[scarmig]

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.

[GVIrish]

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.

[pvnick]

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.

[entee]

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.

[entee]

Note that I think mostly Republicans seem to be on board with NATO, Trump is outside the mainstream of all the parties there.

[scarmig]

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.

[pvnick]

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.

[tanilama]

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.

[rayiner]

> Other countries don't care about post-facto rationalizations by partisans to demonize the other side in domestic policies.

Which is a key reason why international cooperation is so dangerous. It's insensitive to domestic politics and law.

[scarmig]

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).

[rayiner]

The U.K. just pulled out of the EU because it was panicked about supernational institutions coopting democracy.

[gonvaled]

There are things that must be dealt with at the international level.

[unityByFreedom]

Not cooperating is more dangerous - - as far as blanket statements go.