Is Jeff Principled or Just a Flake?

In September of 2019, a whistleblower came forth with information that implicated President Donald Trump in a scandal that had potential grounds for impeachment. The Republican Party was already somewhat fractured, the members divided by varying levels of support for their commander in chief. Tensions only grew with this new speculation. 

Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona was a main character in this shocking period of the Trump presidency. Flake had served in the Senate since 2013 and was not a supporter of President Trump early in his presidency. His concerns were heightened as he stated in a 2019 press conference, “Traveling overseas, I witnessed the damage being done to our standing in the world as a result of President Trump’s fondness for authoritarians and his scorn for allies. His hostility toward security alliances and trade agreements had placed our long-term security and our economy at risk”. Flake’s concerns resulted in him resigning from the Senate in 2019. He knew that his own beliefs were at odds with a large faction of the political party that he represented and feared that he would either have to jump on board with things he did not support or risk not being reelected when the time came. While this was not an easy choice, he stood for what he believed and left. He urged his fellow Senators to stand their ground if it came to a potential hearing regarding impeachment, or when it came to supporting President Trump for reelection.

Whether or not one supports President Trump or Senator Flake, or even the Republican Party is not the matter at hand. Senator Flake’s decision to stop representing his political party due to the differences he had with it relates directly to the theory and research of Carsey and Layman (2006). In their 2006 article, they make the claim that for a voter to leave their political party of choice requires that they come to a difference of opinion on an issue that is incredibly salient to them. They also state that if this is the case, for a voter to leave over this issue they also must know where the other party (parties) stand. If they find that they come to a mismatch in this process, voters are faced with the choice to either change their personal ideology to align with that of their party or realign elsewhere. Carsey and Layman acknowledge that it is rare for someone in one party to flip completely to the opposing party. More often than not they simply become less involved, or less vocal of their positions. These hypotheses were tested using panel data spanning 4 years.

Figure 1: Tree diagram illustrating Carsey and Layman's main argument

 

Senator Flake is a prime example of Carsey and Layman’s hypothesis. He was aware of where both major parties fell on issues and began to see how his own party acted in a way that was contrary to his values. These issues were salient enough to him that we saw him step down from a prominent position within his party, and out of the spotlight. While he did not transition to the Democrat Party, Senator Flake has definitely cut several ties with the party he once represented.

Senator Flake serves as a prime example of what happens when one is at odds with their party. This issue is relevant to both Democrats and Republicans. All should strive to align themselves with parties that represent their beliefs and goals. Simply joining a political party and allowing it to dictate one’s decisions is destined to result in a mindless electorate, and in the downfall of our democratic system. While the decision to push back against one’s preferred political party may be difficult in the moment, doing so allows citizens to shape their nation, and to elect those that they believe will best serve.