The Politics of Party Switching

lewleadbeater.com

notes from the edge

Home

Email Me

				THE
Column Archive				VIRGINIA GAZETTE
				WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA
The Politics of Party Switching				December 14, 2002

Switching parties can be a messy business, both for the politicians who decide to do it and for the constituents who voted for them because of their party affiliation. The politician will inevitably be seen by some as a disloyal defector, if not a turncoat, while the voters of his original party will feel that their trust has been betrayed.

The reasons for party hopping seem to be threefold: In one instance, the politician may feel that his political, economic and social philosophy has become so out of synch with the party to which he belongs that he, in good conscience, must bail out and switch to a party whose agenda is more in line with his own. Or, lured by promises of a committee chairmanship, electability, or higher office, he might succumb to ambition and decide to switch to the party in power in order to increase his potential for advancement. Usually philosophical differences are of little importance in this case. Finally, there have been instances in which both philosophy and ambition coalesce to cause the switch.

For the most part, party switching has occurred in the South, and this because the Democratic Party took a swing to the left in the early ‘60s and apparently canceled its contract with the right leaning segregationists. It was, then, a major philosophical difference that led people such as Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond, in 1964, to switch to the Republicans and thus lead a revolution that would eventually secure the South for that party.

It was for the same reason that George Wallace bolted the Democratic Party, to be followed later by Alabama senator Richard Shelby. Unlike Thurmond, however, Shelby was enticed to the Republican side not only for philosophical reasons, but also by an offer to chair or sit as ranking member on either the Senate Banking Committee or the Senate Intelligence Committee. Phil Gramm of Texas followed a similar path in 1983.

But perhaps one of the best examples of party switching for the sake of electability is Virginia’s own Mills Godwin. He ran as a Democrat in 1966, but hopped to the Republicans in his 1974 bid for the governorship. While he had serious issues with the national Democratic agenda, Godwin also saw the tides shifting in the South and realized that it was his more conservative side that would appeal to the voters of Virginia.

The most notable northerner to switch parties is Jim Jeffords of Vermont, whose penchant for moderation eventually consigned him to the outhouse of the mansion of right wing Republicanism. But he too was lured into working with the Democrats by an offer of the chairmanship of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

The point is that, while philosophical differences may play a roll in some cases, the majority of those who switch parties are driven by considerations of electability and career advancement. The question then arises as to how we, the voters, are to judge such transformations in terms of the conscience, character and credibility of the politicians involved.

Ironically, our word “ambition” comes from the Latin word “ambitio,” which frequently denotes the process of engaging in an honest election campaign. Hence it also can mean a desire for power and popularity. The Romans realized, however, that politicians who became overzealous in their desire to win elections or enhance their careers could easily find themselves in the ethical doldrums. At that point they risked becoming involved in the pejorative cognate of “ambitio,” or “ambitus,” which indicated the use of questionable means to get elected.

The Romans understood, if only linguistically, that running for office is serious business. They also knew that the desire for power and advancement, when left unchecked, could wreak havoc on the body politic.

Does this mean that switching parties is always unethical? Absolutely not, and especially if the beliefs of the individual involved are so at odds with the philosophy of his party that his conscience will no longer allow the affiliation to continue.

It is only when ambition becomes the driving force behind a switch that we should begin to question the move. It is only when the lines between “ambitio” and “ambitus” become blurred that we should wonder whether principle has been left behind for egocentrism and self aggrandizement.

Mike McGinty is a good man, and his talents are obvious to all who know his work. We who will be voting when he runs again can hope only that he, like Strom Thurmond, decided to switch to the Republican Party on the basis of strong philosophical convictions.