Talkline with Hoppy Kercheval  Watch |  Listen

Manchin says ‘no’ to President, Iran deal

Senator Joe Manchin announced Tuesday that he opposes the Iranian nuclear deal.  “For me this deal had to address Iran’s terrorist actions,” Manchin said in a prepared statement he read to reporters on a conference call.  “Without doing so would reward Iran’s 36 years of deplorable behavior and do nothing to prevent its destructive activities.”

Manchin’s much-discussed final decision can be viewed several different ways.  Depending on one’s perspective, Manchin: A) Conducted his research and also listened to his West Virginia constituents, the majority of whom asked him to oppose the deal; B) Delayed his decision until enough fellow senators had already committed one way or other so he could slip through the cracks on a controversial decision; C) Simply had trouble making up his mind until he absolutely had to; D) Turned his back on fellow Democrats who support the President’s deal.

Concerning “A,” Manchin did talk with U.S. officials most intimately involved with the deal, including Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. He also held town meetings where he got direct feedback from West Virginians.  Manchin can rightfully argue that he did his due diligence.

During that process, Manchin heard repeatedly from West Virginians who opposed the deal.  However, the question is often debated whether Senators’ votes should reflect the will of the electorate or whether the members of the upper chamber are chosen for their ability to make wise decisions on behalf of the people.

Notably, that very issue is addressed in Chapter 64 of the Federalist Papers by John Jay, which was written in support of the Constitutional provision allowing the President to make treaties subject to approval by two-thirds of the Senate.  Jay wrote that Senators are “most distinguished by their abilities and virtue, and in whom the people perceive grounds for confidence… With such men the power of making treaties may be safely lodged.”

That suggests Senators are more insulated from shifting political whims than the House and therefore better able to make a wise decision on treaties. (As an important side note, from Franklin Roosevelt to today, including the Iranian deal, Presidents have sidestepped the Constitutional requirement of two-thirds approval in the Senate by simply calling treaties “executive agreements.”)

On point “B,” politicians always want to avoid being the key vote on controversial issues. That brings tremendous pressure and often produces a no-win situation, and that’s antithetical to the desire of every politician to “win” on an issue.

Manchin managed to hit a kind of political sweet spot; his announced opposition came less than three hours before three key Democrats revealed their support, giving President Obama 41 votes. If those votes hold, supporters of the deal will have enough votes to hold the line on a filibuster of the disapproval legislation later this week.

Therefore, Manchin’s vote would not swing the deal one way or another.

On point “C,” clearly Manchin struggled with the decision. As recently as last week, he told me he could have gone either way.  The Senator always prefers a deal; who can he work with—regardless of political party—to produce a compromise.

This was not an option with the Iran agreement. It’s a simple “yes” or “no” matter with no malleable margins.

On point “D,” Manchin continues the balancing act of a conservative Democrat who votes against his own party more than most of his colleagues.  He’s aware of the political risk of supporting a controversial plan by a President whose disapproval rating in West Virginia is now at 71 percent,* and West Virginia has far more conservative to moderate Democrats than liberal Democrats.

The votes are there now to approve the Iran nuclear deal.  History will determine whether this is the right move.  Manchin’s decision, whether based on conviction, political considerations or a combination of the two, is a matter for the next election.

* Metronews West Virginia Poll





More Hoppy's Commentary

Commentary
Some notes on Easter and religion as we begin the holiday
March 29, 2024 - 12:48 am
Commentary
Third party and independent presidential candidates rarely get traction in West Virginia
March 28, 2024 - 12:10 am
Commentary
Let's talk about the officiating in the WVU-Iowa game
March 27, 2024 - 12:47 am
Commentary
WVU basketball looks to the future
March 26, 2024 - 12:15 am


Your Comments