The Fine Art of Jumping Ship

Sen. Jim Jeffords now walks in the footsteps of Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln. He does so not by leading his nation through crises, but by leaving his longtime political party.

Jeffords’ bold move to leave the Republicans and become an Independent made national and international headlines because it marked the first time a party change shifted the balance of power in the U.S. Congress. “This is a big one, arguably the biggest,” said Eric Davis, a political science professor at Middlebury College in Vermont. “To have a senator from a little state who has never been high profile to be the one who tips the [Senate] balance is really quite remarkable.”

Given the fanfare and angst surrounding Jeffords’ defection, it’s easy to forget the U.S. Senate has a long and distinguished history of party-swapping. Since 1890, 19 senators have jumped ship, according to the Senate Historical Office. And it’s not a phenomenon unique to the United States.

Before 1890, U.S. senators frequently changed parties--or helped create new ones that boasted names more reminiscent of ‘80s rock bands than a serious political enterprise. Platforms of 19th century parties like the Nullifiers, the Unionists, Free Soil and the Readjusters are either long forgotten or had their tenets folded into the major parties.

Though the congressional trend in recent years has been to jump from Democratic to Republican, the bulk of senatorial transfers after 1890 are still from Republican to the now-defunct Silver Party. Sen. William M. Stewart of Nevada became the first Silver defector and over the next four years carried a half-dozen other Western senators with him.

At issue was the precious metal produced in large amounts from the senators’ home states. Their flight from Republicanism started in 1893 when the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, which required the U.S. government to purchase nearly twice as much silver as before, was repealed by Congress.

In language common to many party-switchers, Sen. John P. Jones also of Nevada, who gave an eight-day filibuster to block the Sherman repeal, stated in 1894: “A change of party affiliations is not to be either advised or commended except in obedience to the imperative of principle.”

Motives of party-changers from Abraham Lincoln (Whig to Republican) to Ronald Reagan (Democrat to Republican) are always subject to debate. Was it truly principle--as the renegades invariably claim--or was it political opportunism?

“Staying with your original party is almost always safer for a politician because it’s tried and tested,” said Aubrey Immelman, a political psychologist at St. John’s University in Collegeville, Minn. “But one that’s willing to switch suggests they are willing to take fairly high risks.”

In the case of the Silver senators--all of whom eventually returned to the Republican Party--it seems clear, historians contend, that self-interest drove the moves. Thus far, Jeffords’ claim of personal conviction seems to be accepted by most of his colleagues.

“There really isn’t any strategic thinking behind this,” argues Tony Gierzynski, a political scientist at the University of Vermont. “In this day and age of skepticism, it’s refreshing to see a principled stand. He’s really reacting to a Bush administration that is frustrating him.”

Of course, others argue that Jeffords’ motive is mere opportunism. “With Strom Thurmond’s health failing, the Senate could have gone Democratic any day by an act of God,” wrote syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. “By making it an act of Jeffords, he earns the eternal gratitude of Tom Daschle, the new Senate majority leader. . . .”

In the case of former Democratic Congressman Matthew G. Martinez from the San Gabriel Valley, switching parties can be fueled by bitterness. Martinez, who was elected as a Democrat to Congress for 18 years from Monterey Park, changed parties after losing the Democratic primary in March 2000. However, he did not run again as a Republican.

In some other countries, politicians “cross the aisle” more frequently than in the United States. During the early 1990s, the creation of whole new parties out of factions of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party became a “national sport,” said Chip Hauss, a political-science professor at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.

*

Only last year, Canadians founded a new political party called the Canadian Alliance, which is meant to offer an alternative to the ruling Liberal party’s one-size-fits-all federal government. In November, the new opposition party gained eight seats for a total of 66 in the country’s 301-member House of Commons.

But few can top India’s parliamentary merry-go-round. Between 1967 and 1985, there were 2,700 cases of parliament members and state legislators who crossed party lines. In 1967-68 alone, there were 438--210 of whom got state or national cabinet positions.

Finally, in 1985, the country ratified a constitutional amendment to stem the tide of party defections. “I’m not an Indian expert,” said Hauss. “But it’s obvious that these folks did not suffer repercussions.”

The same often cannot be said of political maneuvering in the United States. The price for defection for any reason can be steep. Michael P. Forbes, a former New York congressman, switched from the Republican to Democratic party in the mid-’90s because he felt the GOP was out of step with the concerns of the Northeast. He later lost his reelection bid.

“Jim Jeffords will now learn that a number of his friends--even some of long standing--were really only acquaintances who will disappear now that he no longer has an ‘R’ after his name,” wrote Forbes in the Washington Post last week. “He will experience playground-level rudeness and a bullying, juvenile smear campaign to discredit him.”

In 1983, Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) switched from Democratic to Republican while a member of the House of Representatives. He resigned and was reelected as a Republican in a special election later that year. Other prominent senators who have switched allegiances include Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South Carolina), Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colorado), and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Alabama).

Another politician who got away with switching is Winston Churchill--who managed to switch parties twice. Originally elected to Parliament as a Conservative in 1900, he became a Liberal in 1906, partly because of his strong belief in free trade and frustration at the lack of social reform. As a result of his defection, Churchill served in the Liberal cabinet throughout World War I.

When the Liberal Party began to weaken and Churchill was defeated in 1922, he switched back and was reelected to Parliament as a Conservative in 1924. “He found himself in a party that never had hope of having power again. He had to switch again to be an important person in British politics,” said Mark Franklin, professor of political science at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn.

Churchill’s situation was unlike Jeffords’, Franklin said, because in the United States, senators can wield influence even when their party is out of power.

In both defections, Churchill, like most such figures, asserted that he had not changed or left the party; it was the party that had changed and left him. However, he was likely as motivated by opportunism, Franklin said. “It’s hard to come up with any high principles that would enable you to switch twice like that.”