Combating Domestic Threats In Talks With Iran

Combating Domestic Threats In Talks With Iran

The stakes in Vienna right now couldn’t be much higher.

Sunday marks the end of the six-month agreement between Iran and the world’s leading economic powers to freeze the country’s nuclear weapons program in exchange for easing the economic sanctions that have brought Iran’s leaders their knees.

Success in Vienna would be the crowning foreign policy achievement of the Obama administration. In addition to disarming one of the world’s most dangerous regimes, an agreement seen domestically as a victory for reformists and moderates following President Hassan Rouhani could dramatically advance the cause of human rights for Iran’s 77 million citizens. Even more consequentially, a resolution to the Iranian nuclear question would mark a giant step toward advancing a unified effort to reduce loose nuclear materials around the globe and eliminate all nuclear warheads.

The risks are, however, are as large as the rewards. American abandonment of the talks could produce a series of developments that could endanger the homeland, or at least threaten our global leadership. Our European partners might feel the need to protect their own economic interests by breaking ranks with the U.S. and pursuing their own negotiated settlement with the Iranians. In the worst-case scenario, the Iranian regime could resume enriching uranium, fast-tracking its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. A nuclear Iran could be a reality within one year, in turn motivating Saudi Arabia and other regional powers to go nuclear as well.

A third, and perhaps most likely option appears to be a six-month extension of the agreement reached in January. This outcome would present its own, singularly unique threat.

I speak of the threat of a six-month extension that would provoke snarling diatribes on ‘American weakness’ from Dick Cheney.

The threat that Ron Fournier might pen another op-ed piece on “why Obama isn’t leading.”

The threat that some commentators might read a few Wall Street Journal editorials that sound informed, only to suddenly insist that they know more than American diplomats who have spent 30 years dealing with Iran.

The threat that a daytime panel forum, hosted by the Heritage Foundation and wailing on the Obama Administration’s impotence, might actually reach an audience on C-SPAN beyond the panel members’ immediate families.

And most pointedly, the threat that the few rational Republicans left in Washington may be forced, once again, to feed the monster of an electoral base they have created — passing a foolish increase in sanctions and torpedoing any possible deal, all for the glory of a one-week news cycle.

In short, the threat wouldn’t come from Washington; it would be Washington itself. It would be that this isolated town on the Potomac chooses to listen only to itself rather than to the clear majority of Americans —including 62 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of Democrats — that supports the ongoing negotiations.

Scoring cheap points and even cheaper dollars from special interest groups matters more than protecting America’s homeland. That’s how Washington operates these days.

We should all be thankful that the talks are ongoing in Vienna, and we should pray that Secretary of State John Kerry and the American delegation meet with the Iranians in airtight rooms, without even a decibel leaking in from the Washington din.

But enough with the doom and gloom. There is a silver lining here: When it comes time to vote, none of what happens in Vienna will even matter. Whatever Dick Cheney says, it won’t matter. There’s no need to fret about November when it comes to the Vienna talks. Let’s hope that members of Congress are mindful of this.

Americans are a simple people. We want our pocketbooks taken care of. We don’t vote with anything else in mind — it’s an unfortunate trait of democratic governance, but it works in our collective best interest here.

George H.W. Bush, basking in the glory of the Gulf War, had every reason to expect the American people to reelect him; his trouncing was, as the saying goes, due to the economy, stupid. Not even Winston Churchill, in an election held weeks after victory in Europe, could survive a wave of economic angst.

Gallup regularly asks Americans, what is the “most important problem facing this country today?” Last March, 19 percent named unemployment and jobs, and another 17 picked the economy in general. Only 4 percent of respondents chose foreign aid and our focus overseas as the most important. Not a single specific foreign policy question was chosen as most critical by any respondents.

Normally, I would lament this fact. There should be a line connecting our economy and events overseas. If we manufacture and export goods, we need consumers overseas to buy them. We provide aid to foreign markets to help consumers buy our goods. Opening the doors into Iran could provide 77 million more consumers for American manufacturers.

But in the current environment, isolating foreign affairs from domestic politics seems salutary.

This is a real opportunity for the Obama administration to accomplish something without having to swim in the Washington cesspool. It is tolerable and understandable that Tehran and Washington, after more than 30 years of total diplomatic silence, might distrust one another. What is nauseating is the extent to which political leaders, recognizing the obvious importance of such a diplomatic accord with Iran, might act to subvert the talks for such negligible and short-term political gain. My fingers are crossed that Congress can do what it does best in order to help the Iran talks continue: absolutely nothing.

Thomas L. Day is an Iraq War veteran and a member of the Truman National Security Project’s Defense Council. Follow him on Twitter at @ThomasLDay

AFP Photo/Joe Klamar

Want more foreign policy news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

The Democratic Party Is The Only Home For Centrists

The Democratic Party Is The Only Home For Centrists

This is a letter to political centrists.

For those of you alarmed that Rep. Eric Cantor was not conservative enough for Republicans in Virginia’s 7th congressional district, I encourage you to read Charles Wheelan’s The Centrist Manifesto. Wheelan, a professor of economics at Dartmouth College, puts to words what we can all sense: Partisan gridlock is becoming more than a nuisance in our lives. It is threatening our economy, our children’s educations, the welfare of the planet, and every other national priority.

Take a read through Wheelan’s “Manifesto.” It’s a short read, published last year after it became clear that President Obama’s re-election would not bring a new age of bipartisanship to Washington. Wheelan calls for the center to step outside of the two major parties and stand up for itself. In noting that the fastest growing bloc of voters is Independents, Wheelan argues that both the Democratic and Republican parties have driven out moderates by standing only for their political bases — and that the only resolution to this is an organized movement of Independents.

Take a read, because Wheelan is wrong.

