COLUMN: Weld v. Helms; a political debacle

From Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '97 From Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '97 Some of this summer's most poignant political drama played out in mini-series form, with installments aired regularly from July to September. Former Massachusetts Governor and Republican William Weld, was to be nominated for the position of Ambassador to Mexico. From the start, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairperson Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) declared his opposition. Weld took advantage of the situation to bask in the light of the press for a few additional days, extending his allotted 15 minutes of national fame by a large margin. He gave a folksy speech at the press conference where he announced his decision. "I sure had a funny summer," he said. "You know what I found out? In Washington, you do have to go on bended knee, even if you only want to do what the Constitution says." Weld went on to portray the struggle between them as an ideological battle between two wings of the Republican party. "In plain language, I am not Senator Helms' kind of Republican. I do not pass his litmus test on social policy. Nor do I want to." Helms' ideological leanings were misguided -- the Republican Party needed to renew its emphasis of individual rights as well as continue its traditional fiscal conservatism. In the scenario framed by Weld, Helms was the bad guy, nefarious and petty, holder of power for power's sake, driving people away from the Republican party through his backwards ways. The story is not so simple. To many observers, Weld was giving his first stump speech on the road to the 2000 Presidential campaign, playing his "vision" off of the hard and unlikable personality of Helms, one of the nation's most infamous political figures. Weld had a golden opportunity to put his face and newly created image before those people in the United States concerned about national politics. Some media outlets focused an uncritical eye on the rift between the two wings of the Republican Party, as if internal debate about goals is a new experience within the nation's two parties. Students of American history will recall that such distinctions came to the forefront in the 1960s, as the term "Rockefeller Republican" was born to describe fiscally conservative but socially open Republicans in the mold of Rockefeller. If his public posturing was actually a ploy to gain a good position for the next presidential campaign, Weld might have made a grave mistake. Though debate rages over individual issues, the Republican Party of the late 1990s does not have two distinct wings to be labeled "moderate" and "conservative." Despite the possible preferences of the majority of the party's members, the leadership of the Republican Party on all levels is dominated by staunchly conservative individuals. While a moderate Republican has a far greater chance in winning the general election, a candidate such as Weld has little chance of beating more mainstream (and thus right-wing) Republicans in the primaries. Beneath the surface clash of personalities dressed in moral garb, another issue lies. In a nation that so prides itself on its democratic political system, how can one of our representative's personal opinions wield such influence on our political process? At his White House sponsored press conference, Weld suggested the rules governing ambassadorial nominations were not being followed. The Constitution's words on such procedure are, as one would expect, amazingly vague. "[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors?" The rules of the Senate's flesh out the meaning of "advice and consent" to make such ambiguous language applicable to the world. In practice, tremendous authority is granted to the Chairperson of the Foreign Relations Committee, who has numerous mechanisms at their disposal to stymie any nomination that they oppose. The only ways that Helms' stonewalling could be circumvented would be for his committee to vote to force a hearing. Such a scenario would be unlikely given committee members tendency to avoid offending their chairperson. The other way would have been for Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott to bring the nomination directly to the floor of the Senate. Helms could have filibustered any such attempt, and in practice even, Lott was unwilling to cross Jesse Helms. Had the Clinton administration put pressure on Helms to move forward with the Weld nomination, he could have simply made good on his threat to put a hold on other Senate business deemed important to them. This incident brings to the foreground the archaic nature of the rules that govern the runnings of the Senate. Unfortunately, they are better -suited for a time not so long ago when the Senate served as an oligarchic check on the American experiment in popularly based representative government. Yet rarely does the public see so egregious a case of a personality-based abuse of power. It is instances like this that make us consider the true nature of the American political system.