That is because the previous president decided to unilaterally bind the country to the agreement rather than seek treaty ratification from Congress. It is a risk that ruling by executive decree entails.
I support the Paris Agreement, and I also somewhat agree with this point. I'm sad that the country can't seem to get its act together such that it could actually move this through regular order. Likewise with executive actions. We've gotten to a point where the legislature's navel gazing and strict partisanship makes it impossible to actually get anything done, either conservative or progressive.
As a country we need to be able to have responsible, sober debates and actually vote through policies instead of just working through whoever happens to be in the Oval Office. It's an unstable way to do things.
That said I would argue it's mostly unstable because the Republican party has been hijacked by its extreme right wing. It's astonishing to see that even with control of both houses they can't internally agree on policy enough to get things done. Much less find some sort of bipartisan compromise/consensus. Dems have their problems too, but I think the bulk of the responsibility lies on the very hard right impulses of the likes of the Freedom Caucus and the Ted Cruzes of this world.
The Republican party seems split between the freedom caucus (less government) and the establishment (not sure what they stand for ... Maybe corporate and military interests?). The Democrats are more-or-less unified around the principle of increasing the size and scope of government, particularly at the federal level.
> The Democrats are more-or-less unified around the principle of increasing the size and scope of government, particularly at the federal level.
No, pretty much zero Democrats see increasing the scope of government as principle. You might plausibly argue that most Democrats agree with the statement that there is at least one area where government needs to expand it's size, role, or influence (though they often wouldn't agree on where or why.)
Then again, most Republicans, even much of the Freedom Caucus, agree with that too, which is why despite small government rhetoric they often vote for expansions in defense, law enforcement, and security spending, staffing, and/or powers.
I think there is a difference in principle, but it's not that Democrats have a principle that growing the government is inherently good: it's that they don't have a principle that growing the government is inherently bad, while many Republicans do. Thus, Democrats would consider proposals for spending mostly in terms of their individual benefits and costs, whereas Republicans - at least the consistent ones - would apply those only after starting from a baseline of disfavor. They may still care enough about some spending priorities that they see the good as outweighing the bad: that isn't inherently contradictory, though considering how much we spend on defense, there's certainly room to question whether it's a rational policy overall.
Other countries don't care about post-facto rationalizations by partisans to demonize the other side in domestic policies.
The USA cannot be trusted as an ally. That is the takeaway here. Saying that "but Obama's worse than Trump!!!" isn't changing that and is entirely besides the point.
ETA: And, for what its worth, the Senate ratified NATO, and that hasn't stopped Trump and Republicans from doing their utmost to sabotage it. It's laughable for folks to pretend like this is some deep matter of principle.
I don't think the parent poster was trying to say 'but Obama was worse', he was just pointing at the fact that an Executive Order can be undone by a successor.
Kind of a moot point IMO, given the current state of the GOP. Had Obama gone to Congress they probably would've reflexively voted it down anyway. The current GOP is willing to damage America's trustworthiness on the world stage and this is more proof to the point.
I don't know if most mainstream Republicans would've done something as drastic as this after the accord had been agreed to but Trump is basically the head of the party now so here we are.
If the Congress is unwilling to pass your agenda, then you usually just have to deal with not having your thing. That's the point of separation of powers. Going the extra-constituional route as a matter of course fed the GOP's reflexive opposition.
I don't think that's what "balance" of power means. If you have one branch that for all the things says "NO!", then I think it's natural for the other branch to say, "I'll try it a different way instead of trying to compromise, because there's no point in even trying." That's the implicit threat that makes the legislative and executive branches negotiate and get stuff done.
The difference in the climate today is that one party was essentially saying no to anything Obama might do. Even if they privately agreed or could find some ways to agree with him, they knew that if they so much as smiled in his direction they'd get primaried and kicked out. That climate poisons the relationship between the branches, and gets you to non-standard processes which we can all agree are sub-optimal.
For a balance of powers system to work you need to actually have a working relationship between the branches. It's not going to work if one says, "NO!" then expects the other branch to take their toys and go home. In the real world, we all have to accept compromise toward our objectives, and if we don't we'll get disaster for all our objectives down the line.
Re:NATO, it's an unhappy marriage, I agree. But there's plenty Republicans could be doing that'd be appropriate given how out of bounds Trump is regarding NATO--some kind of censure or resolution--but they're not willing to do it, for the sake of partisan comity.
Congressional Republicans don't like it, but given the set of options they have they choose to allow Trump to take the hatchet to NATO. Standing in the way of that would prevent them from focusing on priorities they place higher than the Transatlantic Alliance.
I do not wish my statement to be taken as a partisan one (although I do admit to being conservative), but rather as a general observation about the dangers of executive decree.
Exactly. If US's as a superpower can flip-flop every 4 years, then any promise it makes in the long term is not trustworthy. A country loses its vision, cannot lead the world. And it will be ludicrous to have a country with severe infighting to determine the future of your own country. That is just too much of a fantasy.
But other countries can and do maintain international commitments and cooperation. The USA did for most of its lifetime. That tool is increasingly less available to the USA, as a result of this (and NATO).
> It is a risk that ruling by executive decree entails.
The problem is the gross disconnect between Local, State, and Federal interests. Polls have support for the Paris agreement well into the majority, beyond the margin for error; were it to head to something like a referendum, the US would have signed onto the Paris agreement.
And even that being the case, President Obama was well aware of the fact that it never would have been ratified by the Senate.
The international credibility problem also reaches critical levels when you consider that the United States has 4 year terms but signs onto 20 year agreements, when the political sphere is so radically split. Every four years, the International community is forced to hold its breath as one of the top world superpowers seemingly flips a coin as to whether or not it will uphold its bargains. It is worth noting that this wasn't always the case; it was standing tradition that you followed through on a previous administration's agreements, simply to maintain credibility.
Whether it is a function of Trump himself, his die-hard base, or a large group of confluent factors (my vote is for this one), this tradition of maintaining credibility despite political cost holds very little water with the current administration. Worse, this is exactly what his base seems to want and clamor for. They are painting a political climate where the country takes a 180 degree turn (rather than, say, a 120 degree curve) every 4 to 8 years.
How long can a country in a global economy at the scale of the United States maintain that strain without snapping? It'll be interesting to watch, if nothing else.
The Paris Agreement is either a treaty all on its own or it's a significant change to an existing treaty. Either way, the US Constitution requires ratification by the Senate.
Other countries such as Brazil had the treaty ratified by their senate.
Arguing that we now have a treaty that allows us to make other treaties without following the Constitutional process ... well.
I think the agreement itself was drafted to specifically avoid having to be considered a new treaty in a US context. So from a legal standpoint, I think it's incorrect to say "this is a treaty and must be ratified by the Senate". I will heartily agree with you that perhaps that shouldn't be the case, and also agree that we need a functional system of government where these machinations aren't necessary to pass policy, but I'm not sure there's a constitutional requirement here per se.
As a country we need to be able to have responsible, sober debates and actually vote through policies instead of just working through whoever happens to be in the Oval Office. It's an unstable way to do things.
That said I would argue it's mostly unstable because the Republican party has been hijacked by its extreme right wing. It's astonishing to see that even with control of both houses they can't internally agree on policy enough to get things done. Much less find some sort of bipartisan compromise/consensus. Dems have their problems too, but I think the bulk of the responsibility lies on the very hard right impulses of the likes of the Freedom Caucus and the Ted Cruzes of this world.