickname of "RINO" -- Republican In Name Only -- seems rather telling. Clearly, as a senator he holds the obligation to level with the people and represent them as he sees fit. But maybe he should be less of a maverick and more of a leader.
Michelle Dubert is a College sophomore from Closter, N.J. Department of Strategery appears on Thursdays.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.
