fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Disrespecting The Voters and Their Intelligence

“On Election Day we were elected to represent the constituents of our respective states in the Senate,” the incoming Republicans wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), in a letter (PDF) obtained by The Cable. “Out of respect for our states’ voters, we believe it would be improper for the Senate to consider the […]

“On Election Day we were elected to represent the constituents of our respective states in the Senate,” the incoming Republicans wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), in a letter (PDF) obtained by The Cable. “Out of respect for our states’ voters, we believe it would be improper for the Senate to consider the New START Treaty or any other treaty in a lame duck session prior to January 3, 2011.”

The letter was organized by Senator elect Roy Blunt (R-MO) and was signed by both moderate and conservative incoming senators such as Marco Rubio (R-FL), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Rob Portman (R-OH), and Rand Paul (R-KY). ~Josh Rogin

Of all the lousy arguments for delaying the consideration of New START, this has to be one of the worst and most laughable. The treaty was brought up this year, and voted out of committee this year. The Senators serving in this session were duly elected to serve a full six years. By calling for them to delay consideration of an important treaty, these new Senators are not only starting off their Senate careers by making a terrible mistake and effectively aiding in the defeat of that treaty, but they are trying to prevent their constituents’ current representatives in Congress from doing their jobs. Of course, they are banding together to delay nothing else in the lame-duck session. The only thing they believe absolutely must not be considered in the lame-duck session is the one unobjectionable item that has near-universal support from the military, arms control experts, and former national security officials.

This is a pointed act of disrespect toward the voters of their respective states. Several of the new Senators don’t even represent new Republican seats. Kansas, New Hampshire, Florida, Kentucky, Ohio, and Missouri* are all currently represented by Republicans, and the voters in those states can be represented just as well by their retiring Senators as they can be by the newly-elected ones next year. It’s not as if the outgoing Republicans and the newcomers have dramatically different views on the treaty. Ayotte, Moran, Paul, Portman, Rubio and Blunt have no excuse for signing this ridiculous letter. The entire thing is embarrassing for the new Senators, but it is particularly shameful for those seven. Since the treaty enjoys overwhelming public support, it is absurd to claim that a delay in ratification shows respect for what their voters want. It certainly doesn’t, the new Senators must be aware that it doesn’t, and we all understand that they are doing this for to maximize partisan advantage for no other reason than to make ratification virtually impossible.

Update: James Joyner is correct that the new Senators are doing nothing illegal or unconstitutional by asking Reid for a delay. I understand Steve Clemons’ frustration with these antics, but he’s wrong on this point. James goes on to say this:

My preference would be for politicians in these circumstances to limit themselves to uncontroversial matters and responses to genuine emergencies.

If ratification is indeed a “no-brainer,” as James says, and if the substance of the treaty is unobjectionable, which it is, what could better qualify as uncontroversial than the ratification of an arms reduction treaty that enjoys broad public support and the consensus of the military and national security figures across the spectrum? New START would normally be the sort of thing that can be saved until lame-duck sessions because ratification is obviously desirable. The Senate delayed until now out of deference to the concerns of the minority, so Republicans have some nerve to say that there is a “rush” to consider the treaty. There has most certainly been no “rush” because of previous Republican requests for more time. Having frittered away all of the time available in the regular session this year, and not wanting to bring the treaty to a vote ahead of the elections for fear of giving Obama an important victory, Republicans now want to wait some more until their numbers increase. We can all see why they are doing this, but why should this self-serving grandstanding be rewarded?

* Mike Lee of Utah is also a signatory to the letter and is replacing a Republican incumbent, but obviously he and Bob Bennett do have significantly different views on the treaty, since Bennett’s is an informed view and Lee’s is not.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here