Arlen Specter: Scandals, Conspiracies, and Crisis in Focus

Abstract

Arlen Specter was an enigma in many ways, a Democrat who switched parties only to become a Democrat once again, he spent the majority of his adult life in public service and has the distinction of having been Pennsylvania’s longest serving senator. With this, while he supported President Reagan, Specter was part of the Republican party’s now extinct liberal wing. Always controversial, be it his opposition to Robert Bork’s Supreme Court nomination, propounding the single bullet theory in the Kennedy assassination case, pursuing his own foreign policy agenda, or his return to the Democratic party late in his career, Specter moved according to his own compass. He is now the subject of a new biography by Evan Edward Laine, entitled Arlen Specter: Scandals, Conspiracies, and Crisis in Focus.Unlike other biographical works, where the narrative is linear, covering the subject’s life from beginning to death, this book begins in medias res, with Specter already a United States senator. It does not cover his childhood, nor does it delve into any incidents that may have impacted his character. About the only thing the author covers that can be considered formative deals with an incident early in Specter’s Philadelphia legal career and is given in the context of his support for gay rights. Essentially Philadelphia’s local magistrates were shaking down people accused of violating anti-sodomy laws, while the city’s Democratic political organization, fully aware of what was happening, looked the other way. Disgusted with this corruption, Specter changed his registration to Republican and successfully worked to reform the city’s criminal justice system.This, however, comes late in Laine’s treatment. Where the book begins is with the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. With regard to Bork, the ethos of a European-style party discipline was already emerging within the Republican Party by 1987 and the Senate’s Republican caucus was expected to fall in line behind President Reagan and support Bork’s nomination. Specter, however, disagreed and moved in the opposite direction. Bork already had baggage from the Watergate era when, as Solicitor General of the United States, he fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox on President Nixon’s orders during the infamous Saturday Night Massacre. Moreover, while Bork’s views were extremely conservative, Spector thought the nominee was disingenuous in his confirmation testimony by coming down on both sides of any given issue. Thus, Specter voted to reject Bork’s nomination. The blowback Specter received was considerable and may account for his more cooperative attitude when Thomas was nominated by President George H. W. Bush a few years later.What comes across in the narrative is the belief that Specter had a profound influence on policy and politics throughout his public career. The areas in which Specter made a difference range from his support for Obamacare, to his work on the Iran-Contra scandal, to the Middle East peace process, to his efforts to support stem-cell research. With this, Laine’s text is well-written and engaging. His chapters could easily stand on their own as separate essays. Especially striking is the level of context that he provides in each section. For example, when dealing with the Arab–Israeli conflict, the author gives an excellent summary of the issues and history involved, with special reference to what historians who study the region refer to as “the Mandate Era,” which took place between 1920 and 1948, when the League of Nations mandated Great Britain handle Palestine’s administration. It was during this period that the broad outlines of the Arab–Israeli conflict took shape. Laine offers a fair assessment of the period’s events. Sadly, however, when addressing the Arab revolt that started in 1936, he fails to point out that the British attempted to appease Arab opinion by issuing its 1939 whitepaper that called for the restriction of all Jewish immigration to Palestine.In another vein, Laine’s research is not kind to President Reagan. The president comes off as superficial, always relating things to his experiences in the movie industry. Worse still, it appears that Reagan’s cognitive functions were compromised just before the end of his first term. This was clearly indicated by his poor first debate performance against Walter Mondale in 1984, becoming far more acute as time went on, and possibly accounts for his behavior during the Iran-Contra scandal.Another point Laine makes is that Specter was never a partisan hack. While Democrats and Republicans today are barely on speaking terms, Laine points out that there was a time, not all that long ago, when the two parties did work together at times to govern effectively and find common ground. It is here that Laine points out that Specter and Joe Biden routinely met on the train out of Washington, DC, as they headed home for the weekend. The two men became friends and during those meetings were able to iron out a myriad of mutual concerns, including Biden’s securing Specter’s support for the Obama stimulus package.The picture that emerges is one of a dedicated public servant who managed to avoid the mendacity that political life so often encourages. In addition, Laine manages to pack a great deal of information into a compact text of 240 pages. If there is a problem with this book, it is that Laine is a bit too admiring of his subject. Granted, it is the rare biographer who is hostile to whoever he or she is writing about. The two most obvious examples that come to mind are Eric Eyck and A. J. P. Taylor in their respective treatments of Otto von Bismarck. Nevertheless, with the possible exception of Specter’s support for Clarence Thomas’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Laine consistently presents his subject as being ever correct and always on the right side of things.This problem, however, is minor when compared with the contribution Laine makes. It is no exaggeration to say that this book is a pioneering work. Whether you agree with Laine’s analysis or not, he has begun the process of assessing Specter and his influence on American politics and will be required reading for anyone interested in the subject. Laine is to be commended for what he has done and for giving that process an excellent start.