|
|
|
Jewish World Review Nov. 24, 2010 / 17 Kislev, 5771 Kyl not delaying New Start treaty By Robert Robb
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
In some quarters, Arizona U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl is being blamed for holding up consideration of the New START treaty, the Obama administration's arms control agreement with Russia.
That's a gross misrepresentation of the situation.
As a member of the minority party, Kyl has no say as to when things are scheduled on the floor of the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid can bring the treaty to the floor anytime he wants.
As things now stand, however, Kyl would not support it. And such is the respect for Kyl's expertise and judgment on such subjects among his Republican colleagues, the universal belief is that without Kyl's support, the treaty could not get the 67 votes the Constitution requires for ratification.
The founders clearly intended for senators to exercise independent judgment about treaties and believed that it should be difficult for the president to bind the United States through them. That's the reason for requiring ratification by a two-thirds vote.
So, Kyl is doing what the Constitution anticipates senators would do regarding treaties, exercising independent judgment.
Critics of New START point to several concerns: the numerical limits are too low without a robust commitment to modernization the Obama administration has not demonstrated; the treaty will limit the projection of U.S. conventional power as well as nuclear capabilities; and there is at least an implicit concession to the Russians on missile defense.
Kyl could just announce that he is opposed to the treaty, and that would probably be the end of it. The Obama administration would have to renegotiate it.
Kyl, however, hasn't done that. Instead, he has expressed a willingness to see whether his concerns can be addressed in a way that would enable him in good conscience to support the treaty. Just not on the timetable of a lame-duck session and in a bazaar-like atmosphere in which a retiring secretary of defense flies into Arizona with an offer of billions more for modernization.
The Obama administration's argument for dealing with the treaty in the lame-duck session is that without it, the United States doesn't have inspectors on the ground checking on what those tricky Russkies are up to. It's amusing to see the Obama administration resort to Cold War alarmism to sell its supposedly "reset button" treaty.
Undoubtedly both Kyl and the Obama administration are also factoring in the fact that Republicans will have considerably more votes in the next Senate. In fact, even Kyl's support may not be enough to save New START in the new Senate. National security conservatives outside the Senate are solidifying in opposition.
But that's not Kyl's fault. It is the fault of the Obama administration for not negotiating a treaty and pursuing a nuclear deterrent policy that enjoyed broader support.
Most other democratic countries have a tradition of honorable resignation. If something goes wrong, the person in charge takes responsibility and steps aside. This is not a politically fatal move. The politician resigning often stays in the game and is given new positions of authority later.
The United States has no such tradition. Instead, resignation when something goes wrong is considered a sign of dishonor and close to a political death penalty. So, American politicians tend to cling to power and deny responsibility until public opinion or internal political pressure becomes simply too much to resist.
American politics suffers from not having a tradition of honorable resignation, as the fight by Nancy Pelosi to remain leader of House Democrats demonstrates.
Pelosi was a remarkably effective speaker of the House. Under her, a lot of very big stuff important to liberal Democrats got through. She deserves a place of honor and respect within her party.
Nevertheless, Democrats were, in the words of the president, shellacked this election. Moreover, Pelosi came to personify what independents were rejecting in the Democratic Party. By remaining Democratic leader, she makes it more difficult for Democrats to win in the places they have to win to have a chance to recapture the majority.
Stepping down, however, would be seen as an admission of disgrace rather than an act of honorably accepting responsibility. And she would have become an artifact in the House, rather than remaining a power.
I have no idea how a tradition of honorable resignation gets started in this country. But we would be better served by having one.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Robert Robb is a columnist for The Arizona Republic. Comment by clicking here.
© 2010, The Arizona Republic |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
