Slate's Bizbox
politics: Who's winning, who's losing, and why.

One Down, Three to GoJim Jeffords isn't the only Republican who should switch parties.

By Nicholas Thompson
Posted Friday, May 25, 2001, at 3:00 AM ET
Jim Jeffords

Jim Jeffords' decision to leave the Republican Party and tip the Senate to Democrats certainly puts a hitch in President Bush's legislative and judicial plans. But here's something that could be more painful for the GOP and pleasurable for everyone who wants centrist governance: What if Jeffords persuaded his three fellow moderate Republicans from the Northeast—Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine—to go along?

It's not as unlikely as it may sound; after all, the new administration has been hard on middle-of-the-road Republicans. When Collins and Snowe proposed to make Bush's tax cut dependent on the actual existence of projected surpluses, they were steamrolled by their colleagues and the president. Chafee's legislation reforming the environmental regulations known as brownfields laws passed the Senate 99-0. His reward? Trent Lott suggested that he might not be allowed to negotiate if the bill went to a House and Senate conference. Jeffords chairs the Senate Committee on Health, Education, and Welfare, but Bush has routed important legislation through Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. At one hearing this winter on early childhood learning called by Jeffords, not a single other Republican bothered to show up.

Of course, it wasn't supposed to be this way. In December, everyone thought that a 50-50 Senate would be a boon for moderates of both parties, who would finally redesign Social Security, rein in the administration's tax cut, and soften its environmental policies. But that's not how it worked out. Centrist Democrats like Louisiana's John Breaux did gain influence, but Bush gave the moderate Republicans a bucket of cold fish. (For more about why centrist Republicans haven't been more influential, read my article in the May issue of Washington Monthly.)

By becoming independents, the Northeasterners will be able to avoid Democratic partisanship, and if the Republican Party swings back toward the middle, they can always switch back. If the party remains the same, the four will have their own miniature Bull Moose Party, with far more influence than they wield as backbenchers now.

With 50 Democrats, 46 Republicans, and four independents, partisanship would be impossible. The Democrats would need the mod squad for everything; if the four voted with their old party, Dick Cheney would have the 51st vote. The Republican leadership could obviously no longer ignore them, and convincing four Democrats to cross the aisle requires vastly more compromise than convincing one.

More important, if the mod squad wants to strike a blow for moderation, defecting might be the best way to do it. For one thing, it would remind Bush that he won with less than a plurality of the vote. (And he lost Maine, Rhode Island, and Vermont along the way—a good sign for the moderates' re-election chances if they switch.) But the lesson also would not be lost on Democrats, and Tom Daschle would presumably keep his partisan instincts in line too.

All three New Englanders deny that they are considering becoming independents, and maybe they won't. Collins and Snowe are close to the president and have even been christened with nicknames ("Sweet Suzy" and "The Big O"). Chafee's more likely to go, but his father was a longtime Republican senator who always believed in changing the party from the inside.

But there is some grumbling. When I asked an aide to one of the moderates what the Republicans could have said to dissuade Jeffords, he replied: "What, 'We're going to be nice to you now'? How could he believe that after the last four years? Would he have to get it in writing? ... Will the party now become more exclusive or more inclusive? We're all waiting with bated breath."

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Nicholas Thompson is a senior editor at Legal Affairs.
Photograph of Jim Jeffords by Jim Bourg/Reuters.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments From The Fray:


All throughout the week we've seen Jeffords described as a moderate republican, sometimes even as a liberal republican. All this does is point up how absurdly stacked the definition of "conservative" is in America these days. To qualify as a conservative in the U.S. you have to actively advocate a set of policies so extreme that they'd get you written-off as a lunatic in most normal industrial democracies out there.

If the U.S. political system was anywhere near normal, if sanity was considered a necessary pre-requisite for holding political office, then Jim Jeffords would hit the definition of conservative pretty much on the nose. Jeffords cares about the environment, but wishes it to be protected in a way that doesn't impose unreasonable costs on business. He's worried about education and health, but wants to address those problems without making people's tax bills become too oppressive. He's worried about the public interest, but mistrusts big government. Through most of the democratic world this is a standard conservative agenda. It's only in the U.S. that you're not considered man enough to count as a conservative unless you actively advocate environmental degradation, widening inequality, underinvestment in public services and pigheaded chauvinistic nationalism.

--F.Toro

(To reply, click here.)


In the real world, people make decisions based on what's most important to them. Jeffords usually voted with the Democrats on education, environmental issues, and dairy policy--the issues most important to him--and by switching now he gets a full committee chairmanship (Environment and Public Works) with majority staff under him to replace a nominal chairmanship (of the Education Committee) with the evenly split staff mandated by the agreement Lott and Daschle reached at the beginning of the year.

The Democrats can't offer to Collins, Snowe or Chafee what they did to Jeffords. Each one of these people is an abler legislator than he is. None of them are quite as liberal as he is. And, all of them may want to run again. As Republicans, they avoid the difficulty of a primary challenge and have a party organization to support them in the general election. Jeffords, who will be 73 when his term ends, is unlikely to run again.

--Joseph Britt

(To reply, click here.)

 (5/25)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Assessing Sarah Palin
| Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, John Podesta and others weigh in.
Colbert King: She's No HillaryEditorial: Is She Ready for This?
PLUS » PostPartisan: Quick Takes from Opinions