What Does It Mean to Be a Democrat or Republican on Syria?

Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell address the audience at the 50th annual Kentucky Country Ham Breakfast, Thursday, Aug. 22, 2013, at the Kentucky State Fairgrounds in Louisville, Ky.
National Journal
Michael Catalini
See more stories about...
Michael Catalini
Sept. 4, 2013, 3:23 p.m.

As Con­gress wrestles with wheth­er to pun­ish Syr­ia, the ques­tion has scrambled what it tra­di­tion­ally means to be a Demo­crat or Re­pub­lic­an on for­eign policy, as law­makers forge un­likely — and some­times awk­ward — al­li­ances.

There was a time when, gen­er­ally speak­ing, many Re­pub­lic­ans wanted to change hearts and minds, over­throw dic­tat­ors, and spread demo­cracy. Sim­il­arly, many Demo­crats wanted to avoid hos­til­it­ies where U.S. in­terests are tan­gen­tial and seek broad in­ter­na­tion­al con­sensus be­fore com­mit­ting armed forces.

Today, those lines are far less dis­tinct.

Ex­hib­it A presen­ted it­self this week when Pres­id­ent Obama’s con­gres­sion­al foils, House Speak­er John Boehner and Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Eric Can­tor, an­nounced their sup­port for the pres­id­ent’s call for a mil­it­ary strike against Syr­i­an dic­tat­or Bashar al-As­sad.

Adding fur­ther con­trast, Sen­ate Minor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell, after a meet­ing with con­gres­sion­al col­leagues at the White House this week, said he wanted more in­form­a­tion on the pres­id­ent’s plan. (An aide to Mc­Con­nell said he could not provide an up­date on the Ken­tucky Re­pub­lic­an’s po­s­i­tion, even after three Re­pub­lic­ans voted with the Demo­crat­ic ma­jor­ity in the Sen­ate For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee to ad­vance a res­ol­u­tion au­thor­iz­ing the use of force to the floor.)

Re­pub­lic­an Reps. Tom Cot­ton of Arkan­sas and Mike Pom­peo of Kan­sas pub­lished an op-ed in The Wash­ing­ton Post sup­port­ive of the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s pro­pos­al but also thor­oughly skep­tic­al of the pres­id­ent.

“We un­der­stand why many of our GOP col­leagues are un­de­cided about a use-of-force res­ol­u­tion. In­deed, we have re­ser­va­tions about the pres­id­ent’s im­plied course of mil­it­ary ac­tion,” the con­gress­men wrote. “Yet Con­gress has its own con­sti­tu­tion­al duty to de­fend U.S. in­terests, and those in­terests shouldn’t be neg­lected simply be­cause we have doubts about Obama.”

Al­though the two law­makers back the strike, it is far from cer­tain that a House GOP Con­fer­ence whose de­fault po­s­i­tion is to block Obama will get on board. In a sign of just how tox­ic it is for Re­pub­lic­ans to back the pres­id­ent, Boehner said he would not whip an au­thor­iz­a­tion vote, say­ing it was the White House’s job.

Both Pom­peo and Cot­ton, who is run­ning for the Sen­ate against con­ser­vat­ive Demo­crat­ic in­cum­bent Mark Pry­or in 2014, hold tea-party in­flu­enced views on so­cial and fisc­al is­sues but are a world away from fel­low tea-party con­ser­vat­ives like Sen Rand Paul, R-Ky., who dis­agrees with the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s as­sess­ment that a strike would help se­cure al­lies in the re­gion. Paul also rep­res­ents a con­sti­tu­tion­al­ist wing in his party that puts him par­tic­u­larly at odds with hawk­ish Re­pub­lic­ans. For in­stance, Paul on Wed­nes­day offered an amend­ment to the Sen­ate’s res­ol­u­tion in com­mit­tee — it was de­feated — that would have un­der­scored Con­gress’s power to de­clare war.

“It should be made ex­pli­cit that the Con­sti­tu­tion in­ves­ted the power to go to war in Con­gress,” Paul said.

Of course, the con­trast is not just seen among Re­pub­lic­ans. Demo­crats are also di­vided. At Wed­nes­day’s Sen­ate For­eign Re­la­tions hear­ing, Sens. Tom Ud­all of New Mex­ico and Chris Murphy of Con­necti­c­ut voted against their party to send a res­ol­u­tion au­thor­iz­ing force to the Sen­ate floor.

“I know none of us want to be in­volved in a long-term con­flict in Syr­ia,” Murphy said. “I worry that the res­ol­u­tion and au­thor­iz­a­tion today would make it dif­fi­cult for us to avoid that real­ity.”

Some Demo­crats are torn between loy­alty to Obama and a philo­soph­ic­al ob­jec­tion to the use of force to meet the chal­lenges in Syr­ia. At Wed­nes­day’s House For­eign Af­fairs Com­mit­tee hear­ing, Demo­crat­ic law­makers raised ques­tions about Amer­ica’s role in oust­ing As­sad.

“The situ­ation in Syr­ia is that of a na­tion­al civil war, an eth­nic and sec­tari­an con­flict, that Amer­ica can­not solve and should not try to,” said Rep. Bri­an Hig­gins, D-N.Y.

In­deed, House Minor­ity Lead­er Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal­if., is try­ing to sort out her mem­bers’ po­s­i­tions. “Please of­fer fur­ther sug­ges­tions or ideas you may have as to what you can sup­port, so I can con­vey your con­cerns to the White House,” Pelosi wrote in a let­ter to her col­leagues.

Prac­tic­ally speak­ing, aides and polit­ic­al-sci­ence ex­perts say they ex­pect the Sen­ate will take up the res­ol­u­tion, but the ques­tion is un­clear in the House.

The co­ali­tion of Re­pub­lic­ans and Demo­crats that would be needed to send the res­ol­u­tion to the pres­id­ent’s desk amounts to a vote-counter’s night­mare, sug­gests Rut­gers polit­ic­al-sci­ence pro­fess­or Ross Baker.

“The prob­lem the pres­id­ent faces in the House is not a prob­lem of adding votes, but rather he con­fronts a sub­trac­tion prob­lem: sub­tract the liber­tari­an/tea-party people in the right wing of the Re­pub­lic­an Con­fer­ence and the Code Pink/Mo­ve­On fac­tion of the Demo­crat­ic caucus and you barely have enough per­suad­ables to reach 218,” Baker said.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
10 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×