So it appears that the Democratic party, or at least its Senate leader Harry Reid, broke its promise to Arlen Specter. When Specter decided to abandon his party of almost 30 years to join the Democrats, he says he was told by Reid that he would retain his senate seniority. According to CNN, however, the full Senate has voted to strip him of his seniority, "dropping him to the bottom of the pile on every committee he sits on". This includes the Senate Judiciary Committee. So when Souter's replacement is being questioned by the committee, Specter will be the last person on the committee to speak. Seeing that Specter proudly boasts about his seniority on his web site, this will come as a big blow to the " newly born " Democrat. Aside from the humiliation involved, the Democratic Senator Specter will now have the problem of at least having to change his website dramatically.
Too bad for him, I say! And good for USA democratic institutions at work. Unlike Canada, where politicians like Belinda Stronach can switch parties and become instant Cabinet Ministers, the message to Arlen, even from his new found friends is .. "not so fast". Back of the line for you.
So now what does Arlen do? In his latest statement, he says that although he was promised that his seniority would be maintained, he will now have to wait until after the 2010 election to have this confirmed. Good luck Arlen!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteI don't understand what is particularly democratic about a senator losing his seniority because he changed parties.
Ron C
Hi Ron:
ReplyDeleteMy point was not that Arlen lost his seniority position. It was that this decision was made by the Senators themselves. It was not a dictat from the party bosses. Despite the fact that the Democratic leader made the "deal", it was a deal ignored by his Senate colleagues.
And while I am at it, what kind of deal was it? Specter abandons his constituents of 30 years as long as he is assured his position of prestige and power will not suffer? The Dems can have him.
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteYour "point" seems to change with every rebuttal. You originally said "good for USA democratic institutions at work," so let's stick with that point. I'm not debating the propriety of a Senator switching parties between elections (although I don't see how he has "abandoned" his constituents). I just think the democratic justification of his treatment is unclear. What is the rationale for seniority-based privileges? (I don't know.) Does the rationale depend upon a Senator's party fidelity -- or does it simply respect his experience? Are there other explanations for his treatment (such as the not-so-democratic desire within each party to maintain cohesion)?
Yes, the centralization of Canadian government power, in the Prime Minister, deserves criticism. And perhaps Senator Specter is a scoundrel. (I don't know). But neither presumption makes the case for U. S. democracy. To defend Specter's loss of seniority, you must argue that it somehow serves the public will or the public interest, which you have not done.
Sorry Ron, but I repeat. My one and only point was and still is to commend the US Senators for making up their own minds about this issue of seniority. I am not trying to justify (or not) what they decided, only to point out that they refused to be led around by the nose by Reid or other high ups. As with other issues ( eg Obama's mortgage plan which Congress rejected) the elected representatives in the US do what they think is best - they are not mere puppets on a string to be played by the President or the Senate leader.
ReplyDelete