Synopsis: Campaign Journal 2008

In this distinctive and personal narrative of Barack Obama's 2008 campaign for the American presidency, Carlos J. Rangel chronicles the underlying currents of social change that led to this successful campaign. The results were a president with a clear majority of the votes cast; elected by a commanding majority of electoral votes; and who won states on both coasts, in the South, the Rust Belt, and the West. There were no recount battles, or intervention by the courts.

Rangel notes that the effective professional politician gathers coalitions around positions on the issues and uses these coalitions to formulate policies that bring these positions to fruition. The Obama Campaign coalesced expectations that he would be able to rapidly transform the way the country is led and lead Americans to a better future. These expectations were multiplied by an effective, well-run campaign. Certainly, Obama's capacity to inspire during the campaign led many to believe he could do the same as president.

Management of high expectations became one of President Obama's greatest challenges in the immediate period after the election. In transforming ideals of hope and change into reality, he faced political resistance from multiple fronts, an economy with structural flaws, and an internationally isolated United States. Rangel's unique background in Latin America enables him to make sharp observations about policies and campaign statements that may have influence in that region, including trade deals, drug wars and the populist rhetoric, and actions emanating from the region. This book is a solid start at analysis of the years ahead, as well as the year that was.

Selected Passages

March 26

"To say that these actions were necessary to save American lives is not enough. It is also necessary to be candid about the fact that these actions killed innocent non-Americans, and that our sentiments and sympathies do go beyond a “collateral damage” rationalization, while suggesting the existence of second or third-class world citizens that can be bought off with a fist full of dollars."

April 23

"The answer may lie in the different rules of the numbers game: old politics rules vs. new politics rules. The numbers she garnered at the start do show that she is the strongest candidate in the old politics game… But, is this still the real political moment we are living in? Or is this perhaps the last dying gasp of an out-of-touch/distant way of doing politics, a message managing style that was effective before the existence of 24 hour cable news cycles, YouTube, Google, texting, and the blogosphere?"

April 30

"In an economy based on low-costing there is hardly any job value created and the productivity gains are more indicative of this than of better standards of living. Market inefficiencies run galore, losing educational and training investment, and the real winners are the credit card companies that finance many failed family enterprises—as well as the bankruptcy lawyers—while credit card protection reform languishes in Congress, awaiting the next great financial crisis."

May 3

"The economic incentives within (the Health Care) market take us to the logical conclusion that less people at a higher price will receive lesser quality care in the future. The industry’s structure, as it stands, leads to insurance companies going out of business if they do not recognize that they have to cater to the healthier and wealthier. This is the way our health care industry works. It is not that evil or shadowy individuals do not care about sick people. It is the structure of the market that leads to this inevitable outcome, and this needs to change."

 May 22

"There is now a wave starting to roll similar to the one originated by Vietnam but this time, instead of being driven by that combination of libertarian and conservative values, it seems to be driven by a new combination of libertarian and humanitarian values. Baby boomers lived this history already, and some can see it. Senator Obama has a family history adrift in these baby boomer currents. Let us hope Senator Obama has learned this history and can ride the wave."

June 1

"Winning for America is not a situation in which everything our society is about is destroyed in order to create a false sense of security with repressive measures. Winning for America is not a situation in which more terrorists are created than eliminated. Winning for America is not a situation that creates more international isolation from our allies, more distance from our friends, and that dismisses as weak the view that seeks to regain our moral standing, the view which in the end will be the only true way to combat terrorism from its roots—and win."

June 2

"It is a moral imperative that we learn how to treat and control the use and abuse of psychotropic drugs and drug addiction… Our drug problem affects our international policies and relations. Right now we are not even close to an adequate response."

June 3

"The primaries had come to an end and, by the end of the night Senator Obama had been declared the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party for the 2008 elections by all major news outlets. The great question in everybody’s mind now is: what will Senator Clinton do? The buzz in the media is the “dream ticket” of Obama-Clinton. Why would she want that? Why would he want that?"

September 4

"Governor Palin is in fact the epitome of what pro-choice is all about: she was able to choose to have her son, and she is to be commended for that."

