Is Someone Who Broke Ranks Appropriate as Party Leader on the Hill?

Senator Schumer stated that his was a very difficult decision, and one must respect his convictions. However, a number of Democratic leaders were disappointed by his action, which, due to his experience and influence, might have helped swing the vote the other way.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

Chuck Schumer, the knowledgeable senior senator from New York, who is due to take over as Majority Leader in the Senate from Harry Reid, was an announced early opponent of the Iran nuclear agreement. He did this even before it became certain that President Obama had enough Democratic votes in the Senate to prevent Congress from killing the agreement. The 34 Democratic senators who lined up by September 2nd in support of the accord were enough to block an attempted override of a presidential veto, should the latter become necessary. An override requires a two-thirds majority, and the 34 votes prevent this. Ben Cardin, one of two other Democratic senators who oppose the deal, and is Jewish as is Senator Schumer, did not announce his position until September 4th, two days after the tally of 34 votes had clinched the matter. (The pro-accord tally has since risen to 38.)

Senator Schumer stated that his was a very difficult decision, and one must respect his convictions. However, a number of Democratic leaders were disappointed by his action, which, due to his experience and influence, might have helped swing the vote the other way. So, apart from the substance of the issue, the question arises as to whether this is the person, as Majority Leader, to invoke party loyalty in future Senate debates.

It is interesting to note in this regard that Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla), who is arguably the most prominent sympathizer of Israel in the Congress, came out in favor of the Iran accord on September 6th. The New York Times lead story on August 29th ("Debate on Iran Fiercely Splits American Jews") lays out in some detail the rift that has arisen in the Jewish community over the Iran accord. Though the article does not say so outright, it is clear that the major Israeli lobby -- AIPAC -- which supported the Israeli Government in its opposition to the accord, can no longer claim that it represents the overall views of America's Jews. In this context, the article refers to a relatively new and rival lobby, the self-described "pro-peace, pro-Israel" J Street:

Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of J Street, a Jewish political advocacy group that backs the Iran deal, spoke of a fundamental break between Democratic Party leaders inclined toward diplomacy and the worldview of a conservative Israeli government that has more in common with Dick Cheney than the former Israeli prime minister Golda Meir. That will not change, even if congressional efforts to kill the accord fail, Mr. Ben-Ami said.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot