Bipartisan cooperation on nuclear weapons? Yes, it’s possible.

movies-star-trek-spock-3In today’s National Interest, I suggest the “rule of opposites,” in which only conservatives can really take on reforms in defense policy, and only liberals can really approach reforms in domestic policy.

The 2014 midterms are over…but when it comes to the future of America’s nuclear deterrent, will it matter? The answer is almost certainly “no.” And that’s unfortunate, because the Republican takeover of the Senate, ironically, means there might be room for significant progress on nuclear issues.

“There is an old Vulcan proverb,” Star Trek’s Spock told his captain when advising him to make peace with an adversary. “Only Nixon can go to China.” As it is in the interstellar Federation, so it is in American politics. This is the rule of opposites, in which only conservative politicians can tackle the reform of national defense (think of George H.W. Bush unilaterally slashing nuclear inventories in 1992), while liberal politicians have the edge in reforming domestic programs and entitlements (such as Bill Clinton’s efforts at welfare reform in 1994).

Where nuclear weapons are concerned, a Republican Congress and a Democratic president are likely to leave things right where they are: without a clear direction, without a strategy and without any budgetary logic.

I suggest three areas where the GOP and the White House can work together:

1. A test ban treaty.

2. A “no first use” policy.

3. Dumping the last of our tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.

For more, read the entire piece here.

Print Friendly

The Ebola travel ban debate: Shut Up, the Washington Post explained

Relax, it’s just a joke. Brad Pitt would never fly commercial.

A lot of people are scared about Ebola, far more than they should be. The media’s response has been either to pump up the terror, or to assist the White House in assuring us that all is well and that top men — top men — are on it.

The question of whether to restrict visas for people from the plague-hit areas — inaccurately called a “travel ban” — is driving everyone crazy, especially the people who feel they’ve been tasked to defend the President’s dismissal of the idea. (When the President actually orders it, as he probably will, the whiplash is going to hurt.) Continue reading →

Print Friendly

Who I represent, and who I don’t

© Justin Ide, Harvard News Office

You – yes, you. Stand still, laddie.

It’s the political season, and we’re hip-deep in scandals and wars. I have views on many of these events, as almost three years of this blog attest. (There’s a midterm election coming in three weeks, and you can bet I have a deep interest in it, particularly in the Senate races — because I’m a political scientist, and also, you know, a former Senate staff member.)

But just where do my views come from, and whom do they represent? If you don’t care about that, you can close this page and move on. But if you’re interested in issues of academic freedom, partisan politics, and national security debates, then keep reading. Continue reading →

Print Friendly