New Kind of Political War

0 Comments | Insight on the News, Oct 22, 2001 | by Jennifer G. Hickey

With slim majorities in both chambers, members of Congress are forced to fight a new kind of political war with shifting coalitions fop different issues. Will this niceness last?

Writing in the opinion page of the New York Times, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld outlined the complexities of what he termed "a new kind of war." The alliance in the war to be waged against groups that threaten our harbors and those who provide safe harbor for them, wrote Rumsfeld, "will involve floating coalitions of countries, which may change and evolve. Countries will have different roles and contribute in different ways." The shared threat from terrorism to a myriad of nations and the labyrinthine reach of terrorist groups such as Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda has resulted in the contemplation of liaisons and alliances with both seemly and unseemly nations.

For instance, while President George W. Bush has for this purpose sought to gain ground on the diplomatic front with China and Russia on the shared interest of combating terrorism, it is unlikely that conflicting interests and long-standing disagreements will melt in some new era of good feeling. China's predilection for suppression of its people and selling arms to rogue nations will ensure U.S.-China relations remain complicated and thorny. Similarly, the July signing of the Treaty of Good Neighborliness between China and Russia will not eliminate Russian concerns about the large number of Chinese immigrants that have been flowing across the world's longest border. Nevertheless, the Bush diplomacy resulting from the events of Sept. 11 has for the moment reshaped the world's geopolitical postulates.

Domestic diplomacy also has reshaped the political framework. Although there was no signing of a convention on "good neighborliness" between the factions on Capitol Hill, the strategic cooperation undermined by slim majorities in both chambers was restored by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. An evolving and strengthened coalition in Congress was evident in the campaign-finance-reform debate -- bringing together the Republican leadership and several members of the Congressional Black Caucus in opposition to the proposal.

Traveling to Chicago with Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta -- who flew by commercial airline while the president made the trip in the national command center aboard Air Force One -- Bush announced plans to increase airport security, including $500 million to improve security aboard planes, strengthening cockpit doors and expanding the role of the federal government in the industry. Bush did, however, indicate a reluctance to endorse the most controversial potential nostrum -- permitting pilots to carry guns. Details are expected to be settled upon during the next six months. However, he relieved industry and public alarm at the recent deadly breaches by placing private security employees under federal management and introducing other expansions of government snooping and security that worry classical liberals and trouble conservatives whose main disagreement, left to right, now is whether federal involvement is to be feared or loathed.

Bush called the proposed emergency intrusions, including new provisions to expand wiretapping and other surveillance, "measured ... constitutional requests." It was a nice try, but it even united in opposition Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), as strange bedfellows as history records. The dynamics of the somewhat disturbing and unprecedented union were on display this week during Attorney General John Ashcroft's appearance before the House Judiciary Committee. In this alternate universe, Waters and Barr were like foxes hunting a rabbit as they took turns expressing reservations about the constitutionality of administration antiterrorism measures, as opposed to pursuing their usual prey -- each other.

In fact many conservatives, including House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas, are active civil libertarians wary of defeating terrorism at the cost of constitutional freedoms. Speaking to reporters, Armey said that antiterrorism legislation is a priority but that many members are "acutely aware" that some federal agencies and departments "do not pay due diligence" to safeguarding privacy and private data. He cited the FBI's mishandling of more than 1,000 raw investigative files on former members of Republican administrations.

Since Sept. 11, bipartisanship has been almost unanimous. Tongues have been bitten and snide comments have been relegated to the cloakrooms; many Websites were (temporarily) purged of the acerbic attacks of the sort that were common before Sept. 11. There was unanimity in the Senate to pass the $10.5 billon military construction bill and virtual unanimity on Sept. 25 in the House, which passed the $343 billion 2002 Defense Authorization bill by a vote of 398-17. Furthermore, as many as 30 Bush nominations were allowed to clear the Democrat-controlled Senate.

In spending matters, the unanimity raised eyebrows of fiscal hawks. In defending the spending measures passed, including $40 billion in emergency spending, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota argued that "at some point you have to put the fiscal status of your country on a different priority than it was at any time outside of the emergency." Daschle even conceded, despite dipping into the surplus, "I am absolutely confident that Social Security and Medicare are not at risk." No schemes, no raids, no mas.