Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (1 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats   2 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Arlen Specter: Tip of the Iceberg for Many Problems

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 4/29/09

Become a Fan
  (1 fan)
Today's Arlen Specter story really started long before Mr. Specter became a member of Congress. When I was a child in the 1950's, my mother was very active politically and she would attend Democratic party meetings where she met both the eventual Mayer of New York City and eventual Governor of New York State. But, she never had a choice in their selection to run.

Back in those days, decisions on who ran for a Congressional Seat, the Governor's Mansion, the White House or for Mayor where normally made by a group of old, out of shape, cigar smoking and balding men; Party insiders, big wigs or fat cats they were sometimes called, but they were also known as the bosses. The system left a lot of good people on the outside looking in and was inherently unfair to females and minorities. It was a blot on democracy.

But back in those days (while I was in Junior and Senior High School) Liberal New York State found a way to elect two Republican Senators: Kenneth Keating and Jacob Javits (and Governor Nelson Rockefeller). Both Keating and Javits were more moderate and very much more Liberal than just about any Democratic Senator from the South (which is why much to my mother's chagrin, I was a Republican at first) and both Senators were probably more moderate than any of today's Republican Senators, including the two ladies from Maine, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. But more important than their moderation in voting was their moderation in legislating. They could compromise and they would debate civilly, not resorting to filibusters at every excuse to avoid passage of a bill favored by the Democrats.

But it was not only Keating and Javits who were more moderate than the majority of today's Congressmen, both Representatives and Senators, it was most Congressmen. The Congressmen of that era were more civil and they reached compromise (on most issues) more easily. Why?

My opinion for the change in civility is that not too long after I graduated High School, the push to make politics more democratic gained steam. Some saw it as just progress in the evolution of democracy, some saw it as a way to get rid of the system of bosses with it's inherent cronyism, nepotism, corruption, bribery and payoffs. The method for ending the reign of the bosses was the increased usage of primary voting. It sounded like a wonderful idea, until it was in practice for a while.

Voter apathy and a system of choosing general election candidates by primary, go together like oil and water. And the more primaries we had, the more apathetic the voting public became. That in itself is not harmful. As you probably know, any good polling company can inquire the opinions of a few thousand people and tell you who is going to win an election in which millions of people are going to vote. But that poll makes the assumption that the few thousand people are as random as the millions of voters are. For example if you had asked 3,000 Republicans who was going to win the 2008 Presidential Election, you would have predicted John McCain in the biggest landslide in American Electoral History. But 3,000 Republicans out of a poll of 3,000 perspective voters is not a random sample or an appropriate sample because it does not reflect the diversity of the electorate accurately.

If the inclinations of the low number of voters who turned out for the primary reflected the general election's voter's propensities, then the low number of primary voters would not have caused any problems, but because of apathy and longer and longer campaigns, the only voters who turn out for primary elections tend to be the people furthest from the ideological center. So what actually happens is the Democratic Primary is a primary controlled by Liberals (or Progressives) and the Republican Primary is controlled by Conservatives, effectively shutting out the moderate views of both parties. This is referred to as primaries controlled by the fringe element.

Some states don't allow Independents to vote in primaries, while some states allow them to vote in either the Democrats' or Republicans' primary. Some states, allegedly to neutralize the fringe element voting in the primaries, allow Republicans to vote in the Democratic primary and vice versa, as long as each voter only votes once. But cynically, Republicans will vote for the weaker Democratic primary candidate to make it easier for the Republican candidate in the general election to win as I am sure also happens in reverse. So instead of diluting the affect of the fringe of each party, cross-party primaries may actually exacerbate the problem.

So today, Arlen Specter switched back to the Democratic Party. His reason was because he didn't think he could win his Republican Primary because Republicans now make up a small but extremely focused part of the electorate. Senator Specter could not stand to face the specter of being a 5 term incumbent Senator and losing to a more conservative primary challenger. He admitted as much, but he also claimed that the Republican party had moved away from him. I don't think that the Republican party has moved that much to the Right, just the people who make themselves heard. But effectively that is the same thing. Yes, the party has moved to the Right, but it seems more to the Right than actual because the spokesmen for the party, the elected officials and the media types from FOX, Clear-Channel, "talk radio"- and Rupert Murdoch's newspaper empire all speak with one voice.

The Democrats being a party made up of people of nuance don't channel each other. Barack Obama has been a major unifying force, or maybe it was George W. Bush who was the unifying force. The cynical question that may go down in American Presidential Election History is, "Could a Black man have been elected President in 2008 if Al Gore had won the 2000 Presidential election?"- But I digress. I firmly believe that our system of primaries has caused the great rift between the parties and the large amount of polarization in our nation.

I might have to plead guilty in advance. Some people will say, "Typical Democrat! Pinpoints a problem, but offers no solution."- I will have to plead "no contest"- at best. I can not see reviving the system of bosses, although baldness and cigar smoking would not be as prevalent today, especially for the Democrats with their much higher female registration. Outside of bribing people to vote in primaries or fining them for not voting, I see no way out of the mess we are in. Of course teaching civics from K through 12, might be a good start, but one party would never come up with the tax money to teach our children more about our system of Democracy.

 

I was born in Brooklyn, NY in 1945, worked as aircraft mechanic for 35 years and moved to Florida from Brooklyn in 2003. My wife and I will celebrate our 42nd wedding anniversary this year. Our only son is 41, married and has one daughter, plus his (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

What the Big 3 bailout debate is really about

Empathy - Part 2

AIG Explained

Change the words of the "Star Spangled Banner"

Gaza: Let That Be Your Last Battlefield

Arlen Specter: Tip of the Iceberg for Many Problems

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)
The primary system is for the exclusive benefit of... by Steve Consilvio on Thursday, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:02:59 AM
http://www.stanford.edu/~plomio/history.html With... by John McCarthy on Thursday, Apr 30, 2009 at 2:41:30 PM