Party of One

After twenty-nine years of service in the United States Senate, Arlen Specter was stripped of his seniority and chairmanship on Tuesday after switching from Republican to Democrat, making him junior to even Roland Burris.  Then today, Democrats gave him the subcommittee chairmanship of the “Crime and Drugs Subcommittee” of the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which, when he was a Republican last week, he was the Ranking Member.  Appeasement was in order, though, with the Washington Post reporting a Democratic staffer as saying, “What we don’t want is an angry former Republican during a Supreme Court hearing.”  More on the Supreme Court in a minute.

This debacle has exposed a flaw in the process; seniority in Congress depends not on how long someone’s been there, but how long he’s been loyal to a party.  This flies in the face of founder’s intent.  These rules are not in the Constitution, nor in any of its twenty-seven amendments (of which about ten are unnecessary); these are Congressional rules, which exploit individual thought for collective reasoning.

I quoted James Madison on my post The (R)eckoning, Part 3 (read by no one), as he said of the corruption in political parties, in The Federalist, Number 10:  “There are two methods of curing the mischief of faction:  the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.  There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction:  the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.”  So, while government is not intended to be partisan, any attempts to purge it of parties would violate the Constitution. 

Party membership, however, distorts a representative’s true loyalties, which are numerous and conflicting.  As I see it, for every vote, a Congressional representative has to answer hierarchically to God (for believers), Constitution, Principles, Constituents.  Where do you believe “Party loyalty” falls in that list?

Justice First

So now we get to the debate over who should replace David Souter in the Supreme Court.  Let me tell you, this is supposedly big news, along with Specter, but for some reason, it all bores me.  It seemed painfully obvious what the Press and their Congressmembers would want:  diversity.  Again, I was unsurprised by what President Obama set as his criteria:  empathy.  What does the nation deserve in a Supreme Court Justice?  Um, well… justice.  It would behoove us to have a constitutional scholar as a Justice, and if he/she/it were diverse, great.. empathetic, sure.. but observance of the Constitution is an absolute must.

On this, President Obama stated, “I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book.  It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives.”  So is it better for a justice to have empathy for the diverse, or respect for the Constitution?  Put simply, what if the little guy doesn’t have the backing of the law?  The Supreme Court has the final word on your rights under the Constitution.  It’s not the Oprah Winfrey Show.  Give me the justice who knows that “abstract legal theory” than some sniveling pantywaste sympathizer any day.

Furthermore, I don’t think a Justice should have any party affiliation whatsoever, as it undoubtedly causes a conflict of interests.  The Supreme Court of the United States should stand unaffected by the wobbly partisanship of their legislative counterparts across the street (1st Street, actually) when determining which rights were or were not endowed to us by our Creator.

Broken Wings

In the grand scheme of things, only 30 to 40 percent identify with either particular Party; the other 30 percent or so go with the winning team, according to the Rasmussen polls.  Being conservative, but not “a Conservative,” a libertarian, but not “a Libertarian,” a republican but not “a Republican,” and a democrat, but NEVER a “Democrat,” I guess I’ll consider myself a “Right Winger;”  I’ll go a step further and accept my identification by the Department of Homeland Security as a “Right Wing Extremist.”  Nevertheless, I stand on principles that I find moral and just.  I personally wouldn’t accept outside pressures from any party to flex on these issues, so I’ll remain independent… but not “an Independent.”

For the Republican Party to reach out to independents like me, it should not try to be “moderate.”  The Party should not try to move towards some center on issues; in 1980, Ronald Reagan moved the center towards his Party.  Barack Obama achieved the same in 2008.  Expecting party purity will never lead to a majority.  At this point, the GOP is in store for another ”Big Tent” revival.

The parties have opposite leadership problems; Republicans have no clear leader, and the Democrats have only one leader… you know, “That One.”  Neither party should get too comfortable with this, but the situation is certainly graver for Republicans, as their prospective leaders represent separate ideas.  The first thing the GOP needs to do is communicate, communicate, communicate.  I think the “Listening Tour” Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, and Eric Cantor (R-VA) embarked on this weekend is worthwhile, despite what my fellow Right Wingers out on the fringe may think.  I would tell Cantor and the gang to keep it up, smile and nod, give ‘em a thumbs up, and move along smartly.  You’ve got work to do.

Frankly, I think this will be easier than it looks; all the Republican candidate has to do is to promise to do much less than Obama.  That’s why, dead or alive, I’m endorsing Calvin Coolidge in 2012.  I kid.. but honestly, I think the future looks brighter for the GOP every day.  Democrats have begun slow a process, and are hanging themselves by not allowing Specter to retain seniority.  They are relinquishing their “Big Tent,” by demanding partisan purity.  In this regard, the GOP and the Democrats are trading spaces.

These actions will leave the Democrats vulnerable, as the GOP is now.  The surprisingly successful Tea Parties could also reasonably pressure Blue Dog Democrats to jump ship.  Regaining the majority, even as early as 2010, could be achieved if the GOP 1) set a platform on principles, not positions on issues, 2) acts cordially to its perceived opponents both within and outside the party, and 3) disenfranchises the Blue Dogs from liberal Democrats. 

The future of the parties is uncertain, and neither one of them would want to deal with the splintering of its ideals and membership.  Furthermore I also believe the establishment of a strong ”Independent” party would not benefit anybody; independents would have to collectively bargain for Third Party power, thereby giving up their independence for (I)ndependence. (follow me?)  Third parties typically have a narrow set of ideals, founded on particular issues instead of principles; therefore, they will remain on the fringe, unable to coalesce. 

The GOP must establish broad principles and stand on them while inviting all-comers.  Otherwise, I (and other like-minded individuals) will happily remain in a Party of One.