In the battle of smart politics vs. smart policy, the latter loses

It's ironic that in this age of gargantuan money in politics, politics itself, at the gut level, is the more potent mother's milk of the game. Trump and Sanders' campaigns have raised only fractions of Bush and Clintons' hauls (counting super PACs), and yet Trump-Sanders gets all the love, while Bush-Clinton is in danger of breeding a yawn epidemic. By "gut level" I mean emotion, of course. Passions are running high, passions eclipse raw pragmatism, and, accordingly, passions can make a political mess of sound policy. Hence the mess of the Iran nuclear debate — for which I use "debate" as ironically as the present "power" of money.

A White House official tells the NY Times that President Obama "will make the case that [the Iran deal] should not even be a close call" in Congress, which is as true as the "should" of the nuclear test ban treaty of 1963, which breezed through the Senate 4-to-1 (in the face of those wily Russians and the chill of the Cold War, no less). The WH press secretary, Josh Earnest, added that "We are confident that a sizable number of members of Congress will put politics aside and focus on what they believe is in the best interest of the United States," which is as untrue as Congress' belief that invading Iraq was a necessary national-security move.

Passions ruled in 2002 and those passions were almost wholly political. Smart cases were made daily in opposition to Bush-Cheney's historic blunder, yet in Congress, they were largely dismissed in favor of reigning madness. Today, Obama's smart case for the Iran deal is similarly doomed to political passions. "Smart" has little, perhaps nothing, to do with it.

Exhibits A through Z … an op-ed from Florida Democratic Representative Ted Deutch, quoted by the Times: "After a decade in public life working to stop Iran from ever acquiring nuclear weapons, I cannot support a deal giving Iran billions of dollars in sanctions relief — in return for letting it maintain an advanced nuclear program and the infrastructure of a threshold nuclear state."

Which is precisely what repudiating Obama's Iran deal would do. The sanctions regime would collapse, Iran would maintain its nuclear program, and in short order it would cross the threshold of weaponized nuclear power. At the risk of a U.S. bombing campaign morphing into another protracted Middle East war, we might push them back two or three years. The Iran deal does that several times over.

No doubt Rep. Deutch knows this; he sits on the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Middle East. He already knows the smart case for diplomacy — in this case, "smart" is synonymous with bloody obvious — and he at least suspects, I would hope, the stupidity of war. But he also knows the politics of the thing in his district, and he's not about to take on its passionate fury.

Peace-loving J Street and jingoistic AIPAC can spend their millions on the Iran vote, pro and con. But Deutch — along with other politically cowering Democrats as well as monolithically passionate anti-Obama Republicans — made up his mind before the black ink could be read. There was no friggin' way he would vote for this thing, virtually anything; its smartness be damned.

None of this is to predict that Obama's Iran deal will go down. It's only to observe our Age of Passion and politics über alles. Smart waved bye-bye a long time ago.

 

Comments

[Anne J]

And if the deal does go down and we're looking at war in a couple more years, who do you think is going to get the blame? Certainly not the same people trying to kill it now.

[Bob]

Likely the nuclear test ban treaty of 1963 went through the Senate 4-to-1 because a nuclear exchange with the USSR was a real existential threat. In contrast Iran getting a bomb is, for the most part, a political issue useful as an advertisement for being tough on foreigners, as sure-fire a winner as being tough on crime once was. PR techniques always work on emotions and their successful use in government has increased exponentially since the US became the "only surviving superpower" and more organized and maintained as a corporation. Bush II's head of Faith-Based Initiatives John DeIulio protested in 2001, "everything is run through the political office," and we're still painfully aware of where that led. We can only hope that somewhere behind the curtain are serious people mulling serious issues, but the politicians getting all the attention are Marxists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0

[Peter G]

Smart is relative. Sure everything you said is true but Rep. Deutch has more pressing needs and that is to get reelected. As a presumably informed member of the House foreign affairs subcommittee he doubtless knows what I know. And I know that while this is a good deal that will discourage regional proliferation the consequences of Iran getting a nuclear weapon are exactly the same as they have been anywhere else. It won't mean a thing. The Iranians will have a weapon that will virtually assure their complete annihilation should they ever use it. But, and this is the important part, killing this deal eliminates oversight of Iranian nuclear facilities which provides an excellent excuse for a military assault whenever it is convenient whether or not the Iranians actually proceed with a weapon they know they cannot really use. You don't really have that many arch foes left in the world that you can afford to lose one to peaceful diplomacy.

The Iranians are in an enviable position. Deal or no deal the sanctions are going away. The hardliners in Iran can hope for nothing better than some sort of military assault on Iranian nuclear facilities for that will cement their authority for another generation. And it won't make but a minor difference in weapons development should the Iranians elect to proceed down that path. Not much in the way of downsides for the Iranians.

[The Raven]

'twas ever thus.

The stupid! It burns!

[merl]

What do these chowder heads think the other signatories will do if we kill this deal? Do they expect the other countries to just blindly follow their lead?