Arlen Specter

There is a huge debate between the anti-Specter conservatives (e.g., the folks at National Review, Marvin Olasky, et al.) and the anti-anti-Specter conservatives (most notably Hugh Hewitt). The issue is ostensibly over Specter’s past record for opposing so-called prolife judges. Andrew McCarthy digs deeper into this issue, noting that the underlying problem is more profound (in terms of constitution law) that the narrower and more visible issue of abortion.

As shown by his article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Specter’s record is mixed. I haven’s studied this controversy in detail, but my tentative position is similar to that of Hugh Hewitt. For me, the guiding principle is to recognize that the state has a different sphere of authority than the church, and its sphere is limited to the realm of common grace, although, of course, the ultimate purpose of the common grace is to preserve the church. With our political system, where nonbelievers are granted political rights, it is often impossible to enact and enforce laws that are strictly in conformance to Christian ideals. That is not to say that Christians do not have the responsibility to vote conscientiously and for the candidates whose positions come closest to the revealed will of God. But politics is not a one-dimensional space; there are way too many variables and factors so that often trade-offs need to be made, and reasonable people can differ on how to evalute these trade-offs. In many circumstances, the best candidate may not get enough support from others (remember they too get to have a say in our political system), and at the end we advance nothing rather than something for our agendas.

I had to struggle with this last year when Gray Davis was being recalled and there were about 300 candidates for replacing him. (No, I didn’t need to go through the pain of giving consideration to all of them.) The polls showed that the top candidates were Arnold Schwarzenegger, Cruz Bustamante, and Tom McClintock. Obviously Tom was the best candidate, and I even contributed to his campaign. But in the end I voted for Arnold, because if the Republican votes were split too much between Arnold and Tom, Bustamante might have won and (to use a phrase the leftists often employ in their rhetoric) the clocked would have been turned back. Bustamente was Davis light (or heavy, depending on what aspect), and was wrong on essentially every issue. Arnold’s social views are deplorable, but could I really expect Tom to be able to correct the social ills that so pervade California? No, he would not have the power to do that even though he wanted to. There were many things wrong with California, and the financial mess was a huge problem. So it was better to have this problem alleviated, than to vote for the best candidate who probably could not have won and to risk defeat to an even worse candidate.

Was I happy with my vote? No. I told my friends that I reluctantly voted for Arnold, and to this day I am not happy about it, especially since he was instrumental in pushing for that stupid stem-cell research spending initiative. But I would have been even more unhappy if Bustamante had become governor.

Coming back to the question of Specter: I think Hugh Hewitt shows some wisdom on this issue. As for others who are against Specter, I do respect them and share many of their concerns. But we ought to remember that we are not choosing an elder or deacon of the church. (Would that we apply the same high standards to church leaders!) Specter may not be the best choice, but there are complex calculations and trade-offs. I suppose a little good may come out of this debate, and may at the end squeeze Specter enough that he will not obstruct President Bush’s fine nominees.