When you have to start out by arguing for the thing on the merits, that’s a really bad sign. ~Spencer Ackerman

Ackerman was noting the complete lack of any political argument for ratifying New START, and he’s right that the administration has done nothing to make that argument. One political argument that they could have made and might still make is that ratifying the treaty is overwhelmingly popular. Not only is the treaty unobjectionable, as Ackerman says, but its ratification is widely regarded as desirable. According to the latest CNN poll, 59% of Republicans favor ratification. The administration could point to this to show how wildly out of touch with their own voters Republican opponents of the treaty are. Even 51% of self-identified conservatives favor ratification. There is not one demographic that clearly wants to see this treaty defeated, but in all likelihood the treaty is going down to defeat. If conservatives are split down the middle, this is not simply a question of the GOP appealing to its political base. I won’t pretend that arms control is an issue that can move a lot of votes by itself (it can’t), but the larger symbolism of wrecking an agreement that enhances American security and ignoring the wishes of an overwhelming majority of Americans would normally be very politically damaging for the responsible party. Obama has apparently managed to lose this fight, and he doesn’t seem to be making the argument that could at least allow him to turn that defeat into a political problem for his opponents.

The death of New START is a useful lesson in just how irrelevant public opinion is to the shaping of foreign policy and national security. Relatively small numbers of activists that are better organized, more engaged and more intense in their views can wield disproportionate influence on policy debates. When they are allied with the relevant interest groups and some members of Congress, a small number of dedicated activists can determine policy to a remarkable degree, especially when their opposition is disorganized and largely passive. The side of the debate that has greater intensity and organization will certainly prevail when their opponents simply trust that the inherent worthiness of the initiative or policy will somehow trump political calculation and influence.

Treaty ratification is broadly popular, but there don’t seem to be that many activists working in support of it. Its ratification has been taken for granted for so long that there was never much of an effort to mobilize support for it when Republican leaders began railing against it earlier this year. One reason for that was that the arguments against the treaty were so ignorant and ridiculous that many supporters may have mistaken the intellectual weakness of the anti-START position for the political weakness of the opposition. If nothing else, the midterms have made clear that intellectual vacuity is no impediment to political strength. Supporters of ratification have been losing strength with every week that has gone by without a debate and vote on the treaty. Voting on the treaty in the lame-duck session was the last chance to stop the bleeding.