Take Back the Suburbs

Michael Smerconish, Philadelphia's conservative talk-radio star, made waves last fall when he announced who he would be voting for: Barack Obama. Smerconish's political career began in high school, when he worked his father's unsuccessful state legislative campaign. By college he was doing advance work for then-Vice President George H.W. Bush and by law school he was running for the state legislature himself. Though he admits to a few Democratic votes through all those years, he had never before gone for a Democratic president.

But he doesn't just support Obama—he's also calling out the Republican Party. As he's watched the party lose ground in the Main Line suburbs where he lives and other areas like it, he sees a party unwilling to look at new positions. Which is why he's looking for them. His "Suburban Manifesto" offers a platform for a moderate, suburban conservative party that keeps its hard line on national security but leaves room for the nation's shifting social mores.

And his voice is only going to get louder. Since January, Smerconish's morning talk show has been nationally syndicated, and next month his latest book, Morning Drive, will be released. The book details his adventures in journalism and politics, explaining how a Reagan youth grew into the author of a Suburban Manifesto. He sat down with Politics this week to discuss campaigns, politics and the future of his old friend Arlen Specter.


Politics: Morning Drive discusses your political identity—whether you still fit the labels "Republican" and "conservative." Ultimately you still identify with the Republican Party, if not its politics. How do you define the idea of being a Republican, then?
Smerconish: I like to think that being a Republican is still being someone who supports a very strong national defense and the idea of limited government. I think that no one would disagree with those two [positions]. The question becomes the third prong, things like gay marriage and abortion—and I'd like to see the party move in a more liberal direction on those two. And that's where the jury is out.

Politics: Your book includes an interesting look at how cable talk shows book talking heads that will fulfil certain positions, which create a partisan, bickering media environment. This damages politicians, too. Is there anything candidates can do to decrease the partisanship and sniping in the media?
Smerconish: Of course the candidates themselves can be more civil; so, too, can the politicians. I don't think every political debate needs to turn into, "Jane, you ignorant slut," to go back to that old SNL sketch. And yet that's what is in the mind of countless producers of cable talk-fests and radio talk-show hosts.

I think it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I look at [Minnesota Rep.] Michelle Bachman, and I feel like she's the product of the talk-radio and cable-TV world. She looks like somebody you would meet on one of those cable shows—on which I've appeared hundreds if not thousands of times—but she's now an elected official. And I don't think that's a good thing. I have first-hand experience seeing what goes on in the staging of these phony conversations. And they continue to be the standard. As I say in the book, I don't meet people in my real life who are like those that I'm surrounded by on cable television and talk radio. I don't meet people who see the world all one way or all the other. But if you turn on television or the radio, that's what you get. Everyone looks for a sound bite. I think that the discourse suffers and so does any prospects for progress.

Politics: As a young man, you were very involved in political campaigning yourself. Was that a valuable experience?
Smerconish: One of the best things that ever happened to me was running unsuccessfully for the state legislature in Pennsylvania when I was in law school. If I could go back and rewrite that, I wouldn't change a thing. I have three kids, and I hope they get involved in politics. In fact, I would rather they get involved in politics for causes with which I disagree rather than not get involved at all, just because I think there's so much value in the people that you meet and the networks you build. I've had wonderful political experience and because of that, people put a microphone in front of me—and I guess my ego took over and I took off in a different direction.

Politics: The book includes your "Suburban Manifesto" of political positions. This includes some some unorthodox views on candidates, calling for no campaign finance limits and a 12-year term limit for legislators to ensure our lawmakers can make a living for themselves. But what about politicians who have a true calling to serve the country in government and not as businessmen?
Smerconish: I think the best argument against what I say is someone that I praise in the book, [Pennsylvania Sen.] Arlen Specter. He's clearly a guy who could go earn a living. But he's been at it [working in the Senate] since 1980; he's been at it for 28 years. But I think he's the exception. I think it's important for people to stay grounded. Going out and earning a living in another field and knowing [your time in Congress] is short term—I think it would cause you to grow some balls politically, and I think it would ensure there's a constant mix [in the legislature]. You look at the growth of entitlement—would it have happened with term limits? Would people have voted for that knowing this is their last term?

Politics: That goes right into my next question. You worked on Specter's first reelection campaign. Now he's facing another one—maybe his toughest ever. How you do you think that will play out?
Smerconish: I think it'll be the race of year. It’s a test case, I think, for the national party. I think they should embrace [Specter] sooner rather than later. And to the extent they can be helpful to his campaign, they should be. I think [his opponent, former Rep.] Pat Toomey's a good man, but the party has plenty of Pat Toomeys—the party needs more Arlen Specters. Specter's the guy who will grow the tent, and that's what necessary. This party has catered far too much to the conservative element, which is great for winning primaries but not for winning generals.


Politics: Given your emphasis on growing the tent and not catering to conservatives, how do you feel about Specter's reversal on the Employee Free Choice Act? [Ed. note: Specter was the lone Republican to vote for the pro-labor bill in 2007, but has said he will not vote for it this year.]
Smerconish: I know the issue pretty well and I don't know that it was a reversal. He's never been one to take the path of least resistance. I know him so well, I find it hard to believe that he's a guy that would have voted in a party way on EFCA for his own political salvation. The Arlen Specter I know is a man who who would vote in a way that would cause himself the greatest angst politically. That's the way it's always been for him. If someone would tell him he has the hardest chance to get reelected by voting for x, he'd vote for x.

Politics: You made waves by endorsing Barack Obama in the presidential election. What do you think of his job so far? Do you still stand behind that vote?
Politics: I think there's been no surprises—what I've gotten is what I voted for. I knew what I was getting. From my perspective, this is a guy who's governed not as a radical, which is what some made him out to be in the campaign and are continue to try to make him out to be, calling him a socialist, dusting off all that bullshit about his middle name. It's not going to do anything for the GOP; it's going to placate a small but loyal base. The Republican Party exists for one reason—to win elections. It's not intended to be an ideological platform. I'm for winning pragmatically, not losing with honor.