An outgoing paean

By Carl 

Y'know, we bitch and moan about Democrats, but compared to Republicans, they can actually get shit done: 

The outgoing 111th Congress is among the most productive in history, in spite of its reputation for gridlock and 13 percent approval rating. Democrats controlled the House and the Senate, and used their large majorities to push through landmark legislation with barely any GOP support.

The post-election lame-duck session – typically a mopping-up operation to get out of town – also made history, passing key pieces of legislation, often with greater input from Republicans than had earlier been the case. People can argue the merits of what Congress did, but it’s hard to quibble with the scope of the undertaking. 

Granted, much of the legislation runs antithetical to the interests and values of liberals, and we should note that too. But a lot of what was done was good for a progressive agenda. Let's take a look, in chronological order:

1) The American Recovery and Re-Investment Act -- Everyone points to the "stimulus" portion of the bill, but the largest part of the bill was a tax cut for you and me. 98% of Americans saw a tax break out of this bill, incremental and therefore obscured by just sloppy minimalism. Too, the roll-out of the spending portion of this bill, which favored pet liberal projects like education, came down the road a bit and the agenda had already been co-opted by Teabaggers. But we ought to make note of the true progressive nature of the stimulus package.

2) Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act -- Health-care reform. It was nasty, it was ugly, and the ultimate law was a shamble of progressive and conservative philosophies, but it got done and it's a first step in a highly charged and volatile conservative atmosphere.

3) Financial Regulatory Reform -- Want to know how progressive this bill is? It's been priority targeted for budget cuts in the new Republican Congress.

4) Tax Cut Extension Plus Stimulus Spending -- Sadly, when liberals want spending, we usually force ourselves to raise taxes. Here was an instance where the evil of Republicanism, tax cutting, forced liberals to actually borrow to spend. I know, odious, right? But we got the ok to spend to try to get some jobs created, and that's good. It's all about jobs, this economy. We have to get to work on that.

5) DADT -- Nuff said.

6) START Treaty -- This is a great achievement in ratcheting down the threat of mutual annihilation. I don't think anyone... well, after 1962, at any rate... seriously believed any nuclear power would use nukes in any capacity. Until those weapons started to spread to countries who will be less than scrupulous in their use. With both Russia and the U.S. in accord on this issue, we can now turn to those nations and start asking them to dismantle them, with the full authority of speaking on behalf of the rest of the world. What happens then is a different story, but we accomplished a step towards world peace.

Could there have been more? Oh, hell yes, and that's where I think most liberals get upset. It took so long to get the modest healthcare reform we did get and that vote alone probably took the wind out of the sails for a true energy policy, for carbon trading, and for any number of other progressive items that we could have easily obtained with supermajorities in both houses.

I blame Obama for not taking the lead on his initiatives, but I also blame Harry Reid for having little stomach for beating up his constituency.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Beyond New START

By Peter Henne

Jonathan Swift once said, "Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed." (I've always attributed this to Swift, but while trying to find the citation, I also found it as an apparent quote of both Alexander Pope and Benjamin Franklin.) I've adopted this as my motto when pondering U.S. politics, especially concerning things like the crucial New START treaty.

That is why I was completely wrong about this treaty. As was reported earlier today on this site, the Senate ratified New START today. And as I said several times, I didn't expect it to pass, due to GOP obstructionism and the waning days left in this year's session. But it did, with 13 Republicans' support.

What does this mean for U.S. foreign policy? A lot, actually. The treaty keeps the inspections of nuclear stockpiles going and decreases the number of nuclear weapons maintained by the United States and Russia. More importantly, it preserves and possibly accelerates U.S.-Russian dialogue, which is crucial on issues such as the Iranian nuclear program.

What is the likelihood of the New START treaty leading to further arms control agreements or reductions in nuclear stockpiles worldwide? Probably minimal. As The New York Times' David Sanger argued, further steps towards Obama's goal of nuclear disarmament will be exponentially more difficult than was the ratification of New START.

This is partly due to the nature of the treaty. As I, and many others, pointed out one of New START's biggest selling points was its endorsement by numerous foreign policy luminaries, including Republicans. The objections of Senate Republicans notwithstanding, there was a pretty broad consensus on the necessity of this treaty. Other arms control topics -- such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and general nuclear disarmament--are more divisive, with reasonable arguments for and against the relevant international agreements.

It is also due to who voted for the treaty. Republican supporters included some who will not be around next year -- due to retirement or election losses -- including George Voinovich, Judd Gregg, and Bob Bennett. It also included moderates and pseudo-moderates like Scott Brown, Susan Collins, Dick Lugar, and Olympia Snowe, all of whom will face increasing pressure from GOP leaders to oppose Obama's initiatives as 2012 approaches, especially with some of them up for re-election. And that's not even counting the Democratic Senators who won't be in office after this session.

So the combination of lessened societal cohesion surrounding foreign policy issues and a decreased liberal/moderate pool of votes means Obama will struggle to add to this foreign policy victory. That is not to detract from the victory, as it is a great success for the President, Democrats, and -- I would argue -- US national security. And I don't want to take away from the admirable support for the treaty from numerous Republican Senators. I just need to salvage some of my pessimism in the wake of such an uplifting week.

Senate likely to ratify New START today

By Michael J.W. Stickings

NYT:

An arms control treaty paring back American and Russian nuclear arsenals won a decisive vote in the Senate on Tuesday, clearing it for final approval and handing President Obama an important foreign policy victory.

The Senate voted 67 to 28 to end debate on the treaty, known as New Start, mustering the two-thirds majority needed for ratification despite a concerted effort by Republican leaders to sink the agreement. Eleven Republican senators joined every Democrat present to support the treaty, which now heads to a seemingly certain final vote of approval on Wednesday.

This would indeed be a big, big win for the president, not least because ratification could end up with almost 70 votes (despite McConnell's obstructionist opposition).

Stay tuned. (In the meantime, check out our foreign policy blogger Peter Henne's posts on the politics of New START here, here, and here.)