I’ve been seriously trying to spend a little more time unplugged these days, for a variety of reasons, but the whole Senator Specter (D-PA) business feels like something worth offering up a few paragraphs about.

The news was a surprise, certainly, but not one that comes completely out of left field (or right field, or center field, or center-right field, or whereever, to belabor the sports analogy with political overtones). Arlen Specter has always been a pretty moderate opportunist, starting out as a Democrat early in his political career, then switching to the GOP when it was expedient to his career. He’s never been that much of an idealogue; he votes his conscience on things that matter to him, but tends to vote with his party’s prevailing position on the rest.

So, you get a pro-choice, pro-stem cell research Republican who votes in support of Democratic economic stimulus packages and abstains (via a strange reference to Scottish common law) on voting for impeachment of a Democratic president, who continues to win re-election. Weird, even in Pennsylvania.

What does his switch mean, though, really, assuming that he ends up winning as a Democrat in 2010? In my opinion, not a whole lot in the mechanical scheme of things. He’ll still likely continue to vote his conscience, and buck his (new) party occasionally.

He does, however, change the math in the Senate slightly, especially once the Minnesota stuff gets sorted out and the reasonably clear (by a small margin) winner Senator Franken gets seated. 60 votes is a significant number in the Senate; 60 votes is enough to block a filibuster from the minority and get on with voting. It’s largely symbolic, as it’s a chore to get 60 Democrats to vote the same way on just about anything, but symbols do have power, and feelings of power can cause people to risk a little more.

For example, the symbol of 60 might provide enough perceived power for the Democratic leadership to make sure things like serious health care reform or increased funding for basic science and environmental technology reasearch get talked about seriously in the Senate chambers.

It certainly doesn’t guarantee that those things will get passed, but talking about them as valid options in the halls of government is a good step closer than we’ve had in a while; discussion brings understanding, and understanding encourages compromise, and compromise in our system leads to action.

If Senator Specter switching affiliation leads to that down the road, I’ll take it.