September 24

"It is the elected representative’s duty to seek out and identify the social and infrastructure needs that will improve the welfare of his or her community and to seek funds to satisfy these needs. It is when abuse, mismanagement and unauthorized diversion of requests and appropriated funds enter the picture that we must cry “foul.” But the Mayor, Governor or Congressman trying to look out for the interest of his or her constituents is part and parcel of what representative government is all about. And when populist demagogues make the eradication of earmarks an electoral issue, it should be transparent that they are making promises that they not just can’t keep but that they shouldn’t keep."

September 30

"It is not out of the question at this time to believe that Venezuela may allow Russia to establish military outposts or bases in its Caribbean territories, including, for example a refueling station or similar token presence in Isla de Aves (just a few hundred miles from Puerto Rico), as part of an expanded Russian military infrastructure. After all, this years’ Russian military budget is a historical record of approximately $40 billion (the US’ will be approximately $90 billion), and it is expected to rise to approx $58 billion in 2011. Russia will be putting that new hardware somewhere."

October 7 to October 21

"The true aftermath of this debate—where no one stumbled or gaffed—is that Sarah Palin is now loose and on the prowl, lipstick off and gloves on."

October 19

"This (Powell’s) endorsement is a reaffirmation of the transformational nature of Senator Obama as “Obama Republicans” trump “Reagan Democrats” in this moment of our history."

October 21

"The chilling message thread trend that the Republican campaign is using at this time is based on the divisive questions: “Are you one of us?” “Is he one of us?” They call themselves “Great Americans” in a way that suggests a membership into some sort of exclusive club or elitist clan into which only a few are allowed."

October 22

"…but the actions by Fujimori’s government, contravening universal human rights and basic legal rights within Peru in order to defeat Shining Path, have come back to haunt Mr. Fujimori and his close associates, now standing or having stood trial for these violations. Just as Abimael Guzmán (founder and leader of Shining Path) should be and is in jail for his heinous crimes against humanity, the fact that Peru recognizes that even against such terror presidents should act within the law is a civics lesson for the world."

October 30

"In evaluating the consequences of unfettered trade with China, it can be argued at this time that Wal-Mart could be singled out as the largest destroyer of small manufacturing jobs in America, because most of its supplier base shifted to China as a consequence of Wal-Mart’s corporate policies, as MFN took hold. Now this company, the largest in the US, has become structurally vulnerable to the currency pressures on the Chinese Yuan."

November 22

"With Senator Obama taking independents, moderates and centrists away from the Republicans, moderate Republican candidates lost their seats, leaving the ones with more partisan and radical agendas in place… the House is in danger of becoming a battlefield of ideological divisiveness, with a Democratic majority tempted into bullying an increasingly bitter Republican minority into submission.

…

This is where Senator McCain will find his role and true test, as it is not yet his time to fade away."

November 25

"We will be talking about "Obama Republicans" for some time to come, as these policies offer in the mid and long term more fiscal responsibility than the debt neutrality and natural business cycle principles that characterized Reaganomics (i.e. “unmanageable” market forces)."

December 6

"(If) protecting obsolescing products and technologies were policy, we would still be using typewriters and continue using instamatic and Polaroid cameras forever.

…

This brings us back to the example at hand: should we let the auto industry sink? Maybe, but surely we must not let it crash."

THE BIG NULLIFICATION

Nullification is the new word creeping into the talking points and vocabulary of Trump supporters. The word is meant to convey that Trump's enemies are trying to reverse the will of the voters in the 2016 election.  It is a word meant to spin the case against impeachment and its users seek to include it in the conversation as "received wisdom."

A Little Background
In October and November 2016, with the polls indicating that a Hillary Clinton presidency was all but inevitable, the Republican Party was preparing its opposition plan for the following four years. They planned to create a “living hell” for the next president of the United States, vowing not to approve any Supreme Court nominee over the next four years and preparing a draft of articles of impeachment based on “her e-mails and other crimes” shortly after inauguration.

Congressional Republicans publicly floating support for this notion at the time included Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee), Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), and Reps. Michael McCaul (R-TX), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Peter King ((R-NY), among others. In late October and early November 2016, talk radio was all abuzz about the upcoming impeachment. Of course, Candidate Donald Trump weighed in:

"Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency, and if she were elected, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis. You know it’s going to happen. And in all fairness, we went through it with her husband. He was impeached. ... Folks, do we want to go through this again?" (Trump rally in Florida, Nov. 2, 2016)

That Republican Party's position was in line with their historical opposition to the presidency of Obama, an obstruction plan fraught on the same night he was inaugurated for his first term. This time however, as opposed as to when Obama was elected in 2008, they controlled the House. 

