Senator Jeffords’ (I-Vermont) has been a long time maverick, often voting for Democratic policies (including gay rights, partial birth abortion, and against the conviction of President Clinton), but still was re-elected by a large margin last year. Nonetheless, after the certification of the election of President Bush, Jeffords had various problems with the President. Bush is clearly more conservative than Jeffords on many issues, as is the Republican Party itself (if anything, Congressional Republican leaders are more conservative than President Bush). Furthermore, the President opposed various things that were important to Jeffords, including dairy industry protections, and Jeffords voted against the President’s tax plan. This led to an even colder shoulder by the President, his bi-partisan rhetoric shown not be as important as his apparent decision to act like he had a mandate. The fact that the President did not get a majority of the popular vote, won Florida under protest, and had to deal with a split Senate did not stop him from acting like the public was completely behind him. Jeffords, seeing how little respect a liberal Republican that would be a perfect bridge to Democrats received, decided to switch parties. This not only annoyed people, it really upset some of them. Though his choice is controversial, on balance I do not see how people can see it as unjust. For instance, some people say he cheated his electorate, who expected a Republican senator, not someone who would help the Democrats control the Senate. This assumes people voted for him with the assumption that he would help Republicans control the Senate, who along with a President many felt would not win (I didn’t), would put forth an agenda that is in opposition to a lot of things for which Jeffords stands. Also, it assumes he did not in some fashion (poll or otherwise) determine that his electorate supported his move. Next, it assumes party label, not the views (of an independent and maverick senator at that) is central to the large majority of the vote that Jeffords won in 2000. If your representative or senator changed parties, but still had the same views (and the change actually helped to promote them), would you be crushed? Finally, it assumes some type of independent special election is even allowed under Vermont law, which I really doubt it is. Next, people doubt Jeffords changed his party affiliation for idealistic motives. Do they question his opposition to the views of the President and the conservative Republicans in Congress his election helped to put in control? No. Actually, some see his change in part a reflection of some conservative rumblings by Vermont voters in recent years, especially after a domestic partnership law was passed in support of homosexuals. A rumbling that by the way did not lead to the defeat of a senator who supports gay and abortion rights in quite liberal degrees. It is argued that Jeffords changed because the Republicans (especially the President) offered him little to stay, while the Democrats tempted him with committee assignments and the like. So? Basic political smarts include satisfying your troops, which makes the moves by Bush and company to annoy an essential ally rather stupid. Political power and survival includes concerning oneself with some less than idealistic things at times. Politicians on the margins of their parties, like Jeffords, know this all too well. Therefore, it is quite hypocritical for many to think Jeffords is somehow corrupt for mixing ideology and political power in making his move. Few political moves do not include both, and its naïve (or deceptive) to deny this fact. Finally, some feel that Jeffords is subverting the Constitution itself by handing the control of the Senate to the Democrats on his own authority, taking the tie breaking role away from the Vice President. I am confused. Does the Constitution mention political parties? Does it even say that a legislator cannot change his mind on key issues, thus helping the opposition in ways bound to shock his electorate? Jeffords could surely go against the will of his electorate (including by voting in ways to support the opposite party) in any number of ways and retain his party label, a move that seems less honest, but apparently (to some) less illegitimate. The independence given to members of Congress actually suggests the opposite: in certain cases, the representative of the people can vote on his own authority, vote in a way he feels best upholds the people’s interest. After all, given how badly Jeffords (and the interests he represents) has been treated, the switch seems to better uphold the interests of those who voted for him. Are we to be more shocked at the Democrats getting power in Senate by Jeffords resigning from a party not truly expressing his views than Republicans getting power by Vice President Cheney supplying a tie vote to further a more conservative agenda than the individual senators would otherwise support? Sure, I am near ecstatic that at least one part of the government is not in President’s Bush’s hands because of my own personal political and personal opposition to him. Nonetheless, my opposition is still based on reasonable grounds that justify supporting the switch. Jeffords might have been influenced for political reasons, but ideological ones are just as strong. Furthermore, the political reasons on balance (some feel the loss of a Republican voice in the Vermont delegation is troubling, but Jeffords apparently found his political weight no longer enough to make this worthwhile) benefit his constituency, surely enough for us to trust his judgment that is does. His switch to Independent provides more balance to Congress, which is what the American People wanted more than a conservative tilt that shuns people like Jeffords. The fact that a person who did not get a majority of the popular votes (or intended votes in Florida) heads such opposition makes it more galling. Finally, someone who uses the undemocratic Electoral College (and other as undemocratic means in Florida) to get into office has no business calling Senator Jeffords crooked for using allegedly undemocratic (but still quite constitutional) independent means to gain power. Of the two, I find Senator Jeffords much more worthy of respect, especially in regards to the abuse he will suffer (to at least somewhat) courageously follow his beliefs.