Wheelan’s vision may have made sense in 2013, but much has changed in the past year. We are now well past the time for quixotic visions of bipartisanship driven by centrists on both sides of the divide. To read “Manifesto” is to recall a time when Americans could reasonably believe that in spite of bitter partisanship in Washington, Congress could transcend the ideological gap to act on immigration reform, universal background checks, and tax reform. To behave, in short, like statesmen.

If we have learned anything from Eric Cantor’s demise, it’s that the Republican Party is no place for pragmatic centrists. It’s not even a place for relentless partisans who may stray from Republican orthodoxy on an issue or two.

So it’s time to just say it out in the open: The resolution to Washington’s dysfunction is a migration of Independents into the Democratic Party, because there is only one side that seems at all interested in welcoming centrists.

We should first note one of the most fundamental rules of political science: Duverger’s Law. This is the observation, made famous by French sociologist Maurice Duverger, that in winner-take-all two-party systems, voters inevitably gravitate toward one of two major parties. This is because voters do not want to waste their vote on a candidate who will not win. Recall how quickly liberal voters snapped back into the Democratic fold after wasting votes on Ralph Nader in 2000; they know Duverger’s Law well.

Given Duverger’s Law, it would follow that any potential “Centrist Party” would run into institutional obstacles not easily surmounted by even the most popular movement. And even those preaching the gospel of bipartisanship, nonpartisanship, and centrism must accept the reality that the current Republican Party is plainly interested in none of that.

This goes for the 501(c)(4) groups like Mark Zuckerberg’s If you want Congress to move “FWD” on immigration reform, under what circumstance could you expect a GOP-led House to buck the Tea Party and pass a bill that commands broad bipartisan support?

This also goes for moderate voters, whom Wheelan notes comprised 41 percent of the electorate in 2012.

Wheelan correctly observes that any centrist party should not simply meet both sides halfway on each issue, but rather take the best ideas from both sides. A rational observer, for example, would not conclude that climate change is “probably” happening because Democrats are sure it is, and Republicans are sure it’s not.

He also correctly notes that many Democrats have strayed from sensible policies in favor of myopic political interests. But it simply cannot be said that there is no home for centrists in the Democratic Party.

In fact, several prominent Democrats — including Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) — are on record as supporting school choice. Congress passed free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama in 2011 with large numbers of Democratic votes, and President Obama signed them into law. The Obama administration and many of its congressional allies have supported lowering the corporate income tax from 35 percent to 28 percent.

In other words, Democrats often support centrist policies without reprisal. Such apostasy would never be tolerated in the GOP.

Wheelan examines the U.S. Senate in “Manifesto,” and proposes that if moderate members began asserting themselves as independent from their parties, the cogs of Washington may begin to turn again.

“With a mere four or five U.S. Senate seats, the Centrists can deny either traditional party a majority. At that point, the Centrists would be America’s power brokers…good things can start happening again,” Wheelan writes.

He’s right, but who might these four to five senators be? At the moment, they would almost assuredly be Democrats.

Take a look at the vote scoring of the 112th Senate (which ended after the 2012 election,) done by political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal. The NOMINATE scale, an abbreviation for Nominal Three-Step Estimation, is immensely complex, and explaining it is well beyond the scope of this piece. Please accept for a moment that -1 on the scale is the score of the most liberal senator imaginable, and 1 is the most conservative. Zero is the perfect middle.

You may note the slight asymmetry of the distribution. I would mark the area between -0.25 and 0.25 as centrist territory. Thirteen of these centrists were Democrats, and only five were Republicans. Of these five, only Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Susan Collins (R-ME) remain in the 113th Senate. Murkowski, it should be noted, held on to her seat in 2010 only after a miraculous write-in campaign overruled GOP primary voters, who nominated fringe Tea Party candidate Joe Miller.

You might also note that NOMINATE scores President Obama as being as liberal as Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN) was conservative. Obama commands the approval of nearly 80 percent of Democrats, while Lugar was dismissed by GOP voters in favor of a man who believed that “God’s intent” was for women to bear the children of their rapists.

A Pew Research Center poll released this week found that 82 percent of “consistently liberal” respondents said they would like elected officials to make compromises; only 14 percent said they would prefer that elected officials stick to their positions. When offered the same dichotomy, “consistently conservative” respondents said they would prefer elected officials hold fast to their views by a 63 to 32 percent margin.

This Republican intransigence left Thomas E. Mann and Norman Ornstein, two of the most prominent scholars of the Senate, to place the blame for Washington’s dysfunction squarely on the GOP in their 2012 book, It’s Even Worse Than It Looks.

“When one party moves this far from the center of American politics, it is extremely difficult to enact policies responsive to the country’s most pressing challenges,” Mann and Ornstein write.

Of course, we recently had two years of almost unfettered Democratic control in Washington. Was the record of the 111th Congress, which reigned in 2009 and 2010, perfect? Of course not. But it got things done, including passing a markedly centrist health care bill that has expanded coverage to more than 10 million people to date.

It got done because those four or five senators Wheelan speaks of cooperated. Those senators were all Democrats.

On the issues, I have no apparent disagreements with Wheelan. He’s a brilliant author and public policy expert.

But he, and others, has to drop these silly notions of false equivalence. I too hope for a day when Republicans in Washington are ready to rejoin mainstream political thought. But it does no good to pretend that they exist in that space now. And given the message that GOP voters just sent us from Virginia’s 7th congressional district, they aren’t coming back anytime soon.

Until the GOP is ready to return to rationality, centrists are left with no choice but to organize and vote for Democrats, and work within the Democratic Party to advance centrist goals.

Thomas L. Day is an Iraq War veteran and a Defense Council member of the Truman National Security Project. Views expressed are his own.

Photo: TechCrunch via Flickr

Want more political analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!