GOP Scoring on Foreign Policy

The Senate’s defeat of the nuclear test ban treaty Wednesday is the most dramatic example of an odd turn of events here: While President Clinton continues to score major victories over the GOP-controlled Congress on domestic issues, foreign policy has emerged as one area where conservative Republicans can play offense.

It is unusual because presidents traditionally are shown great deference in matters of global diplomacy. But the GOP, in its dealings with Clinton, has challenged him on an array of foreign policy issues--from the war in Kosovo to payment of United Nations dues.

This has occurred even as Republicans have been battered in domestic policy fights--most recently when the House passed the administration-backed bill to regulate health maintenance organizations.

Clinton, Public Lean to Domestic Side

Clinton has proved to be a more formidable foe on domestic policy, in part, because he seems more interested in and committed to those issues, analysts and lawmakers said.

“The president is not personally engaged enough in [international] issues,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.).

And the public, too, seems to care less about foreign policy questions--making it harder for Clinton to marshal public support on his side of these debates.

“I know we had the public with us [on the test ban treaty] but there’s not the same intensity,” said John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World, which supports the test ban pact. “The Republican Party could feel, even in the face of polls showing popular support, [that] they would pay no price for opposing the treaty.”

Some analysts worry that the treaty’s defeat--as well as the other attacks on Clinton’s foreign policy--will undermine his credibility on the world stage.

“Certainly there’s a perception that he’s a weak leader on foreign policy issues . . . and it undercuts our credibility,” said Jennifer Weeks, who directs an arms control research project at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

It also could sow seeds of bitterness between the political parties that will make it harder for future presidents to pursue foreign policy on a bipartisan basis.

The test ban treaty was a particularly difficult test of Clinton’s ability to sell his foreign policy initiatives: Ratification of the pact required a two-thirds majority in a Senate controlled by Republicans, 54 to 45 (with one independent who tends to support GOP positions).

And despite the humiliating setback, Clinton remains a good bet to best Republicans when the congressional agenda again shifts to upcoming fights over the budget, taxes and health care.

The assault on Clinton’s foreign policy defies the longtime edict in Washington that politics should stop at the water’s edge. This once-mighty consensus that Congress needed to unite behind a president once he had charted his foreign policy has been fraying for years. But any remaining glimmers of bipartisanship have been eclipsed by the deep, personal animosity many Republicans feel toward Clinton, the man they tried to drive out of office.

“There is a terrible distrust of the president,” said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). “When the Senate has respect for a president, there is a better chance of getting a treaty.”

Even before Wednesday’s vote, evidence of that attitude was plentiful.

In December, when the United States began bombing Iraq just as the House was about to vote to impeach Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) took the nearly unprecedented step for a congressional chieftain of refusing to back the military action. He also questioned Clinton’s motives, suggesting that the timing of the raids was related to the impeachment vote.

While Clinton was spearheading the North Atlantic Treaty Organization attacks on Kosovo this spring, many House Republican leaders openly opposed his policy and engineered the House defeat of a resolution endorsing the air campaign.

Just last week, Congress sent Clinton a foreign aid bill that slashed $2 billion from his budget request--and did not include funds needed to follow up on the 1998 Middle East peace agreement reached at the Wye Plantation in Maryland. Republicans also have allowed the United States to fall behind on United Nations dues--to the tune of $1.5 billion.

Some analysts said that the GOP opposition to the test ban treaty--as well as the resistance to foreign aid and paying U.N. dues--reflects a broader shift to a more isolationist world view since the end of the Cold War.

“Republican opposition to the treaty is further evidence of a move toward a more narrowly nationalistic position than the old internationalism that was the reigning philosophy of American foreign policy in the post-World War II period,” said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank.

Others said that the GOP stance on the treaty has powerful political and personal roots. Having failed to remove Clinton from office, Republicans were relishing the opportunity to beat him on something.

“There’s still some leftover effects from impeachment,” said Joseph S. Nye Jr., dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. “A lot of Republicans in Congress never forgave Clinton and still have a sense of vendetta.”

Clinton Uses His Advantage

Despite that animosity and the near-inevitable weakening of a lame-duck president, Clinton can still expect to wield a stronger hand in the battles over domestic issues, partly because of his focus on these matters.

While other weakened presidents have sought refuge in foreign affairs--Nixon, for example, spent a week in Moscow and nine days in the Middle East in the waning days of his presidency--Clinton has clung to such issues as Social Security and education.

Another advantage Clinton enjoys is that many of his top domestic priorities are popular causes among voters--including those that Republicans represent.

“There is no constituency for the test ban treaty that talks to Republicans,” said Glen Bolger, a GOP pollster. “There is on HMOs.”