Representative Chaffetz said about the expected Clinton presidency: “Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years of material lined up.” As Chairman of the Oversight Committee he already had several years’ experience on partisan obstruction, having led the investigation of Secretary of State Clinton on Benghazi (in one of seven congressional committee investigations into the matter) and her emails. Then came the surprising victory by Donald Trump, who obtained 46.1% of the vote and 304 Electoral votes, while Clinton had 48.2% of the vote but only 227 Electoral College votes. Rep. Chaffetz left Congress shortly thereafter to join Fox News.

Representing the Will of the Electorate

This talk about nullification brings scrutiny to the way public officials are elected. The “will of the voters” most direct measurement is votes cast and that, perhaps, should be the standard. While the Electoral College is representative of “the will of the voters” in landslide victories, this is not the case for close calls. A recent study by M. Geruso et al, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER, analyzes statistically how the Electoral College is more likely to overturn the will of the voters, so-called “inversions”, in close elections.  That is, the Electoral College is more likely to “nullify” elections than impeachment proceedings, which have resulted in zero removals from office for a president. Inversions have actually resulted in four presidents winning the Electoral College but not the popular vote. It is estimated that 40% of elections in which the popular vote difference is 1% (less than 1.3 million votes in 2016) can result in that outcome, i.e. nearly half. In recent times this has occurred twice, in 2000 and in 2016. It also happened in 1876 (S. Tilden 50.9%, RB Hayes 47.9% - Hayes became president), and in 1888 (G. Cleveland 48.6%, B Harrison 47.8% - Harrison became president)[1].  Furthermore, the statistical analysis as applied to our current electoral demographics and map indicates a 65% chance of any Republican presidential candidate emerging victorious, even when losing the popular vote by a 3% margin.

These distortions of representation “trickle down” to the House of Representatives, but by a different mechanism: Gerrymandering. Over the last 10 Congressional elections, three have resulted in Democratic majorities and seven in Republican ones. The average popular vote resulting in a majority for the Democrats has been 53%, resulting on an average House majority of 55.6%, a two and a half point spread. The average popular vote resulting in a House majority for the Republicans is 49.5% for a House majority of 54%, a 4.5% spread. This spread increased substantially after the redistricting of the 2010 census, as Republican led state houses gerrymandered many congressional districts to their favor.

	Democrat			Republican			All Reps
	Pop Vote	Reps	D Caucus	Pop Vote	Reps	R Caucus
2000	47.10%	212	48.96%	47.60%	221	51.04%	433
2002	45.20%	205	47.24%	50.00%	229	52.76%	434
2004	46.80%	202	46.54%	49.40%	232	53.46%	434
2006	52.30%	233	53.56%	44.30%	202	46.44%	435
2008	53.20%	257	59.08%	42.60%	178	40.92%	435
2010	44.90%	193	44.37%	51.70%	242	55.63%	435
2012	48.80%	201	46.21%	47.60%	234	53.79%	435
2014	45.50%	188	43.72%	51.20%	242	56.28%	430
2016	48.00%	194	44.60%	49.10%	241	55.40%	435
2018	53.40%	235	54.15%	44.80%	199	45.85%	434
Win AVGs	52.97%		55.60%	49.51%		54.05%

(Since 2010, the one D led House had a +0.75% relative to the popular vote, while the R led Houses had an average +5.38 spread)

Voters perceive these representation distortions and react accordingly, because they become voting disincentives. Voter turnout is pushed down by these mechanisms as people think that, after all, their vote will not really count. People in a “Blue” or “Red” State or Congressional District will believe, with logic and reason, that their vote does not make a difference in the final outcome as the Electoral Votes or the party majority in their CD is, essentially, predetermined (“rigged”?). The “Voice of America” is stifled.

