The New Republic

The emerging narrative on John Bolton's now-likely confirmation as
U. N. ambassador has produced an unexpected good guy: Ohio Senator
George Voinovich. According to the accepted story line, a host of
Republican Senate moderates sat shifty-eyed while Bolton's
nomination rolled through the Senate; Voinovich at least had the
presence of mind to bloody Bolton's nose along the way. The editors
of The New York Times wrote approvingly of Voinovich's now- famous
anti-Bolton soliloquy last week. Chris Dodd of Connecticut mused
about "what a privilege it was to serve with [Voinovich]" and vowed
to commemorate the speech for his young daughters as an example of
a "senatorial moment."That's one reading, I suppose. The other is that, by elevating
Bolton's nomination to the level of grand moral principle--"Mr.
Chairman, it is my opinion that John Bolton is the poster child of
what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be," Voinovich
thundered last Thursday--and then failing to follow through when he
could have blocked the nomination, he damages the very principles
he claims to espouse.

As it happens, this is not the first time Voinovich has worked
himself up into moral high dudgeon only to back off under pressure
from the White House. Voinovich came to the Senate in 1999
proclaiming his determination to restore an ethic of budgetary
responsibility. And, for his first two years, he resisted expensive
tax cuts favored by the GOP. But, since Bill Clinton had vowed to
veto these bills, Voinovich's vote carried no political cost. Then,
right around the time George W. Bush entered office, Voinovich's
rhetoric began to diverge conspicuously from his actions.

This was particularly evident in 2002, when a set of budget rules
that had been fabulously successful at controlling deficits in the
1990s was about to expire. The pay-as-you-go rule, as it is known,
requires new tax cuts or spending to be paid for by savings
elsewhere in the budget. At the time, Voinovich seemed genuinely
worried about its expiration. "As a senator who came here to bring
some fiscal discipline to this place, I am just dismayed by our
complete lack of fiscal responsibility," he told the Baltimore Sun.
But, when he finally got the opportunity to vote to reimpose the
rule in 2004, Voinovich balked. Other GOP deficit hawks, such as
John McCain, Olympia Snowe, and Lincoln Chafee, had no such
reservations.

Voinovich also passed on a chance to impose fiscal discipline in
2003, when he turned out to be the key swing vote on a package of
tax cuts estimated to cost roughly $800 billion over ten years. But
he never stopped stressing the importance of the principle. "We're
on the edge of a fiscal crisis in this country if we keep going the
way we are," Voinovich said late that March. He claimed he couldn't
abide a tax cut that would cost a dollar more than $350 billion,
and he co-signed a letter to this effect addressed to Tom Daschle
and Bill Frist. When asked on "Meet the Press" in the weeks before
the final vote whether $350 billion was his absolute bottom line,
Voinovich replied, "You got it, and anybody that knows George
Voinovich knows that, when I say something, I mean it." In
response, Senate GOP leaders simply arranged for some of the bill's
provisions to expire within six years--thereby lowering the
legislation's ten-year price tag--even though they had every
intention of renewing the provisions once they expired. This is the
legislative equivalent of crossing out $800 billion and writing
$350 billion next to it, but it was sufficient to win Voinovich's
vote.

When Voinovich piped up in the Foreign Relations Committee last
month and claimed that his concerns justified delaying a vote on
Bolton's nomination, it seemed to be a rare case of the senator
measuring his rhetoric. Voinovich was arguing for more careful
deliberation without committing himself to a position he might
later undermine. But that sense of proportion vanished when
Voinovich shared the product of his deliberations--a scathing
indictment of Bolton--then announced the terms of an agreement
whereby he would send the nomination to its near-certain approval.

Voinovich is apparently a great believer in norms. He believes in
the norm that a government should live within its means. He
believes that the executive branch should be transparent in its
dealings with Congress and the public. And he believes strongly in
the Senate's "advice and consent" responsibilities. (Voinovich
actually chided Republicans for not permitting Democrats to explore
allegations against Bolton.) But Voinovich doesn't understand the
difference between invoking a norm and defending it. Had he
stressed the importance of the Senate's advisory role, then
concluded from his deliberations that Bolton was acceptable, the
norm would have remained intact. The norm would have even survived
had he never mentioned it and voted for Bolton.

Either scenario might have emboldened the White House on a future
nomination, but not to the point of dismissing the Senate
altogether. The fact that a senator grudgingly assents today
doesn't mean he won't object tomorrow. Thanks to Voinovich's
shenanigans, however, the White House will be increasingly
dismissive of congressional grumbling. Voinovich has demonstrated
that, even when the Senate does object, it doesn't particularly
matter.

That would be unfortunate in any context. But the effect is
particularly insidious with this administration. That's because,
under Bush, the GOP's chief political tactic has been to identify
norms that can be trampled without consequence--and then to
promptly trample them. So, for example, Republicans routinely pass
legislation in the House and Senate only to significantly change it
in a conference committee. Or they unveil complicated legislation
just hours before it must be voted on, giving Democrats almost no
opportunity to read it. Or, to take an example with which Voinovich
is intimately familiar, they announce a reasonable-sounding
official price tag for legislation that bears no relationship to
its actual cost.

George Voinovich proved himself to be an enabler of the
administration's worst excesses when he caved on Bolton last
Thursday. A senatorial moment, perhaps. Just not the kind you'd
share with your children.

share this article on facebook or twitter print this article