I was one of the many reporters that rushed back to their cars as they were awaiting the Republican “clean sweep” team, to enjoy ten more minutes of wind-proof environment until the bus of dignitaries arrived. It was Friday around noon in Kansas City, and the temperatures reminded everyone that winter is indeed coming. Sam Brownback (Governor) and Pat Roberts (Senate) signs were struggling to withstand the gusty wind. Four more days to go. Three, two, one. Election Day is upon us.
The bus arrives, and a man carries an armchair and places it to the side of the parking vehicle. An empty chair – what a fine metaphor in such political uncertainty. In this armchair former Senator Bob Dole will soon be seated. He is the star of this somewhat surreal – but in a good way – event.
Dole is revered in Kansas, and his friends at the Republican Party want to capitalize on his popularity and to convince the voters that they are making the right choice. So they are very pragmatically utilizing the ninety one year old former senator and former presidential candidate for their own purposes. Yet he seems to be enjoying it. And even more importantly, as they utilize him, they also pay him much respect, showcasing him, talking about his generation of World War 2 battle-scarred soldiers, about his service to the nation.
This makes the event one in which the cynical political game of necessity serves a higher function of recognizing the contribution of an elderly great American (a “former former”, as he calls himself) to the nation.
* * *
A reference to Dole’s military service – not even very specific – is one of very few references to foreign affairs that I heard in the course of a week-long journey that began in Little Rock, Arkansas and will end in Louisville, Kentucky on Election Day. As a foreign observer of American politics I usually look for such references, count them, attempt to understand their meaning. But in the 2014 election cycle, the fodder barely justifies the examination.
Last week, when the foolhardy “chickenshit” crisis made the headlines, Senatorial candidate Tom Cotton of Arkansas issued a highly critical statement concerning the incident: “I’m appalled at recent media reports suggesting the Obama administration is seeking ‘détente’ with Iran, while unnamed administration officials disparage Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with vulgar, ad hominem attacks”. I did not see a response from candidate Mark Pryor. That is, he either doesn’t think the administration deserves criticism for this issue or, much more likely, doesn’t think the issue is worthy of his time at this stage of the race. Pryor would have plenty of time to demonstrate his support for Israel if reelected (and that seems like an unlikely scenario). Until then, he has to talk about the things that might sway the voters to support him, and defending Netanyahu against administration slurs is not such an issue.
* * *
The Republican team attempts to project confidence. But if they were really so confident they would not have bothered bringing such an elaborate team of political celebrities to a deserted windy road on the fringes of Kansas City, Kansas.
Brownback is surrounded by a Republican dream team of governors, whose role is to carry the message that he is not as ideologically rigid as many of the voters have come to believe. If you haven’t been following Kansas politics in recent weeks and months, tomorrow is your lucky day, as there is a fair chance that Kansas will be the ground zero of the 2014 midterm. It might lose a highly visible and highly ideological Republican governor. It might lose a charisma-challenged veteran Republican Senator. The voters are conservative, and have little patience for the policies of President Obama, but they are also tired of partisanship and of being taken-for-granted by the party. Thus, the races here are as tight as it gets.
Most of the guest speakers from out-of-state have less to say in defense of the Brownback policies, and a lot to say about the “responsibility” of Kansas voters – that’s a term used by Governor of Indiana Mike Pence – to help bring about the retirement of Harry Reid from the role of Majority Leader. Haley Barbour talks about politics as a “team sport”. You vote for the people on your team – Brownback, Roberts – Barbour says. Chris Christie talks about “integrity” and “clarity”. No one, not even Brownback’s harshest critics, would argue that the governor does not possess those fine qualities.
So this is a battle to salvage the party from underperforming in a year that should be a good year for it – and a battle to give the Republicans the coveted Senate majority. “The road to a Republican majority goes through Kansas”, Senator Roberts says. For the time being, this seems like the most convincing argument he can put in front of the voters of Kansas. From a Republican standpoint, this is not necessarily an unworthy argument.
* * *
The long drive throughout Arkansas and Kansas leaves time for phone calls. I use it to ask Republican operatives whom I know in Washington if the Israeli situation changes with a Republican majority.
Of course, most of them instinctively say. They are well trained, and on the eve of en election they give the answer that might be politically beneficial and attempt to sway any caller – even one with no voting rights – to their cause. So of course (so they say) this will be good for Israel, even great. How so, I ask them. The answers can be divided into two categories:
1. It generally weakens Obama, and since Obama is the one generating trouble for Israel, the weaker he gets, the better for Israel.
2. It will give the Republicans a tool with which to pressure the administration to “do the right thing”, as one Republican strategist put it.
The second category comes in two forms:
The Senate can directly intervene in some – few, but some – foreign policy issues. The most significant of these issues is the possible agreement with Iran, if such an agreement turns out to be a “bad agreement” (or if there is no deal – and a resumption of the debate on the next proper move by the US). While the administration hopes to circumvent the Senate, I get the impression that the Senators might not want to let the administration get away with it easily (not because of Israel – but rather because they want the administration to give them the respect that they believe they deserve).
But even if the Senate fails to directly interfere with, or assist, the administration’s foreign policy decisions, it can still play a role in changing the priorities of the Obama team by “trading” (a term used by another advisor) Israeli “concerns” for other “concerns”. That is to say: the Senate can put Israel on the bargaining table and ask the administration to agree to this or that in exchange for getting that or this from the majority.
* * *
A sense of caution would not be misplaced when it comes to counting on a Republican majority to alter the direction of the US’ policy toward Iran.
The Republicans, if they indeed win tomorrow, will have one goal in mind: winning in 2016. Would a showdown over Iran gets them closer to their political goal? Consider the leaked comments by White House advisor Ben Rhodes: “this is probably the biggest thing that President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is healthcare for us, just to put it in context”.
From a political standpoint – and of course, not all policies are ultimately determined by political considerations alone – Iran as healthcare presents an interesting political dilemma to the Republican team: it can let a questionable agreement with Iran pass, with some showcase resistance, and then use it as a battle cry for 2016, the way it is currently using healthcare (there is, of course, an important difference: the GOP could not stop healthcare). Or it can utilize all its power to block it, but then risk the ire of voters if the result is a deteriorating situation in the Middle East. In other words: by fighting Iran the Republicans in Congress, who will now have more power to actually be a stumbling block for agreements, might give the Democratic Party an opening to yet again argue that the hawks are bracing for war and are willing to thwart the opportunity for a historic reconciliation with Iran.
* * *
I had some free time when the Kansas political rally ended, so I took the short drive to the Truman library, half an hour away, at Independence Missouri.
A short video presentation at the library presents the audience with tough decisions made by Truman and asks museum visitors to vote – was Truman’s decision the right one? And what was his motivation?
One tough decision was the recognition of the State of Israel. And it was reassuring – and not without relevance for today – to see that from the four possible motivations behind it – public opinion, pressure of advisors, national interest, and values – the public gave the last option the most votes by far.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.