Political Comment

With all the hubbub over Arlen Spector's party switch last week, I think it's useful to remember just exactly how parties function within our political system. They are not, despite occasional appearances to the contrary, ideological in nature. They represent organizations of interests that work to deliver votes to certain candidates, but the means by which those candidates are chosen probably has more to do with a calculation of electability than any philosophical litmus test (the exceptions to that are rarely long-lasting). I've alluded to this before, but it's important to rememebr that the founding fathers (you know, guys like Washington, Jefferson, Madison) largely disdained the notion of parties in the earliest days of the republic. They were convinced that allegiance to a party along the lines of those that then functioned in England, meant that a citizen essentially gave up his independence of judgement and became obligated to support the group at the expense of his own individual conscience. Once parties emerged as a necessary evil (initially to allow for the coalescence of opposition to straight majority rule in Congress), they quickly asserted other powers (such as the selection of candidates) that insured their ongoing role in the political affairs of the nation. But let's be clear about what something like Spector's switch really represents: it's not the equivalent of Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus, nor is it the betrayal of a suddenly heretic comrade. It's the result of a cold calculation by Spector on what will lead to the best possible result for Spector, given the shifting political winds. Really the only striking thing about this to me, is that it is the second such switch for Spector (though he wasn't in the Senate the first time); usually one can only get away with this sort of thing once in a political career-- otherwise you just look like a principleless frontrunner.