 When it comes to presidential elections, the Electoral College has created an institutional monster: “Swing States,” with their “Swing Districts.” These so called electoral battlegrounds result in other regions of the country being almost ignored by the campaigns. Jamelle Bouie has written a well-reasoned argument about the nationwide coalitions of interests that would make it to the national discussion in a campaign, instead of local state issues if it were not because of Electoral College politicking (The Electoral College is the Greatest Threat to Our Democracy). Farmers in Iowa and Ohio have the same type of challenges as those in Kansas or New York, but the latter two are ignored, while the former ones are courted in retail politics. The same happens with urban problems of Atlanta or Detroit, or in the manufacturing plants of South Carolina and California, national issues being addressed in a skewed manner--only looking at the trees, not the forest. Many solutions have been offered to this slow creeping poison in our democracy, which creates divisiveness and apathy simultaneously, from the National Popular Vote Compact, to apportioning by Congressional District (for example Maine and Nebraska), to Constitutional Amendments (of which over 100 have been offered). 

The end result of this electoral model has been simultaneous growth of voter apathy and sectarian divide. The political consequence is the creation of partisan factions which drive the discourse and increased frequency of impeachment calls. We have been seeing this happen over the last twenty five years or so, like a frog in slowly heating water.  

Impeachment as a Political Crisis

The calls for impeachment before the expected victory of Clinton have not been the only instance of Republicans calling for this constitutional remedy. It is significant that during the first two years of Obama’s presidency, with the Democrats controlling the House, national opinion polls found that 35% of Republicans favored impeaching the president, even though there were not any ongoing investigations of any sort. Reasons given for opening impeachment inquiries during the Obama years ranged from the “Climate-gate” email controversy, the methodology used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to measure jobs, the response to the BP Oil Spill, undermining US security by brokering a prisoner exchange of an army soldier for five Guantanamo detainees, to his “foreign” birthplace; and, of course, Benghazi.

Using impeachment calls as a political rallying cry is a signal of the toxic divisiveness underlying the body politic (more on this) and originated in the poisoned well of faulty representation. Out of 45 presidents, thirteen have had inquiries or resolutions introduced in the House calling for their impeachment, including all eight since Ronald Reagan (Iran-Contra). Typically the underlying offenses have been abuse of power or corruption. The case of Hillary Clinton is unprecedented in that calls for her impeachment were being made before she had been elected. 

The increasing use of impeachment threats based on political interest or bias has cleft the nation into sectarian partisanship. The political discourse and rhetoric has shifted, characterizing opposition sympathizers and leaders as enemies, not just adversaries. This political and sectarian nature of impeachment had been forewarned by Alexander Hamilton:

“Pre-existing factions … [agitating passions and dividing the community] into parties more or less friendly, or inimical, to the accused... [enlisting] animosities, partialities, influence and interest on one side or the other … [result in ] the greatest danger, … [that] the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, [rather] than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”[2]

Differences of opinions on how to reach national goals have been colored by partisan politics, but the primary goal remains: a better and more secure future for generations to come.[3] 

If, as Hamilton feared, the final result is not dependent on “the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt,” we are in for a rough ride descending further into an abyss of sectarian partisanship enmity, as opposed to politically adversarial relationships. The feared trauma to the country associated with impeachment has actually been with us for more than twenty years. This is truly it: we have been living “the trauma of impeachment” far too long.

But if the Trump impeachment results in his removal from office, it may be a sign that the country is beginning to heal from the sectarian sickness vise which grips it, because it will have demonstrated a resolve of purpose beyond partisanship. The blatant and clear unfitness of Trump as president of the United States and leader of the free world allows for a constitutional remedy that forces unity and can bring an end to the dark era of divisiveness. And it is time for it to end.

Some more essays:
On party rule: "A Weak Democracy"

On impeachment: "We'll See What Happens...."

All on Elections and Other Complications of Democracy

---

[1] The 1824 election of John Quincy Adams (30.9% of the vote vs Andrew Jackson with 41.4%) is not comparable to the other four, because it was so split between all the candidates that it was decided by a final vote in the House of Representatives.

[2] Federalist 65

[3] Or, as Thomas Jefferson said, “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

All illustrations copyright their respective authors.

Frankenstein's Monster Redux - Wrecking Havoc from Day One.

