Wrapping It Up 1

Yesterday, I was saying that a large portion of the opposition to New START could be explained by understanding that a portion of the GOP has generally been suspicious of all arms control agreements.  Daniel Larison argues that the Bolton-Perle wing of the GOP hasn't, previously, had much sway in the Senate.  He may be correct that this indicates a shift in the center of the GOP on security issues; or, it may be that skepticism turns to opposition when there's a Democrat in the White House. 

I've also seen arguments that Republicans erred in opposing the treaty without having the votes to win on it; as Fred Kaplan put it:

And so the Republican leadership made this a purely political battle and—fresh off what had seemed a triumphant election season—suffered an astonishingly egregious defeat.

Perhaps.   On the other hand, the "defeat" aspects of this are likely to be minimal and ephemeral; a few weeks from now, no one is going to remember or care about New START (on the political side; the substance, of course, matters, but there's no difference there between fighting and losing and just plain letting the thing pass). 

However, Republicans did accomplish something by fighting on New START.  They chewed up quite a few hours of Senate floor time, a very valuable commodity in the lame duck session, and really throughout the 111th Congress.  Now, there's really no way of knowing what exactly they gained by doing that.  However, had they agreed to a quick vote on the treaty, there would have been more time for the Democrats to confirm judges and executive branch appointments; more time for appropriations bills, and perhaps to give a more sustained effort on the omnibus appropriations bill; and more time for any of the other unfinished business on the Democratic agenda. 

So I wouldn't be quick to conclude that it was a mistake for Republicans to fight this one out, even if they took a (very minor) PR hit in losing.  Indeed, in understanding what the GOP was up to, I think one has to consider the possibility that treaty opposition was in part a deliberate -- and, I would say, perfectly legitimate -- part of trying to run out the clock.

Conservatives and START

I think I'm going to defend conservative Republicans against the charge that their opposition to New Start is nothing but raw partisan politics.  See for example Adam Serwer's claim that treaty opponents are "manufacturing controversy over Democrats adopting policies Republicans once embraced," which Patrick Appell over at the Dish summarizes as "Anything Obama Supports = Bad."  This is generally followed by citing the GOP Secretaries of State who support the treaty, as Max Bergmann does here.


There may indeed be some of that disingenuous opposition going on, but really: do these people ever listen to conservatives?  It seems to me that what we're mainly hearing here is the wing of the party that considered Henry Kissinger (and Richard Nixon) near-traitors, that considered Ronald Reagan a sell-out when he shifted from giving speeches about the Evil Empire, and that spent eight years of the George W. Bush administration trashing every treaty from ABM to Geneva, of all things.  Is it really a surprise that they aren't convinced by Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, and George Shultz?  Nor is it news that this wing of the GOP has considerable support in the Senate; hasn't that always been the case? 

(That's the real lesson of Jonathan Chait's gotcha on Richard Perle: that wing of the GOP didn't roll over for Reagan, either).

Now, it's of course possible that a Republican president would find it somewhat easier going in finding Republican votes, although as I write this it looks as if Barack Obama is going to have the votes, after all..  And it's surely interesting to see the current support level of the Perle-Bolton wing in the Senate.  Moreover, I do think it's likely that some Senate Republicans did deliberately draw out the debate in hopes that it would crowd other items off the Senate agenda -- which is, as far as I'm concerned, a perfectly legitimate tactic. 

But that's about it.  I see no reason to attribute conservative opposition to New START to anything other than conservative opposition to all treaties.

What Mattered This Week?

OK, this feature is not really needed this time around: I certainly do believe that the tax cut deal mattered.  Anyone want to argue the other way? 

I don't think that any of yesterday's festivities (Bernie Sanders holding forth on the Senate floor, Bill Clinton in the White House briefing room) were all that important, although they were good fun for political junkies.  But the overall deal -- yup, that's a big deal.

We also had action on DADT, DREAM, and to a lesser degree on New START, although I don't believe that any of the shuffling this week either killed those measures or put them over the top.  Hard to believe that all three will survive at this point, but there should be time for at least one of them -- more than one, and perhaps three, if Harry Reid and the Democrats use every possible hour remaining.  And if they have the votes -- DADT certainly does, but I'm not sure about the other two.

What else?  What do you think mattered this week?