By Josh Kraushaar
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Throughout the contentious debate between the White House
and Congress over the Iran nuclear negotiations, one important piece of the
equation has been largely overlooked: American public opinion. If voters were
confident that President Obama was striking a good deal with Iran that would
prevent Tehran from getting nuclear weapons, he'd have little trouble getting
support from the legislative branch.
But the reason the president is facing such bipartisan
backlash is that an overwhelming number of voters are deeply worried about the
direction of the negotiations. Think about how rare, in these polarized times,
mobilizing a veto-proof majority of congressional Republicans and Democrats is
for any significant legislation. Yet despite all the distractions, Congress is
close to achieving that goal: requiring the administration to go to Congress
for approval of any deal.
The administration is so focused on process and protocol
in attacking the opposition because it's a useful distraction from how
unpopular the administration's eagerness to strike any deal with Iran has
become.
Consider the polling: In this month's NBC/Wall Street
Journal poll, 71 percent of respondents said they believed a deal would not
prevent the Iranians from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Earlier in March, a Fox
News poll found that a 57 percent majority believed the U.S. wasn't being
"aggressive enough" in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear
program, while nearly two-thirds supported military action as a last resort. In
a February Gallup Poll, 77 percent of Americans said they believed Iran's development
of nuclear weapons posed a "critical threat" to the United States.
The one recent outlier was CNN's survey, which found a
surprisingly large 68 percent majority of voters—most Republicans
included—supporting negotiations "in an attempt to prevent Iran from
developing nuclear weapons." But the phrasing of the question skewed the
results. The question assumes that the end result of the negotiation is
preventing Iran from getting nukes. But the reason for the growing opposition
is that many voters don't believe the agreement will come close to stopping
Iran's nuclear program, a point that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
underscored in his congressional address.
(It's a lesson in how the precise wording of questions
can elicit dramatically different results. Another loaded question on the Fox
News survey asked if it's a good idea to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons 10
years from now—an outcome that the critics of a deal believe is likely. A
whopping 84 percent called it a bad idea. But looking at the most directly
phrased questions, it's evident that there is clear public concern over the
negotiations.)
All of the polling is causing a significant number of
Senate Democrats to consider breaking with their president to join Republicans
in overriding a presidential veto over the deal. Far from being a bunch of
hard-liners or hawks, congressional skeptics of an Iran deal run the gamut from
the most liberal senators (Robert Menendez, Ben Cardin, Chuck Schumer) to
moderates (Gary Peters, Robert Casey, Joe Donnelly) to the GOP hawks (Marco
Rubio, Lindsey Graham, John McCain).
A senior official with a pro-Israel group said the two
senators to watch as bellwethers are Democrats Cory Booker and Kirsten
Gillibrand, whose voting records are closely aligned with the Jewish state's
interests but who also have national ambitions and represent liberal
constituencies that are still deeply supportive of Obama. But the fact that
senators from New York and New Jersey—states with the highest concentrations of
Jewish voters—could clinch the opposition's veto-proof majority shows how challenging
the administration's counter-lobbying effort will be.
Recognizing its challenge in persuading the public, the
White House has latched onto tangential issues, such as the propriety of
Netanyahu speaking to Congress before his election and Sen. Tom Cotton's open
letter to Iran warning the regime that any deal needs congressional approval.
But even those issues haven't scuttled Democratic resistance. Far from a
political disaster, Netanyahu's speech divided Democrats, united Republicans,
and underscored the lengths to which the administration was willing to go to
overshadow an ally's message.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu's argument ended up being amplified
by the nonstop national attention; his critical remarks are regularly
referenced in news coverage about the Iran negotiations. After the speech,
Gallup found Netanyahu's favorability in the United States at a still-solid 38
percent approval/29 percent disapproval despite dropping among Democrats; polls
showed majorities of Americans disapproving of the process by which he was
invited but supportive of the prime minister's message and right to speak.
Meanwhile, Cotton's letter was a tactical mistake for
Republicans, giving Democrats a reason to rally behind the president even
though the GOP's goal is to win over the remaining wavering Democrats to secure
a veto-proof majority. But as a matter of substance, the episode underscored
the administration's chutzpah. Obama crowed to Vice that "for them to
address a letter to the ayatollah—the supreme leader of Iran, who they claim is
our mortal enemy—is close to unprecedented." This, even as the president
himself secretly reached out to Iran's supreme leader last fall with a letter
urging the country's cooperation against ISIS in the region, according to The
Wall Street Journal.
History has shown that Obama is willing to ignore public
opinion to accomplish his goals even when it's against his own political
interest. The ends, in the White House's view, ultimately justify the means.
When Scott Brown won Edward Kennedy's deeply Democratic
Senate seat in Massachusetts by running against the president's proposed health
care plan, Obama forged ahead with polarizing legislation that is dogging his
administration to this very day. Even though his advisers warned him against
issuing any executive order on immigration before the 2014 midterms—citing
battleground-state polling showing it would be highly unpopular—he pursued it
anyway after his party lost nine Senate seats. In his postelection press
conference, Obama copped that he cares as much about the views of the people
who didn't vote, rather than citing the decisive rebuke from those who went to
the polls to reject the direction he has pursued.
On Iran, Obama's behavior toward the people's
representatives in Congress is even more dismissive. Knowing how widespread the
opposition is in Congress, the administration is looking to bypass the Senate's
role in weighing in on a deal. It's a position that has alienated him even from
usually reliable allies such as Sen. Tim Kaine.
Democrats aren't opposing the president out of spite.
They're clearly worried that an administration looking too eager to strike a
deal with a leading terrorism-sponsoring state could find itself resoundingly
rejected by the public—and many of their constituents.
After Netanyahu's decisive reelection in Israel,
administration officials leaked that they were mulling punishing the Jewish
state by not vetoing anti-Israel measures at the United Nations, an outcome
that would align the U.S. with the Palestinian Authority's position. This,
despite recent Gallup polling showing that only 15 percent of Americans
sympathize more with the Palestinian side, with 62 percent backing the Israeli
position.
Being so dismissive of public opinion is a dangerous game
to play, especially when it comes to foreign policy. For all his mistakes in
conducting the Iraq War, former President George W. Bush secured a bipartisan
congressional authorization for declaring war against Iraq, working to rally
public support in 2003 to win that approval.
Obama views that equation backward: Getting the outcome
he wants, and then attacking his opponents for not going along with him. It
certainly hasn't proved to be a healthy process domestically. Now he's trying
to extend that approach to the international stage.
No comments:
Post a Comment