Nearly eight years ago, on the evening of Inauguration Day 2009, a group of leading Republicans gathered for dinner and vowed to make the president inaugurated that same day a one term president. President Obama had nominated to the Cabinet two Republicans (including the Secretary of Defense) and reached across the aisle in his Inauguration Speech to champion a government for all Americans. But his presidency was to be undermined from day one by the dogged pursuit of the political goal of restoring a Republican to the White House above all. This in spite of the U.S. being involved in two ground wars and in the depth of an economic recession the likes of which had not been seen since the Great Depression. A situation that would seem to clamor for bipartisanship.

The conspiracy begat that evening eventually led to, among other things, the scuttling of the budget deal and the demonization of immigration reform, as well as to a few government shutdowns. The Republican opposition to President Obama relished, encouraged, grew and supported factions and groups that distorted his origins, mocked his race in the most disturbing ways and generally were visceral and toxic to government institutions in general and the president in particular.

The environment emanating from such confrontational partisanship is at the root of destructive interactions between and within our political parties. It is an environment that, fueled by the contrived hyperbole of fringe media (radio and on-line), desensitizes a basic sense of civility that allows social co-existence. Incendiary talk radio and web sites that are just a notch below in their rhetoric of the ones used by Hutus in Rwanda or Serbs in Bosnia to inspire genocidal rampages have become increasingly pervasive in the partisan dialogue and in social media. And with no doubt within this environment we can find the origin of that political Frankenstein monster: Mr. Donald Trump. A creature nurtured by an unfettered sense of entitlement, a sublimated inferiority complex and a craving for attention at any price. A creature pieced together and supported by a coalition of people exactly like him showcasing in social media and any other vehicle they may find their blinder constrained narcissism. These are not Bush or Romney Republicans, not Reagan or Clinton Democrats, confrontational and antagonistic, but they are politically alienated, for lack of a better word, anarchists.  Après nous, le déluge!

Trump’s claim to fame and biggest selling point is that he is a successful businessman, that he knows how to run a business, knows about money and that it is time someone with his credentials ran the country.  Setting aside the fact that he has not demonstrated that he has had the acumen to use his inherited fortune to grow it over market returns (without bilking thousands of customers, contractors and even state and federal government), the notion that a nation can be run like a business is spurious. The last time that was attempted here was by Calvin Coolidge and it led to the Great Depression.

A successful business is a closed system with a clear goal: survive market competition and the innovation forces of creative destruction to maximize the profits to its limited number of shareholders.  A successful nation is an open system that by regulating market failures, externalities and common goods seeks to maximize the well-being of all its citizens. The set of skills and knowledge that lead to success in one endeavor are not the same for the other.

If it were granted that Trump has been a successful CEO, to transfer his skill set to running the government could lead to the worst cases of influence peddling and conflicts of interest since Spiro Agnew (when America was great?). In a perfectly logical pursuit of benefitting his present and future investments, decisions impacting markets and regulations would be taken in “best for the business” mode, disregarding the overarching economic and political reasons for national government.

Of course, that is what some in the Republican leadership are counting on. Not that Trump will use the government to benefit himself personally (like any businessman would naturally tend to do), but that his lack of skills for governing will force Trump to call on them for assistance in running the country--at which point they will just tell him what to do. This party leadership tries to convince itself and a diminishing group of their followers that Trump is “politically manageable.” However that, a risky proposition at best, does not account for the obvious personality traits embodied in Trump.

Because power limits through checks and balances do exist, a temperament recognizing such limits and acquiescing to this most basic tenet of our government is one of the fundamental reasons to choose a candidate over another. Trump has made clear he does not believe in limits to his use and manipulation of power. The latest evidence of his sense of entitled power and his willingness to abuse it is the “Access Hollywood” video where he says: “And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.” 

President Trump as a risky proposition does not even begin to describe the possible scenarios of uncontrolled abuse of power that could occur with a White House occupied by an unapologetic reckless bully. A bully directly descended and nurtured by the blind partisan interest wrought upon the nation that cold January evening in 2009. This is a risk that America should not allow itself to take. It has a lot to lose.

All images copyright their respective owners,

My Correspondence on Iran with Congressman Ted Deutch

Honorable Congressman Deutch:

As your constituent and supporter I am disappointed. You have stated clearly your active opposition to the multinational accord hammered together by the JCPOA that in effect turns back the clock on Iran’s potential nuclear weapons capability. I believe your position is wrong.

