by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright October 16, 1999
All Rights Reserved.

lapping president Clinton across the face, the U.S. Senate delivered a stinging payback by voting down the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty [CNTBT]. Losing his cool, an angry president Clinton lashed out, "This is a political deal, and I hope it will get the treatment from the American people that it deserves . . . Never before has such a serious treaty involving nuclear weapons been handled in such a reckless and ultimately partisan way." Here we go again. Is this spin or fact? Without too much amnesia, recall president Carter’s failure to gain ratification of the SALT II treaty. "For a man who hopes to become president," said president Carter, "governor Reagan has never supported any arms limitation treaty . . . this is a very dangerous thing although it’s said with a quiet voice," suggesting that Ronald Reagan would lead the country closer to nuclear war.

       Yes, it’s payback time — there’s no doubt about it. While it’s true that president Clinton survived the Senate’s impeachment trial, it’s also true that he didn’t remain unscathed. With his Teflon peeled off, expecting cooperation from a reluctant Congress is a tall order to fill. Without credibility, how’s it possible for the Congress to accept otherwise persuasive arguments about today’s pressing arms control treaty or anything else? Why is it partisan for the Senate to determine that the treaty’s not in the interests of national security but it’s not partisan for the administration to declare the opposite? Who’s the public supposed to believe now? With the White House’s credibility crippled since the Lewinsky sex scandal, how can the administration expect support in the bitterly divisive partisan atmosphere?

       Forget president Clinton’s ambiguous mea culpa. Will he ever accept the responsibility for creating the present impasse by dragging the country through a wasteful year-long scandal and media frenzy? How much precious time was lost advancing his agenda due to his own indiscretions? Can you really blame the Republican Congress for imposing repercussions for his behavior? Can Democrats really claim that the president’s conduct was much ado about nothing? Can partisans ignore U.S. District Court Judge Susan Weber Wright’s ruling that president Clinton lied in his sworn deposition in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual harassment case? Failure to eject the president from office was no vindication. At best it mirrored the public’s sentiment that eviction from office wasn’t the right punishment due to the nature of the offense.

       When several respected newspapers called for president Clinton’s resignation during the Lewisnky sex scandal, it was precisely because they felt he no longer had the 'moral authority' and consensus to lead the country effectively. Are we dealing with the artifacts of a crippled lame duck handicapped by his own personal scandal and notoriety? Why should a credibility crisis interfere with matters so basic to U.S. and global security? With many countries rightfully concerned about 'rogue' nations developing nuclear weapons, does the failure to ratify this treaty place national and global security at risk? Senate Republicans and others suggest that the treaty — in its present form — hog-ties the U.S. from developing and testing new nuclear weapons and deterrent systems.

       Worldwide reaction to the Senate’s rejection came fast and furious. "It gives nuclear wannabes such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea a 'green light' to go ahead with weapons programs," said Russian military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer. "We will have to be especially watchful of reactions in North Korea, India and Pakistan," cautioned German arms analyst Goetz Neuneck. Even NATO’s secretary-general George Robertson weighed in, "We’ve got to persuade the American Congress that that this is in the interests not just of international security but also of the United States." Taking exception to this view, senate majority leader Trent Lott (R- Miss.) insisted that the Senate’s vote "was not about politics but about the substance of the treaty." Curious minds now wonder whether the outcome would have been different had the White House acquiesced to Lott’s request to delay the vote until the end of the 106th Congress in January 2001 — after the election.

       Pressing for the vote, the White House badly miscalculated the fallout from the Lewinsky sex scandal. With the election season in full swing, why should the Republican Senate hand Clinton the crown jewel of his beleaguered presidency? Without a dramatic Republican rewrite, the treaty was doomed to failure. But knowing this, White House spinmeisters counted on election-year politics to pressure a Republican Congress to approve the treaty. While world opinion is on the president’s side, domestic political momentum is not. Jumping the gun, vice-president and presidential hopeful Al Gore sought to capitalize on the treaty’s defeat, suggesting that the failing to sign was equivalent to fueling a nuclear arms race. "No American, Republican or Democrat supports the spread of nuclear weapons," countered Republican front-runner George W. Bush, underscoring the risks of using foreign policy failures as strategic campaign issues.

       Despite all the chatter, whether the current nuclear test ban treaty is in the interest of U.S. national security is anyone’s guess. Prior to the vote, the world was no more at risk than after the vote. What’s clear is that president Clinton’s past indiscretions have crippled his charisma and ability to galvanize a bipartisan consensus. On this treaty, he wasn’t given the benefit of the doubt by a divisive Congress, still licking its wounds from a disruptive scandal interfering with the nation’s important business. Though some would like to ignore the fallout, the White House can’t have it both ways: Enjoy a strong bipartisan working relationship and drag the Congress and the country through a painful knothole. Leading vigorously requires more than spin and fast talk. You can’t blame only the Congress for creating the current gridlock. Partisanship goes with territory — and whoever leads must command respect, admiration and trust. Without it, it’s payback time.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com. He’s also the director of a West Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care and political research and media consultation. He’s a seminar trainer, columnist and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.