Fiorina argues that "those who affiliate with a party today are more likely to affiliate with the ideologically "correct" party than they were in earlier periods." When looking at the recent actions of Senator Arlen Specter, the Senior Senator from the state of Pennsylvania, we see that even career politicians are prone to switching parties. However, this does not come as much of a surprise to some who study Congressional behavior, or to those who are simply political junkies. Specter has crossed party lines countless times, and had recently angered members of his former Republican party when he voted to support President Obama's stimulus package (being one of three Republicans in the Senate to cross party lines).
But Specter's move has more to do with politics than ideology. Currently, he is facing reelection in 2010, and Republicans in his home state are angered by his behavior. Why would this matter for a careerist such as Specter? Because nobody, even a multiple term Senator and famous face in the Senate, is guaranteed reelection. His move to the Democratic party was sheerly political, thinking he would have a better chance at getting reelected as a Democrat than a Republican. Odds are, due to recent polling, Specter would lose the Republican primary to other candidates who represent the Republican base more effectively.
What does this say about the state of the party system in the United States? These days it is clear which positions parties take on policies. The two-party system is clearly defined, unlike the weak party system of the 1970's. The nationalization of politics has helped to increase the consistency between ideology and party identification.
As stated, Fiorina's argument echoes Aldrich in that there is a rise of activists who are purists and not patronage seekers. Fiorina argues that America is not as divided as it would appear to be, and the divisions we see are mainly due to activists and interest groups on the extreme sides of the political spectrum gaining heavier influence. As participation in democracy increases, there is an increased demand for these activists. There will always be differences on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, etc., however, these divisions are not as deep and dividing as they may appear to be. Statistically, there is close to no real division at all. If there is one thing Fiorina emphasizes, it is that a choice between political candidates differs from a choice between policy positions or platforms. A vote for a political candidate is a vote for a coalition, not a mandate on policy preferences.
We currently reside in a stronger party system than we have seen in the past. So much so, that a prominent member of the GOP has crossed the aisle in an effort to retain his seat. If the party system was weaker, switching parties would not have been a necessary because the division of parties would not have been so apparent. A candidate running as one party would appear to be the same as the other. But in this era, the party being a "brand name" goes farther than ever. In both 2006 and 2008, Republicans were swept out of office. Not because the individual candidate was performing poorly, but because they had an "R" after their name. The Republican coalition/brand name was rejected by the voters (who are the consumers). If you are marketing a product, it must be consumable. This resulted in dozens of GOP'ers being thrown out of office. Some of these representatives did a good job for their constituency while in Congress, but the voters have a very short memory when it comes to politics. What happens today will be forgotten tomorrow.
Elites are as polarized as the political parties themselves, so how is something like this possible in 2009? Simply stated, you shelve what you must in order to be reelected. The need to appeal to one wing of elites is a non-issue when those elites are unable to win yourself an election. Now Specter will appeal to a new group of interests and elites. The process will start over again. Even though Specter claims he will not be "the automatic 60th vote for the Democrats," he will be forced to make concession to his ideology (whatever that may be) in order to gain some rank and seniority in the party he just decided to join. He must impress the Democrats, and if he is reelected in 2010, the DNC may be willing to give him something in return (such as a Subcommittee Chairmanship). Now it turns into a waiting game. In the event that Specter is reelected, we will be able to see to what extent the elites are polarized, and whether or not the two-party system is clearly defined.