The United States, you know well as member of the FA committee, is not alone in the world, and that works both ways. All other signatories of the accord, and most importantly, France, Russia and China, will lift all sanctions and restrictions in the short term whether there is an accord or not. This makes it imperative to have an accord that allows stringent verification and inspection of potential nuclear plans in Iran by the IAEC and other relevant multinational organizations. The aggregate opinions of former US Ambassadors to the UN, Secretaries of State from both parties, the leadership of the armed forces, and nuclear scientists and physics Nobel laureates clearly are an indicator that this is a good deal for America and the world. By taking sides against it you cater to some of your constituency no doubt and, definitely, to many of your campaign contributors. But this is not leadership on your side, it is a surrender of courage.

As a supporter of democracy, peace and common sense I urge you to reconsider the options. If the US Congress rejects the deal and overrides a presidential veto—which could happen—then the other members of the JCPOA will lose any and all reason to comply with any of the intentions of the accord and Iran (according to leading nuclear scientists) will have nuclear weapon capability within weeks. Negotiating with Iran if it has a nuclear arsenal will be extremely harder than negotiating with them without one.

You are personally and directly responsible for opening this window of opportunity that weakens America’s standing with its allies and endangers the world. The opposition to this accord is similar in tone and source as that of the Republican Party regarding the ACA: it is a bad law that needs to be repealed and replaced with an undefined “better” one. Demagoguery at its peak. Pandering to contributors at its worst.

Sincerely,

Carlos J. Rangel 

ON SEPTEMBER 1st CONGRESSMAN DEUTCH REPLIED:

September 1, 2015

Mr. Carlos J. Rangel
[ADDRESS DELETED]

Dear Mr. Rangel:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the recent agreement between the P5+1 (United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China) and Iran over its illicit nuclear program.  Your views on this issue are very important to me, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

As a Florida State Senator and now as a Member of Congress, I try to apply the same process to every issue: study it, consult experts, speak with constituents, and then do what I believe is best for our country. That's why I have spent so much of my time in Congress fighting to expand Social Security, defeat trade deals that disadvantage American workers, and get big money out of our elections. I have also devoted myself to strengthening our national security, from speaking loudly and unapologetically on behalf of global human rights to working with our allies to take on common threats like terrorism, fundamentalism, and poverty.

For ten years now, I have been deeply engaged in issues related to Iran's illicit nuclear weapons program. During my time in the Florida Senate, American soldiers were being killed in Iraq, a war we should have never started, and often by Iranian proxy groups. Iran was evading weapons inspectors, using the Islamic Revolutionary Guard to launch attacks, and funneling missiles to Hamas and Hezbollah. That's why I passed the law that made Florida the first state in the country to prevent taxpayer funds from financing Iran's illicit quest for nuclear weapons - divesting $1.5 billion as a result.

Since arriving in Congress in 2010, I have helped pass federal laws exposing business dealings in Iran, cracking down on Iranian human rights abusers, and applying crippling sanctions to Iran's oil and gas industries. These were among some of the powerful sanctions responsible for driving Iran to the negotiating table.

Throughout the P5+1 talks with Iran, I remained in close contact with President Barack Obama's negotiating team, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Energy Ernie Moniz, and Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew. During these many conversations, I laid out several issues that I felt had to be addressed for any potential agreement with Iran to move forward. On July 14, 2015, it was announced that the P5+1 and Iran had reached a final agreement over its illicit nuclear program. The language of the deal was delivered to Congress, along with classified and unclassified annexes to the deal. After a 60-day congressional review period, a vote will be held on this agreement this September.


Assessing this proposed nuclear deal with Iran is not a role that I take lightly, especially with four Americans, including my constituent Bob Levinson, currently held in Iran.

I also want you to know that I share the Obama Administration's commitment to a peaceful and diplomatic solution with Iran, and wholeheartedly reject the notion that the only alternative to this deal is war.

Too many of my colleagues in Congress are trying to turn this vote into a partisan fight. They should stop. I still believe that people of good faith can disagree honestly. For weeks, I have reviewed this agreement in classified intelligence briefings, met with European and Middle East ambassadors and other foreign officials, and held discussions with security and nuclear experts on this deal's terms.

