Arlen Specter and “Principle” Rarely Meet In The Senate

by McQ | March 24, 2009 4:10 pm

If you ever had to put a picture next to the term “unprincipled political hack”, I think Arlen Specter’s would be a good choice. Read the following carefully.[1] It’s not that Specter is against the union card check legislation itself (i.e. on “principle” he apparently accepts the premise that the right of a secret ballot should be denied American workers), he just is against it now. Of course many on the right[2] are celebrating his decision, but in reality it’s a decision based in unprincipled and nonsensical reasoning (but, given the source, not at all surprising). He’s hedged the hell out of it. It’s his weasly way of placating those on the right who’re still mad at him about the “stimulus bill” vote by appearing to be against something they are against while really not being against it at all. Is your head spinning a little bit?

Senator Specter ended speculation on where he would come down on the Employee Free Choice Act by declaring, on the Senate floor, that he would oppose the legislation until the economy improves.

“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.”

So, per his statement, the premise is fully accepted as valid by Specter. But for reasons of political expediencey, he claims that the “burden” it would impose on businesses now would “result it further job losses” which makes it unacceptable at this time. But apparently when the economy returns to “normalcy” those “burdens” and “job losses” will then be considered acceptable, as will the denial of the secret ballot to workers.

Hey, he said it, not me. Ask him how the hell he explains the apparent contradictions or why he accepts the premise workers should be denied the secret ballot at some point in the future.

[Crossposted at QandO[3]]