Let's Have Two Parties

Terence Samuel has written an intriguing article for American Prospect, but I'm not sure I buy it — perhaps that is mostly because of what I believe, not so much what I see.

Essentially, what he says is that Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party this week was really the final act in a drama that began quite awhile ago — the implosion of the Republican Party.

And, while the party's collapse came during George W. Bush's watch, writes Samuel, he does not deserve to shoulder the blame alone. "Though the decline was triggered by the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush, it was the decision by congressional Republicans to so fully and uncritically embrace the Bush agenda and the president's arrogance that cost the GOP so dearly."

The indications of the coming disaster could be seen in 2000, when Bush won the contest with Al Gore and became the first Republican president in nearly half a century to take office with his party holding the majority in both houses of Congress.

"Had they heeded the warning signs, Republicans could have saved themselves a lot of trouble — and maybe even a few congressional seats," writes Samuel. "Specter's reasons for leaving are the same as Republican–turned–Independent Sen. Jim Jeffords' were eight years ago. Perhaps more importantly, they were the same reasons that drove so many Americans into the arms of the Democrats over the last four years of the Bush administration."

Bush and the congressional Republicans began paying the price for what might be called, in American politics, a policy of mutually assured destruction after Bush took the oath of office for a second time, and the country faced the Terri Schiavo episode, followed by Hurricane Katrina. By the time the voters went back to the polls in 2006, the tide had turned.

Anyway, that in a nutshell is what Samuel says.

And I go along with most of it.

But if Specter's switch really is some sort of post–endgame chapter in this drama, a lot of Republicans haven't figured it out yet.

Samuel implies that the party is like a dinosaur on the verge of extinction, being overtaken by the onrush of time and the evolution of other species. Specter, he writes, saw that "Republicans are dying and moderate Republicans are headed for extinction. There was no other option but to switch."

There is some truth in that observation, and perhaps I have a suspicious nature, but I think Specter was motivated by a desire for self–preservation. He knows that electoral momentum is with the Democrats these days and that running as a Democrat improves his chances of winning another Senate term next year.

I don't think the Republican Party is dying. Its effectiveness has been restricted to certain areas of the country, but, until I see evidence to the contrary, my sense is that Specter's decision was guided more by regional pragmatism than principle.

There's always been a streak in me that wants to see two competitive political parties. I've felt that way, even on those rare occasions when my party was the only one fielding a candidate.

To listen to high–ranking Republicans talk, the party will be positioned better in the future. The dinosaurs still have some breath left, they say, as well as a few old–school tactics up their sleeves

I hope it does have some life left in its lumbering old carcass — not because I agree with most Republican dogma but because I believe in a two–party system.

Having a choice between two viable options is an important part of a functioning democracy. It draws people in.

I may not agree with the choice the voters make, but we are all better off when more people participate in the process.