Just this morning (Friday, September 11) the House of Representatives voted to strike down a resolution to approve the Iran Nuclear Deal. Though this vote will not be substantial enough to prevent the Iran Deal from taking effect, it did reveal some inconsistencies within the democratic party.
While 100% of the republicans voted against the resolution, it did not receive 100% of democratic approval. In fact, 25 democrats voted against the Iran Deal, and the same voted positively on a bill that would prevent President Obama from lifting the existing sanctions on Iran. Seeing this democratic opposition in the House is not overly surprising. Several democrats in the Senate have already voted against the nuclear agreement, such as Chuck Shumer, and several others have voiced opposition while reluctantly giving support, such as Corey Booker. But the question to ask is why? Why would democrats divert from the majority opinion of their party over an issue that could potentially be a major issue of the 2016 presidential election?
The answer lies in the duality of Congress' responsibilities: being a lawmaking body and the representative branch of government, being held accountable for constituents in home states and districts. Because of this responsibility to represent the interests of constituents back home, members of congress (especially in the House of Representatives) are more likely to branch off from the party majority if it will keep the people back home happy and ensure reelection. For example, in this particular case the democrats who voted against the Iran Nuclear Deal were likely appeasing Jewish constituencies, appealing to a moderate district, or taking a neutral stance in attempts to win a close election in 2016.
With most polls showing a nation divided nearly down the middle between those who support the deal and those who do not, it's going to be interesting to see how this inconsistency within the democratic party affects the upcoming presidential election. Will the disagreement between democratic representatives push public opinion in the direction of supporting the unanimously united republican party, who has gained support of several prominent democratic politicians? Could this potential persuasion of public opinion force the democratic candidates to take up positions against the Iran Deal in order to win in the general? The answers are dependent on the level of importance the public places on the current agreement, and also in which direction the nation's opinion lays as the general approaches.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/253370-house-rejects-iran-deal
2 comments:
I like how in this post you comment on how the legislative and executive branches intersect through parties (and the electoral ambitions of those parties). I think it is interesting how the actions of one branch, or even a single politician--who are presumably unrelated to the other branch-- can affect the public's opinion of the other. I think this post less shows how parties are not united, but how important and vital it is that they are. The fact that an action of a group of disgruntled politicians can impact the upcoming presidential election shows just how important parties are to how americans view our democracy. It shows that the public desires strong, united, unflinching parties to guide their political decisions. Because, without them, in what can they base their electoral decisions? Who are the democrats if they are not united?
I think the Iran Nuclear Deal is a great example of the duality members of Congress face. Should members of Congress make a decision best for the country as a whole or should they think of upcoming elections. Chuck Schumer, Senator of New York, most likely did not support President Obama's deal because of his vast number of support from moderate Democrats of New York and Conservative Jews of New York. However, I would disagree with your reasoning of taking a neutral stance in attempts to win a close election in 2016. As a voter, I would look at that decision and see an official who cannot make hard policy choices. With that said, I think the choices made on this decision will further divide the moderate Democrats and the liberal Democrats.
Post a Comment