Obama and Shultz at the White House on May 19 (AP photo)

At a meeting Tuesday with former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), and former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, President Obama summed up the group’s deliberations on the goal of achieving a world without nuclear weapons:

“This is a reminder of the long tradition of bipartisan foreign policy that has been the hallmark of America at moments of greatest need, and that’s the kind of spirit that we hope will be reflected in our administration.”

It’s great to hear this from the President who also made “bipartisanship and openness” an official plank in his campaign platform, and now identifies it as a key to effective US national security and foreign policy for his Administration.

You might think Obama’s commitment to bipartisan consultation and cooperation on national security would win nothing but plaudits from a group of former leaders obviously assembled not just for their substantive expertise, but for their bipartisan credibility. So then what are we to make of George Shultz’s reply, in the role of spokesman for the elder statesmen? Not once, but twice, the former Reagan administration official remarked that President Obama was wrong about nuclear disarmament being a “bipartisan issue,” because:

“It’s really nonpartisan. This is a subject that ought to somehow get up above trying to get a partisan advantage. And it’s of such importance that we need to take it on its own merits. And that’s the way we’ve proceeded. And that’s the way, at least it seems to us, you’ve proceeded.”

I suppose Mr. Shultz has earned the right to disagree with the President on national television, but really, isn’t this a distinction without a difference? Why harp on nomenclature when the point is the same? The purpose of the meeting and the public statements afterward was to demonstrate that working toward a world without nuclear weapons is a goal on which current and former leaders from across the political spectrum can find consensus. It just doesn’t matter what you call that sort of agreement. What matters is getting it.

On the other hand, I think Secretary Shultz was pointing toward at least one legitimate objection to the term “bipartisan.” Over the past few months, as the President has fought to win Republican support for his major economic recovery initiatives, the media appropriated “bipartisanship” for a much more superficial purpose. Whether a policy action or legislative proposal was “bipartisan” became just a question of whether Republicans joined the Democratic majority in voting for it. Shultz is right when he says that our country’s commitment to nuclear disarmament needs to be bigger than politics.

My advice to the big shots at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue? Please don’t waste time and taxpayer dollars arguing over syntax. Pakistan is building more nuclear weapons even while tottering on the brink of state failure, North Korea has tested a bomb already, and Iran claims to have a nuclear-capable rocket with terrifying range and accuracy. These threats won’t wait while we hash out precisely the right definition for good national security policy. As long as you get the job done in a way that puts results ahead of politics, you will have the support of the American people.

No related posts.