THE BLOG

Republicans, Iran and Obama: Crossing the Line

03/11/2015 08:26 am ET | Updated May 11, 2015

I came out of the struggles of the '60s, civil rights, women's rights, the environment- and Vietnam. From my point of view we had a President who was profoundly wrong about the Vietnam War and whose policies were dangerous and immoral. Eventually we found allies in the U.S. Senate, notably Charlie Goodell of New York, Mark Hatfield of Oregon, George McGovern of South Dakota, Alan Cranston of California and Harold Hughes of Iowa. Thank goodness for Senators willing to stand up to the President on foreign policy issues.

Comes now Obama and Iran. Should we have a nuclear deal with Iran, and what should it contain? It's complicated, and it's important. I tend to agree with Obama on the need to complete negotiations and consider the risks at that point. But there's every reason for Senators to express reservations and concerns, to challenge the President, and to make their case to the American people.

Instead, we have 47 Republican Senators who have decided to go beyond anything that has come before and open a second, parallel negotiating/diplomatic process with the Islamic leadership of Iran. Say what?

Imagine the fuss if the anti-Vietnam Senators had written to Ho Chi Minh. Jane Fonda still hasn't recovered from her Hanoi foray, 50 years later. Or if Democratic Senators had gone around George Bush and had written to Saddam in the run-up to the Gulf War. Or if Senators had gone around Ronald Reagan and written to the Sandinistas. Or if Senators had written to Putin and said the sanctions were a mere stroke of a pen that could be reversed. The howls would resound across the Republican Party.

The point is that even if Obama is profoundly wrong about a nuclear deal with Iran, the Senate letter is different and scary. And crazy.

Crazy is the operative word. There are lots of ways to hold Obama's feet to the fire, to make the case to the American people that there is no acceptable deal with Iran. Instead, the No Deal 47 are rewriting the constitutional, historical and political norms about foreign policy fights. From now on, it's ok for the Congress to negotiate foreign policy directly with other nations.

This kind of no-holds-barred opposition to Obama is nothing new. Indeed it is the hallmark of Republican policy and politics. Obamacare, debt ceiling, Homeland Security funding, immigration, you name it. The intensity of the personal dislike, the public contempt, the outright hatred have overwhelmed the rules that have governed our political disputes for centuries. He's not just wrong, he is an illegitimate, Socialst, Muslim, America-hating, non-citizen, usurping tyrant. Nothing is too far out in fighting him. Democracies need self-restraint and the Republicans don't have any.

They could have made the same arguments in an open letter to the American people. Instead they are in conversation with their mirror-image right-wing counterparts in Tehran. That's new and dangerous.

These tactics are politically good for Obama in the long run. The American people understand the difference between dissent and checks on executive power on the one hand, and negotiating with a hostile foreign power on the other. They will reject it. In the short tun, it will make a deal with Iran harder and future negotiations with any foreign government much more difficult.

The real danger is the damage to our democracy. We should prize the ability of the people and Senators to criticize and lead us when the President is, in their eyes, wrong. That's the lesson of Vietnam, the League of Nations, South African sanctions, Cuba and Iraq. We endanger that core value when we rewrite the rules for conducting foreign policy.