These discussions have ultimately led me to conclude that several of the issues I have long raised as critical to any deal are not adequately addressed in this agreement. I cannot support it in its current form. While the deal restrains the Iranian nuclear program by restricting the amount of enriched uranium that Iran can keep in the country and limiting the number of advanced centrifuges capable of enrichment, it also includes several provisions that I believe undermine its enforceability.

Given Iran's history of cheating, evading, and delegitimizing international weapons inspectors, I am alarmed by the fact that this deal makes reinstating sanctions of today's intensity nearly impossible. Instead of front-loading sanctions relief to Iran, this deal should have required the incremental lifting of sanctions in return for Iran meeting strict benchmarks. The lack of anytime, anywhere access to known and unknown sites only invites Iran to cheat with the knowledge it can walk away from this agreement at any time and with billions of dollars in sanctions relief in tow.

Likewise, the unwarranted giveaways for Iran tucked inside this deal are also concerning. Lifting the arms embargo in five years lets Iran procure the sophisticated missile defense systems they need to guard the nuclear weapons they want. And suspending the ballistic weapons ban after eight years allows Iran to develop the technology to deliver a weapon anywhere in the world.

Finally, this deal may temporarily slow Iran's nuclear enrichment, but it speeds up the enrichment of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Iranian terror proxies that endanger security and stability in the Middle East. Opening Iran up to foreign investment, increasing its oil exports, and unfreezing over $100 billion in assets means more money to Hamas for building terror tunnels in Gaza, more weapons for Hezbollah in Lebanon, more slaughter at the hands of Bashar al Assad in Syria, and more violence worldwide.

As a believer in diplomacy and international cooperation, arriving at this decision was not an easy one. And while we may end up on different sides of this debate, I know that the times we agree will still far outnumber the times we don't.
Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions you may have or anytime I may be of assistance to you.  If you would like to be updated on these and other issues, please stop by my website (www.deutch.house.gov) and sign up for my electronic newsletter.  I hope you will find these tools to be valuable resources in keeping up with events in Washington and South Florida.

Sincerely,
^
Ted Deutch
Member of Congress


TD/cj


MY REPLY ON SEPTEMBER 2nd:

Honorable Congressman Deutch:

Thank you for your long and detailed response to my letter regarding the JCPOA agreement, otherwise known as “The Iran Deal.”  I understand your position yet still disagree with it. I sympathize and share with your feelings and misgivings, including the anger for our neighbor Bob Levinson’s captivity. But I do feel that, down the road, a spelled out and engaged relationship is a better path to achieve America’s security, peace and other goals.

Treaties, pacts, agreements and understandings are the closest thing to laws that exist in the international community. Opposing a law because it is believed that in the future it will be broken is a spurious argument. Laws require sanctions in order to be effective. From what has been publicly disclosed and internationally agreed by all parties and the UN, this agreement has an automatic, non-negotiable snap back sanction mechanism. The absence of law—or any true possibility of having a “better one”—is many times worse than a law that is difficult to enforce.

Of course there are factions within Iran that will try to use this deal to “enrich” their own terrorist objectives and infrastructure. But it is easier to detect, control, rein in and eventually make irrelevant those objectives if Iranian society is fully engaged internationally as opposed to existing in isolation as a rogue state.  As you say, people of good faith can have true disagreements. Countries can have these as well, yet coexist pacifically. That must be the long term objective: creating conditions and removing obstacles for such coexistence. We have to believe that with its intelligence capabilities, the savviness of its diplomacy and business community, as well as its “big stick,” America is strong enough to lead in this course of action.

Your description of your level of study and consultation invested in this matter seems to suggest that you know things that are not known to the general public with no access to such classified matters and high level conversations.  Your history in legislative actions targeting Iran also gives you credentials in the matter, no doubt. It is when such level of involvement exists that decision making tends to set root safely in past actions, alliances and precedent. This instead of “choosing to cut loose the shackles of the past,” as has been said by Mr. Obama. Indeed, it is sometimes hard to see the forest when focusing on the trees.

As always, with my continued support,

Carlos J. Rangel