First, this musical introduction, courtesy of the brilliant and tragic Frankie Lymon:

Ironically, over the weekend I wrote, in a reply to a comment, about how badly I felt when I finally met Arlen Specter and he was very complimentary to me, after I had described his 2009 defection from the Republican Party in very uncomplimentary terms. Now comes the news that the former Pennsylvania Senator’s new book includes a lament that neither President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid nor other key Democrats delivered on the promises that caused him to betray his party and those who had voted for him.

Arlen, Arlen, Arlen.

Talk about the world’s smallest violin: who could possibly react to this with anything but eye-rolling, snickers and elation? The recruitment of Specter was part of the Democratic “anything goes” campaign to pass a monster health care bill in 2009 come hook or by crook, mostly crook. Getting Specter to switch aisles was the key to the Democrats controlling the Senate with a filibuster-proof majority, without which Harry Reid’s dubious procedural maneuvers would have been impossible. So Specter, who was facing defeat in the upcoming primary as a moderate Republican, was persuaded to turn on his colleagues in return for various goodies—a committee chairmanship, the promise of Presidential re-election assistance, renewed power and influence—in return for making the passage of Obamacare possible. The Hill reports:

“Specter believes Reid acted with “duplicity” while managing the party switch. Specter said Reid promised him that he would be recognized on the seniority list as a Democrat elected in 1980, but failed to deliver on it.  Had Specter been given the seniority he was promised, he would have become chairman of the powerful Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations subcommittee and next in line to chair the Judiciary Committee. Instead, Reid stripped Specter of all his seniority by passing a short resolution by unanimous consent in a nearly-empty chamber, burying him at the bottom of the Democrats’ seniority list.”

Whaaaat? Harry Reid duplicitous and untrustworthy? Well, knock me over with a feather!

I don’t want to re-hash the earlier harsh criticism of Specter that had me feeling bad before, but you can: it suffices to say that an elected official who changes parties while remaining in office has performed a classic unethical bait-and-switch, and there can be no justification for it, ever. The usual excuse (resorted to by Arlen) is “I didn’t leave the party, it left me.” Fine. Resign, run again as a candidate of the other party, and see if the partisans of your new party will elect you. Holding a representative position given to you by voters who you assured would be voting for a member of the other party when they elected you is fraudulent. Doing this in return for political favors and promises is despicable. I’m sorry, Mr. Specter, but it’s true.

Then to expect sympathy from readers because the cutthroat Machiavellians who induced you to betray your allies, colleagues and constituency double-crossed you displays a revolting hybrid of gall and foolishness. We see this in the movies all the time, Senator–some turncoat betrays the heroes for money, or a promise of mercy, or some other ill-gotten reward, and the bad guys shoot him, or feed him to sharks, or leave him to rot somewhere. The audience never feels sorry for him, and it doesn’t blame the bad guys, because it knows they can’t trust a turncoat either.  When Judas complains that his 30 pieces of silver turned out to be tin, there is only one reasonable human response: Goody goody! (Rest in Peace, Frankie.)

Does that mean that two wrongs can make a right? No. A double-cross is always ethically wrong, even if the one double-crossed richly deserves it. The fact that the act was wrong doesn’t mean that we can’t take pleasure in the result, when its lesson is that betrayal tend to lay the foundation of their own retribution.