A Specter Haunts The GOP

Last week, Harvard was graced by the presence of Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), a candidate for the Republican nomination for president. In a speech at the Kennedy School, Specter staked out a tough stance against violence. At the same time, he defended another form of violence, speaking at some length about his pro-abortion stance.

Senator Specter has spoken repeatedly about the need for unity in the Republican Party. But he repeatedly erodes that unity by raising the controversial issue of abortion again and again, simply because he thinks a pro-abortion stance will improve his own bleak electoral prospects. Specter says he doesn't want to divide the party, but he raises a divisive issue time and again, just to get cheap political mileage out of it. The specter of Specter just won't go away.

Perhaps a pro-abortion plank might help Specter against a pro-abortion Democrat in a general election. But it certainly won't help him secure the Republican nomination, especially since conservative forces play a key role in the process. Fortunately for Republican solidarity, Specter's candidacy will never see the light of day.

Several students from the Harvard Republican Club and the Harvard-Radcliffe Alliance for Life courageously protested Specter's pro-abortion position (before their banners were forcibly removed by Kennedy School personnel). Several of these students asked Specter about his position on abortion.

During the question-and-answer session, Specter was unable to offer a cogent explanation for his a pro-abortion position. All of his responses boiled down to the following lame mantra: "The Supreme Court has decided the issue, and we are a nation of laws. The Supreme Court has decided..."

Both of these statements are true. Yes, the Court has decided the issue. And yes, we are a nation of laws. (Senator Specter sure knows his high school civics.) But Specter was unable to tell the audience about why he agrees with the Court. It is not enough for Spector to tell us that the Court has spoken. He should also be able to tell us why he thinks the Court decided rightly.

There is a difference between recognizing the Court's authority and following the Court blindly. Obviously all of us are bound by the rulings of the Supreme Court; we cannot break the laws as interpreted by the Court. But does that mean we can never disagree philosophically with Court rulings?

Senator Spector told the audience that he stands by Roe v. Wade. When asked about whether he would stand by a decision like Dred Scott, he said something along the lines of, "Um, that's different..." What this response illustrates is that the Supreme Court isn't always so supreme to Senator Specter.

When the Court gives Specter a good excuse to adopt what he sees as a politically expedient position, the Supreme Court lives up to its name. But when standing by the Court leads Specter into something problematic (Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson), it is no longer supreme, and Diana Ross heads straight out the door. The Court is reduced to nothing more to him than nine men and women with cool robes.

And so Senator Specter's visit brought me some bad news: he's worse than expected. But it also gave me hope: the senator is a surprisingly poor speaker. His delivery is dry, almost soporific, and if his performance during the question-and-answer session is any indicator, he does not think well on his feet.

I make these judgments about Specter's speaking ability (or lack there of) with no reference to my political disagreements with him. Although I find President Clinton and Vice-President Gore '69 to be quite evil, I will readily grant that they are well-spoken and sharp--just like Satan in Paradise Lost. It is with no small pleasure that I report that the same compliments cannot be paid to Senator Specter.

While we should find Senator Specter disturbing, we shouldn't worry about him too much. In the Republican primary, he will be crushed by the superior intellectual forces and financial resources of the other candidates. Having heard Specter speak will only increased my enjoyment as I watch him get diced and devoured. Bon appetit.

David B. Lat's column appears on alternate Wednesdays.