18 May 2010
Specter’s Party Switch
Political parties have become ideologically more rigid than the public. Perhaps this always has been true. A functioning democracy depends on the competition between clearly articulated points of view that two, three, or multiple political parties provide.
Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter changed his national party affiliation last year in recognition of the fact that he would have to turn rightward his professed views on matters of importance to his constituents in order to be selected as the Republican Party’s candidate for reelection. Apparently, he believed that representing the interests and majority views of the public who elected him was more important than spouting the ideology of a group of purists who wield the financial power and media influence that have become essential to “successful” careers in public service.
On the other hand, it might be argued that the backing of the Democratic Party has become more powerful in Pennsylvania than that of Specter’s former party. Nevertheless, the real question is whether an effective congressman is not one who can convince enough voters of his or his backers’ slant on the issues of the day to elect him, but one who can most efficiently manipulate the governmental keyboard to achieve the changing objectives of a majority of his community’s members. His job is also to help his constituents formulate their views into practical policy. Combining those job descriptions makes the demands on a congressman difficult to fulfill, and acquitting them well should be the primary criterion for election.
Political parties have become ideologically more rigid than the public. Perhaps this always has been true. A functioning democracy depends on the competition between clearly articulated points of view that two, three, or multiple political parties provide.
Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter changed his national party affiliation last year in recognition of the fact that he would have to turn rightward his professed views on matters of importance to his constituents in order to be selected as the Republican Party’s candidate for reelection. Apparently, he believed that representing the interests and majority views of the public who elected him was more important than spouting the ideology of a group of purists who wield the financial power and media influence that have become essential to “successful” careers in public service.
On the other hand, it might be argued that the backing of the Democratic Party has become more powerful in Pennsylvania than that of Specter’s former party. Nevertheless, the real question is whether an effective congressman is not one who can convince enough voters of his or his backers’ slant on the issues of the day to elect him, but one who can most efficiently manipulate the governmental keyboard to achieve the changing objectives of a majority of his community’s members. His job is also to help his constituents formulate their views into practical policy. Combining those job descriptions makes the demands on a congressman difficult to fulfill, and acquitting them well should be the primary criterion for election.
Comments:
Post a Comment
