Specter’s Political Gamble

by Jason Rosenbaum :: Filed Under U.S. Domestic Issues :: March 25th, 2009 @ 8:30 am EST

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania has decided he will not vote for cloture for the Employee Free Choice Act, even though he voted for the bill last time it came up:

“The problems of a recession make this a particularly bad time to enact Employee’s choice legislation,” he said. “Employers understandably complain that adding a burden would result in further job losses. If efforts are unsuccessful to give labor sufficient bargaining power through amendments to the [National Labor Relations Act] then I would be willing to reconsider Employees choice legislation when the economy returns to normalcy. I am announcing my decision now because I have consulted with a very large number of interested parties on both sides and I have made up my mind.”

The argument that this bill would hurt the economy can be dismissed on its face. Unionization has been proven to have no effect on whether companies close down or not. And besides, the last person to face this severe a recession, FDR, had the sense to pass the original labor laws, which were much more permissive to union organizing than the reforms the Employee Free Choice Act intends to put in place.

No, Specter is not making a choice based on policy. He’s making a political gamble.

Specter will almost certainly face a primary challenge from the right, likely led by Pat Toomey, who came within 1.7% of beating Specter in a bruising primary last election. He’s betting that by tacking right ever so slightly on this issue (because, let’s face it, the Employee Free Choice Act isn’t exactly on the tip of everyone’s tongue out there in America), he can blunt his opposition, win the primary, and then win the general.

I think he’s wrong, and so does Jake McIntyre on Daily Kos:

Perhaps Specter is so freaked out by a 2010 primary challenge from the right — probably from former-Rep. Pat Toomey — that he felt he couldn’t stick to his guns on Employee Free Choice. If so, it’s shaping up to be a classic case of winning the battle and losing the war, as it’s hard to imagine Specter surviving a concerted Democratic effort in increasingly blue Pennsylvania without the longstanding support of organized labor. And one would have to believe that such support will not be forthcoming in the wake of his betrayal on the single most important piece of labor law reform in 50 years.

A little more explanation. Labor in PA said they would support Specter if he voted for the Employee Free Choice Act. Right now, there isn’t an obvious candidate to run as a Democrat for the seat, and without labor’s backing, none would like appear. However, if Specter follows through on this threat and kills this bill (not that he necessarily will, the bill is not dead and there are other targets for that one Republican vote, like Alaska or Maine), his Senate seat in 2010 will become a top target not just for labor, but for the Democratic Party. In two years, with backing and money at the ready, a strong Democratic challenger can be found, and Specter’s seat will be in serious trouble.

Clearly, Specter is hoping to thread the needle by making this political move - winning his primary and the general, likely by the seat of his pants. He’s betting that his opposition from the right is stronger than his opposition from the left. It’s a losing bet. The right, especially the far-right, is basically powerless right now. Their brand is damaged, their fundraising is way down, and they’re unlikely to win any elections anytime soon. I’m not sure they’d have enough juice to win a primary challenge against Specter. Plus, bowing to the party of “no” isn’t going to help Specter in the general, or among Republicans who are tired of Bush-era politics.

People should be calling out Specter’s political move for what it is. He’s participating in obstructionism and he’s making it harder for our economy to recover, all because he perceives a bigger threat from the discredited and dis-empowered right than he does from an ascendant left. It’s a strange choice, and a choice that will likely cost him. I’m not sure he’ll reconsider his decision here, but if he doesn’t, Democrats should have 60 votes in the Senate outright by the end of the 2010 election, including a new blue seat in Pennsylvania.