The Explosive Case for Non-Partisanship
The notion of reducing and securing global nuclear weapons is an idea that one would expect to provoke little partisan divide. In the past, both Democrats and Republicans have banded together on this issue. As illustrated below, previous Senate voting records on treaties involving nuclear weapons security measures and reductions reflect this wholeheartedly, with the notable exception of the Senate’s failure to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1999.
Despite the fact that this treaty imposes more modest changes and reductions to our nuclear program than previous nuclear agreements, the political climate surrounding the now delayed START Treaty vote has been characterized by partisan bickering. The substantive debate over the treaty’s contents has virtually ceased and has been replaced by concerns over the US’s nuclear modernization plan. Although Obama has pledged a 10% increase in funding, or $80 billion over ten years, some senators, such as the Republican bellwether Sen. Jon Kyl, continue to withhold their “yes” vote. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Richard Lugar is the only Republican to publically declare that he will support START, although several other senators, including Sen. Bennett and Sen. Corker have expressed their willingness to support it, pending the nod from GOP leadership.
Despite Washington’s “business as usual” pre-election partisan squabbling, the essence of this issue is apolitical. In a May 25, 2010 hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger echoed this notion, stating that “This Committee’s decision will affect the prospects for peace for a decade or more. It is, by definition, not a bipartisan but a non-partisan challenge.”
