Jeffords' Track Record Belies Excuses for Switch

0 Comments | Insight on the News, June 25, 2001 | by Alan L. Anderson

As political theater goes, Jim Jeffords' announcement that he was leaving the Republican Party scored about one-half star. But, then, given the personal political calculations that must actually have provided the impetus for the announcement, it hardly could be otherwise. Dressing up self-interest as principle, after all, often is difficult.

Jeffords' purported reasons for leaving break down into two somewhat overlapping groupings. First, apparently Jeffords decided to leave the Republicans because he's a Vermonter and, as we all know, Vermonters are naturally independent -- at least, this is how Vermonters view themselves.

The Washington Times, for example, in its coverage of the announcement, quoted Vermonter John Alexander as saying, "I think the rest of the country is getting a little bit better picture of what it is to be a Vermonter.... He's voting his conscience. I just wish the rest of the Congress was like that" Undoubtedly, Jeffords correctly has calculated that his decision to switch to Independent status while voting with the Democrats for organizational purposes will play well in the political culture exemplified in Alexander's remark.

Jeffords touched on this theme in his official announcement, stating: "Aiken and Gibson and Flanders and Prouty and Bob Stafford were all Republicans, but they were Vermonters first. They spoke their minds, often to the dismay of their party leaders, and did their best to guide the party in the direction of those fundamental principles they believed in."

There is only one small problem. With all due respect to Alexander and Jeffords, the good senator's conscience seemed to have led him to adopt positions that -- in the main -- are indistinguishable from any mainstream Democrat. The fairly liberal Americans for Democratic Action, for example, rated Jeffords as being in agreement with its policy prescriptions a respectable 55 percent of the time. Conversely, Jeffords scored a 36 from the American Conservative Union, placing him between California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein's 28 and Louisiana Democratic Sen. John Breaux's 40.

And 2000 was a good year for Jeffords, at least from a conservative perspective. His lifetime average actually is only 27 -- a figure that would cause few problems for any Democrat within his own party. Jeffords simply came from a state that allowed him to vote like a New Democrat while still carrying an "R" after his name.

Which brings us to Jeffords' second complaint, i.e., that the political situation with the election of President George W. Bush has changed to such an extent that he no longer can remain an independent Vermonter within the Republican Party and, thus, must leave. Jeffords said: "Looking ahead, I can see more and more instances where I'll disagree with the president on very fundamental issues -- the issues of choice, the direction of the judiciary, tax and spending decisions, missile defense, energy and the environment and a host of other issues, large and small"

One may well ask of Jeffords, when was it ever any different? Jeffords seems to forget he served his first four years in the Senate under George W.'s father. A look at the record shows he found it fairly easy to oppose a sitting Republican president while still remaining comfortably a Republican.

Indeed, Congressional Quarterly (CQ) in its profile on Jeffords presents a rather interesting picture in this regard. According to CQ's vote study, Jeffords in 1992, for instance, opposed former president George H. W. Bush 53 percent of the time. In contrast, the most he ever disagreed with Bill Clinton was in 1995 when he opposed the Democratic president 49 percent of the time. Further, in 1994 he actually supported Clinton's position a whopping 79 percent of the time.

Moreover, in 1991 and 1992, the last two years of the Bush administration -- again, according to CQ -- Jeffords felt comfortable enough with the party actually to buck its position 62 percent and 61 percent of the time, respectively.

And finally, let us not forget Jeffords has felt free to play the maverick on particularly high-profile issues. In his announcement he worried about his abilities to dissent on issues of choice and the direction of the judiciary, forgetting, apparently, he felt perfectly free as a Republican to vote against George H.W. Bush's nomination of Clarence Thomas. In his announcement he fretted about missile defense, forgetting, apparently, he felt perfectly free as a House Republican to vote against it when Republican president Ronald Reagan first proposed it. In his announcement he fussed about tax and spending decisions, forgetting, apparently, he felt perfectly free as a House Republican to vote against the Reagan budget plan.

The truth is, Jeffords has voted against Republican presidents and the Republican Party on issues large and small for years. So, then, why did he leave and why now? Most likely because, as several pundits have noted, Jeffords determined that, given South Carolina Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond's advanced age, the Democrats soon might recapture the Senate anyway. This led Jeffords to the conclusion that now was the time to preserve his own political power by cutting a deal for a plum committee chairmanship.