Division in US will affect Middle East
Published in Gulf News, 6 May 2009
By Gordon Robison, Special to Gulf News
Until last week there remained a hope, however faint, that a thoughtful and conciliatory new president might be able to convince Republicans of his goodwill and change Washington's tone. Then, on Friday, Justice David Souter announced his retirement from the US Supreme Court.
By Monday morning it was hard to avoid the conclusion that, despite US President Barack Obama's best efforts, the GOP is not interested in reconciliation and is not going to be brought round.
Why, you may ask, should this be of interest to readers outside the United States? Because the retreat of Democrats and Republicans to their respective political trenches means that foreign policy is apt to become merely another ideological battleground. This is especially problematic in the case of the Middle East - a region likely to present Obama with some of his toughest choices; including several that may put him at odds with his own party.
The Supreme Court can strike down any law it finds to be in conflict with the US Constitution. Its nine justices are appointed for life and routinely serve for decades (after 19 years on the Court, Souter still ranks only fourth in seniority). Supreme Court appointments are among any president's most important decisions because the justices are around to shape the law long after he has retired and left Washington.
Souter will remain on the court for several more months. White House statements indicate Obama might wait until July to nominate his replacement and there is a good chance the senate will not give the nominee an up-or-down vote until September (the court's annual term begins in October so there is no hurry to get a new justice in place until then).
When asked whether the coming nomination would turn into a partisan battle Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the senate's Judiciary Committee said, "I would hope not. But lately they have always seemed to be". As if on cue, a ferocious right wing reaction began to take shape - despite the fact that there is not yet anyone, or anything, for the right to react to. This knee jerk campaign against whomever-the-president-might-pick really should be the final proof that reaching out to a shrunken, ideologically belligerent Republican Party offers little upside for the president and his administration.
Before Souter's retirement was even official (like most things in Washington word leaked out a day or two beforehand) conservative groups were circulating memos laced with bitterly partisan criticism of the three women who, for the moment, are said to be the leading contenders for the seat (the current court includes only one female justice and the president is widely believed to want to address that imbalance with his first appointment).
The right wing labelled each a 'radical'. By Sunday morning Senator Orrin Hatch, the judiciary committee's most senior Republican, was on television complaining they were all "on the far left of the spectrum". This is nonsense, and Hatch knows it. All three women currently serve in government jobs that require senate confirmation (one is solicitor general, the other two are federal appeals court judges). Hatch, one of the senate's most conservative members, voted in favour of all three. He would never have done that if he really thought they were dangerous ideologues.
So Republicans plan to pick a fight. Meanwhile, more than a few Democrats have been saying that the president needs to be more aggressive about standing up to the GOP. Millions of people voted for Obama last November believing his election would end the war in Iraq, enable health care reform and, yes, lead to the appointment of more liberal, less doctrinaire Supreme Court justices. For a lot of Obama's supporters, sacrificing any of that to appease an opposition that appears uninterested in real compromise seems, frankly, dumb.
All of which brings us back to foreign policy. Looking down the road it is easy to imagine scenarios in which Obama finds himself isolated. In Iran and Iraq and when trying to restart the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the president is likely to find himself caught between a right wing that reflexively opposes whatever he is for, and supporters on the left who are more focused on short-term actions than long-term consequences.
The lesson of the last week is that the new president cannot count on the merits of any argument when trying to win over his opponents. That means his biggest challenge is likely to be keeping his most ardent supporters on board while moving forward with the caution that seems to be central to his nature.
Gordon Robison is a writer and commentator based in Burlington, Vermont. He has lived in and reported on the Middle East for two decades.
Until last week there remained a hope, however faint, that a thoughtful and conciliatory new president might be able to convince Republicans of his goodwill and change Washington's tone. Then, on Friday, Justice David Souter announced his retirement from the US Supreme Court.
By Monday morning it was hard to avoid the conclusion that, despite US President Barack Obama's best efforts, the GOP is not interested in reconciliation and is not going to be brought round.
Why, you may ask, should this be of interest to readers outside the United States? Because the retreat of Democrats and Republicans to their respective political trenches means that foreign policy is apt to become merely another ideological battleground. This is especially problematic in the case of the Middle East - a region likely to present Obama with some of his toughest choices; including several that may put him at odds with his own party.
The Supreme Court can strike down any law it finds to be in conflict with the US Constitution. Its nine justices are appointed for life and routinely serve for decades (after 19 years on the Court, Souter still ranks only fourth in seniority). Supreme Court appointments are among any president's most important decisions because the justices are around to shape the law long after he has retired and left Washington.
Souter will remain on the court for several more months. White House statements indicate Obama might wait until July to nominate his replacement and there is a good chance the senate will not give the nominee an up-or-down vote until September (the court's annual term begins in October so there is no hurry to get a new justice in place until then).
When asked whether the coming nomination would turn into a partisan battle Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the senate's Judiciary Committee said, "I would hope not. But lately they have always seemed to be". As if on cue, a ferocious right wing reaction began to take shape - despite the fact that there is not yet anyone, or anything, for the right to react to. This knee jerk campaign against whomever-the-president-might-pick really should be the final proof that reaching out to a shrunken, ideologically belligerent Republican Party offers little upside for the president and his administration.
Before Souter's retirement was even official (like most things in Washington word leaked out a day or two beforehand) conservative groups were circulating memos laced with bitterly partisan criticism of the three women who, for the moment, are said to be the leading contenders for the seat (the current court includes only one female justice and the president is widely believed to want to address that imbalance with his first appointment).
The right wing labelled each a 'radical'. By Sunday morning Senator Orrin Hatch, the judiciary committee's most senior Republican, was on television complaining they were all "on the far left of the spectrum". This is nonsense, and Hatch knows it. All three women currently serve in government jobs that require senate confirmation (one is solicitor general, the other two are federal appeals court judges). Hatch, one of the senate's most conservative members, voted in favour of all three. He would never have done that if he really thought they were dangerous ideologues.
So Republicans plan to pick a fight. Meanwhile, more than a few Democrats have been saying that the president needs to be more aggressive about standing up to the GOP. Millions of people voted for Obama last November believing his election would end the war in Iraq, enable health care reform and, yes, lead to the appointment of more liberal, less doctrinaire Supreme Court justices. For a lot of Obama's supporters, sacrificing any of that to appease an opposition that appears uninterested in real compromise seems, frankly, dumb.
All of which brings us back to foreign policy. Looking down the road it is easy to imagine scenarios in which Obama finds himself isolated. In Iran and Iraq and when trying to restart the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the president is likely to find himself caught between a right wing that reflexively opposes whatever he is for, and supporters on the left who are more focused on short-term actions than long-term consequences.
The lesson of the last week is that the new president cannot count on the merits of any argument when trying to win over his opponents. That means his biggest challenge is likely to be keeping his most ardent supporters on board while moving forward with the caution that seems to be central to his nature.
Gordon Robison is a writer and commentator based in Burlington, Vermont. He has lived in and reported on the Middle East for two decades.