The open government, ethics situation (Sestak/ Specter affair) in Washington and Pennsylvania has certainly given the television media something to talk about and for part of Friday even bumped the oil spill from first place on Fox News. An unusual series of activities gave me an opportunity to check that source several times during the day and it always seemed to be center stage.
It might be just news to fill their time on the air, but it might be more of a warning to you and me. The warning, as I see it, is that politics does not necessarily function for the benefit of our nation, and certainly fails to abide by decisions that benefit the voters back home.
If a senator can change parties in an attempt to stay in office (get reelected), what does that say about our party system and/or about the character of the individual? We likely agree there isn’t really very much difference in the manner in which the political parties function and at times it seems they are the same in almost every category. When thepolitical party uses its clout/influence to sway an elected official to leave the opposing party and join them, is the individual guilty of a character flaw or are the people in Washington so deeply immersed in the power and money that they can be so easily manipulated? What does this say about their vulnerability to lobbyists?
The situation in Pennsylvania seems to be as much about controlling legislation by the “party in power” as it does about the quality of the legislation passed. In order for the Democratic Party to have a filibuster proof majority of 60 senators, it seems Arlen Specter was assured that he would have the support ofthe Democratic Party if he would switch parties. With his re-election coming up, and having opposed some of President Bush’s decisions (as many of us did), Sen. Specter was not likelyto get re-elected as a Republican. He had originally gotten elected as a senator in 1980 as a Republican but had been a Democrat prior to 1965. His switch to the Republican Party in 1965 was similar to the more current move - to get elected. He knew he could not defeat the Democrat in a local election. For the following 44 years he was a Republican.
As Arkansans, we don’t get to vote on the senator issue in Pennsylvania.
It won’t be decided until November since Democratic nominee Sestak has a Republican opponent.
However, we can learn a great deal from this and if nothing else, acknowledge an awful lot goes on in Washington that may not be illegal, but gives cause to question what we can do unless we are diligent in our scrutiny of our leaders.
Sen. Specter is 80 years old. At what point does age become a factor in our political thinking? Are we to consider our elected leaders to be like a Supreme Court Justice - lifetime appointments? Sounds like another vote for “term limits !”
If the nation’s leader - President Obama - was a part of the deal to entice Republican Sen. Specter to become Democratic Sen. Specter, doesn’t that lower the bar for what is acceptable in the White House? He is the leader of his political party by pure definition.
If the political parties (note that is plural) work to keep very qualified people from running for office by offering them alternative opportunities so they can keep an incumbent in office, it would be my argument that we the voters suffer. This, I believe, is why the political parties’ goals - staying in power - often are in conflict with the best interests of the nation. As I have mentioned before, political parties seem to have an “unwritten rule” that you don’t run against an incumbent inyour own party. We have seen that here in the 3rd District Congressional House election. Only Bernie Skoch was willing to challenge John Boozman for the seat. Suddenly, with the seat open, a field of two ended up with eight candidates. Were the newestseven more qualified because John Boozman wasn’t in the race? If the party has the final say, unless the incumbent violates the law or worse yet, doesn’t conform to their pattern, you and I will not have choices when we go to the polls.
Let’s try to learn from instances such as the Pennsylvania affair and be more aware of who we are voting for and what they represent. If we allow it to happen because we believe earmarks benefit our area at the cost of nation’s character, we’re fooling ourselves. If we are so concerned about keeping “our party” in office we need to look at the candidate and how he or she got on the ballot. Too much time in Washington can change a legislator’s views if we get complacent.
◊◊◊
Leo Lynch, a native of Benton County has deep roots in northwest Arkansas. He is a retired industrial engineer and former Justice of the Peace. He can be contacted at [email protected]. The opinions of the writer are his own, and are not necessarily those of The TIMES.
Opinion, Pages 4 on 06/02/2010