Voters, not the GOP, forced Specter out

We all agree that, in driving Sen. Arlen Specter out of the party, Republicans are behaving like crazed, self-defeating ideologues, yes? Everyone says so - both Democrats who are thrilled to see the GOP floundering and Republicans who think the party would be more successful if everyone in it agreed with them.

The rap goes something like this: Republicans should welcome all comers, because ideological movements and political parties are different animals, and the goal is to win elections by supporting any winner you can find. That's how political parties succeed.

But wait! There was another Republican politician who, not so long ago, was quite heterodox on matters of conservative principle. He signed campaign-finance restrictions, handed out entitlement programs like candy, put government spending on steroids, tried to give amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants, bailed out banks and automakers, and - well, you get the point. Many Republicans put aside their misgivings about his ideological heresy and supported him anyway.

His name was George W. Bush. And when Republicans supported him despite their misgivings, they were criticized for being mindless partisans.

So which is it? Tolerate one deviating politician (Bush), and you're a political hack; dump another (Specter), and you're an uncompromising ideologue.

Which is to say, every single bit of mewling we've heard about the GOP since Specter switched teams is rubbish. Here are the significant points:

The GOP establishment didn't push Specter aside; the voters did. In the weeks leading up to Specter's defection, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, heartily endorsed him. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's PAC gave $10,000 to Specter's campaign.

Institutional Republicans were trying to bail Specter out - just as they did in 2004, when the NRSC gave him $320,000 and individual Republican senators kicked in $83,000 to protect him in the primary.

The problem was with actual Republican voters, who, much to the consternation of the elites, don't always follow orders. The party couldn't have "kept" Specter if it wanted to (which it did), because Republican voters didn't want him! Once upon a time, the spectacle of voters defying party bosses out of principle would have been seen as healthy and virtuous.

Pennsylvania is a blue state, but it's not Massachusetts. One of the assertions surrounding Specter's switch is that only a moderate Republican such as Specter can win in true-blue Pennsylvania. Really?

Rick Santorum won two elections here, and the Democrats who have been successful statewide (Gov. Rendell, Bob Casey, Bob Casey Jr.) have been well to the right of the Democratic mainstream.

The "big tent" approach has not always served Republicans well. South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint's comment about preferring 30 senators who believe in conservative principles to 60 who don't has gotten a lot attention. Sophisticates chortle about his naiveté.

But how well have nontraditional Republicans worked out for the party lately? There have been some successes, such as Rudy Giuliani. But there have also been failures.

For instance, Tom McClintock had the audacity to challenge the "moderate" Arnold Schwarzenegger for California's governorship in 2003. McClintock was an actual conservative with 20 years of political experience. But the GOP establishment threw its full force behind Schwarzenegger for the same reasons it supported Specter.

And how has that worked out? The California Republican Party - not to mention the state itself - is in far worse shape than it was in 2003. Take that and apply it to George W. Bush. If, in 2004, Republicans had jumped off the bus and Bush had been defeated by John Kerry, do you think the GOP would be in worse shape today? Neither do I.

So sometimes it's wise to compromise on principles for political expedience. But sometimes it isn't.

The truth about Specter is that his switch isn't part of any grand realignment. He created this situation by alienating voters - particularly in the western part of the state, outside his political base - who were never over the moon for him in the first place. In five general elections, Specter has gotten more than 56 percent of the vote only once, falling short of that even when he was running virtually unopposed.

Now he'll either find a way to create a new coalition of support, or he won't. It's as simple as that.