If you strip all the niceties away from a recent New York Times article, the highly controversial nomination of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the UN can be boiled down to one sentence: Win this one for OUR team.
The Times reports that Bolton’s nomination — beset with allegations that he has been a bully, irritated diplomats in England, and sparked negative private comments from Secretary of State Colin Powell — is being pressed feverishly behind the scenes and in public by Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove and others…and framed in a way that it must be won for the good of the President. Here’s a key section from the Times’ piece:
Administration officials said that Mr. Bolton, who has in the past expressed disdain for the United Nation, was the right man to reform an organization that the hawks in the administration consider virtually irrelevant.
But Republicans close to the administration also said that a powerful motive for the White House was simply showing strength and an unwillingness to back down, particularly after Colin L. Powell, the former secretary of state who often warred with the hawks, expressed private doubts to Republican senators last week about Mr. Bolton.
“It would mean that Colin Powell had influence to block someone,” said a Republican close to the White House. “It’s a troubling sign if the president can’t get him confirmed.”
So what do we now see overall?
- The Bolton nomination is in trouble. Some GOP moderates and others balk. Democrats are solidly against it. The administration could have picked any number of people to fill that slot and avoided partisan polarization, a clash with its own moderates, and no problems from Powell. But it chose the most combative, divisive path and seems to be sticking to it.
- Questions continue to swirl around House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, questions that could be dealt with in time via an investigation and a bit of a cooling off period from controversy and in-your-face politics. President Bush yesterday praised DeLay and gave him a ride on Air Force One. Bush has also now added DeLay to his Social Security USA Today now reports that all five Republicans on the House ethics committee have financial links to Delay. The DeLay issue is being framed as the Democrats out to get DeLay and conservatives.
- Despite a poll suggesting Americans are NOT in favor of the “nuclear option” to axe the filibuster on judicial nominations, Bill Frist (with sentiments echoed yesterday by White House adviser Karl Rove) opposes a compromise with the Democrats. Republicans such as Trent Lott used the phrase “nuclear option,” but as polls have shown public opposition to axing the filibuster, GOPers started calling it the “consitutional option,” and insisting the Democrats and press were the ones who have used the phrase “nuclear option” (which reflects a recognition of how DRASTIC this action would be) – not them. That contention is undercut by extensive documentation.
The bottom line is that in all of these matters principles may indeed be involved, but the overriding goal seems to be to practice bare-knuckles, no-consensus take-no-prisoners power politics…to show everyone that the power is there and unstoppable to play bare-knuckles, no-consensus take-no-prisoners power politics.
American politics seems to have turned into a kind of spectator sport where the longtime values of of building consensus, fostering unity and accomodating varying interests have been displaced by winning without yielding. Your team must win because it is YOUR TEAM.
What will be interesting is to see whether all of this taken together confirms the school of thought that the U.S. has now shifted from an era where elections are won by whoever captures the most of the center to an era where whoever better activates their base wins. All indications are that the GOP powers that be have already written off large chunks of the center.
A key question then becomes: is the American political center dead, dying or will it grow and organize due to backlash from all of this? Is the concept of “the center” a relic of American 19th and 20th century politics? Stay tuned…
UPDATE: Tufts Daily has an editorial that should be read in full. Part of it:
Frist and his Republican senators are clearly politically motivated because the filibuster did not become an issue until some of the President’s judicial nominees were in jeopardy of not being confirmed. Additionally, the 51 vote rule will not apply to normal legislative debate, only to judicial appointments. Senate Republicans just want to be able to make any appointment without being held accountable by the minority party.
Democrats have already approved 205 of Bush’s judicial nominees – this controversy concerns 10 candidates to appellate courts. The stakes are high, since Bush has primarily nominated conservatives who could drastically change the makeup of the federal court system and the Supreme Court itself. It is understandable that the Democrats would object to appointments that could reverse policies on abortion, homosexuality and other hot-button issues. These are changes that must be fully debated by the Senate, which the Republican leaders want to avoid.
Fortunately, a number of Republican senators are uneasy about changing filibuster rules. They understand that these rules were written to protect the rights of the minority party – and drastic changes could hurt Republicans in future sessions. If the filibuster is to be reformed, it must be done without the partisan pressures of appointing judicial nominees that could have long-lasting effects on the future of politics.
UPDATE II: Senator Bob Dole has been quoted before urging the GOP to think carefully before doing the “nuclear option,” but in a New York Times piece he says the Democratic leadership is to blame for the situation and Frist is justified. An excerpt:
I have publicly urged caution in this matter. Amending the Senate rules over the objection of a substantial minority should be the option of last resort. I still hold out hope that the two Senate leaders will find a way to ensure that senators have the opportunity to fulfill their constitutional duty to offer “advice and consent” on the president’s judicial nominees while protecting minority rights. Time has not yet run out.
But let’s be honest: By creating a new threshold for the confirmation of judicial nominees, the Democratic minority has abandoned the tradition of mutual self-restraint that has long allowed the Senate to function as an institution. This tradition has a bipartisan pedigree.
See our previous post here. And if Bolton is not confirmed this may be the real reason why.
A CROSS SECTION OF OTHER OPINIONS ON ISSUES RAISED IN THIS POST:
QandO
James Joyner
Betsy Newmark
Pejmanesque
Fafblog
Obsidian Wings
skippy the bush kangaroo
TalkLeft
Steve Soto
Dave Pell
Sideshow
Steven Clemons
Laura Rosen
UPDATE III: Political Scientist Steven Taylor has written a long post on the Senate, how it works and the filibuster, arguing it’s the Democrats who have are trying to change the rules.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.