Every 38 years, like clockwork, an ideologically adventurous two term U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania is defeated for re-election by a moderate of the opposition party. In 1968, Congressman Dick Schweiker of Montgomery County (then a Republican stronghold, now increasingly emerging as a Democratic stronghold) defeated Pennsylvania Senator Joe Clark. Last month, Pennsylvania State Treasurer Robert Casey famously defeated Senator Rick Santorum.
Clark and Santorum both have some similar characteristics and some dissimilar ones; this was first pointed out in a recent Northeast Pennsylvania newspaper article that I can no longer find. Both were moralists: Clark about liberal issues, Santorum about conservative ones. Both had a following in Washington: Clark was a liberal leader in the Senate; Santorum was a successful leadership candidate of the Republican right wing. Both were men who put principle ahead of relationships: in speaking of Philadelphia Mayor Frank Rizzo, whom he publicly and repeatedly assailed, Clark said he didn't want to meet him because he was afraid he would like him and then not be able to attack him.
Clark and Santorum were both champions in getting television coverage that hurt more than it helped. Clark's base in the Democratic Party was undermined by his frequent taped debates with Pennsylvania Republican Senator Hugh Scott, as their amicability conveyed a partnership that overcame differences of opinions. Santorum's base was also hurt by his ubiquity on Fox News: one of the hot political discoveries of 2006 is the significant number of anti-Fox News Fox TV viewers who vote against those who they regularly see there.
Both Clark and Santorum were authors of books on public policy; both brought in numerous outside campaigners; both saw themselves as representing principle and truth as much as, or more than, real red blooded, walking and talking constituents.
Clark's belief in good government led him to back my father's early successful candidacies for the Philadelphia City Council and my unsuccessful 1978 bid for Congress; Santorum's belief in outreach to constituents led him to talk to me at public events several times after we first crossed paths during his brief career as a state senate aide and Harrisburg lobbyist.
Clark exercised substantial political influence for more than a decade after his 1968 defeat, heading organizations pushing peace through world law, speaking out repeatedly for inegrity in Philadelphia's municipal government and the involvement of reform-oriented people in Philadelphia politics, mobilizing support for Jimmy Carter for the 1976 Democratic Presidential nomination, and strongly influencing Carter's political appointments from Philadelphia, and his attitude toward Philadelphia politicians.
Santorum's post-Senate career will likely be even more influential, producing a high continuing income, and major national visibility on radio, television, newspapers, and the Internet.
Clark and Santorum indicate a major truth about the American political system: it is vital for a successful candidate to be able to unify his party. Those who cannot unify their party, for whatever reason, are highly vulnerable in swing constituencies.