Why Is Heidi Heitkamp Enabling Donald Trump?

Why Is Heidi Heitkamp Enabling Donald Trump?

Why Is Heidi Heitkamp Enabling Donald Trump?

Her party, the North Dakota DemocraticNonpartisan League, has a rich history of opposing war hawks. She should have stuck with it instead of backing Pompeo.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

Even before Kentucky Senator Rand Paul announced his support for war hawk Mike Pompeo, whatever momentum might have developed for rejecting his nomination as secretary of state was thwarted when a Democrat, North Dakota Senator Heidi Heitkamp, announced that she would be voting for Pompeo. Heitkamp based her embrace of Trump’s noxious nominee on the absurd premise that the president is “entitled to his own cabinet”—an indefensible surrender to the White House that rejects the basic premises of congressional oversight in favor of an imperial presidency.

Heitkamp’s decision cleared the way for other red-state Democrats who are up for reelection this year, most notably West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, to endorse Pompeo’s selection.

In taking the position that she did, and announcing it at such an early stage in the debate over Pompeo, Heitkamp broke faith not merely with the principled resistance to Trump and Trumpism but with the common-sense traditions of her own North Dakota DemocraticNonpartisan League Party. Like the Minnesota DemocraticFarmer-Labor Party, the North Dakota DemocraticNPL Party was created decades ago through the merger of activists who were aligned with the national Democratic Party and supporters of a mid-20th-century progressive populist movement.

The old North Dakota Nonpartisan League was deeply skeptical about military interventionism and war profiteering. Before and during World War I, party leaders complained about “big bellied, red-necked plutocrats” drawing the United States into distant conflicts and called for “the conscription of wealth.”

In the aftermath of the war, North Dakota Senator Gerald Nye, who had roots in the Nonpartisan League movement, led a long investigation into war profiteering. And the skepticism about military interventions and military spending remained very much alive in the DemocraticNPL Party after the merger of the Democrats and the Nonpartisan League in the 1950s. Notably, DemocraticNPL Senator Quentin Burdick was a steady critic of the Vietnam War. He also cast a critical vote against authorizing President George H.W. Bush to go to war in Iraq in 1991—just as DemocraticNPL Senator Kent Conrad cast a courageous vote against authorizing George W. Bush to go to war in Iraq in 2002.

Conrad was clear in his understanding of the right and the responsibility of Congress to prevent presidents from steering the country into needless conflicts, as he was on the need to explore every alternative before launching a new one. Warning that an invasion of Iraq could lead to a long and costly occupation, and that it could also destabilize the region and lead to the spread of terrorism, Conrad said, “I know that this vote [against the authorization of the use of military force] will place me with a small minority of my colleagues. But I must vote my conscience.”

On that fateful day in 2002, when so many Democrats got things so very wrong, Senator Conrad spoke the historic language of the North Dakota DemocraticNonpartisan League and of the prairie populist tradition that had always been willing to check and balance the excesses of the executive branch—and that had been especially willing to do so on matters of war and peace.

In supporting the nomination of an enthusiastic militarist like Pompeo, when even conservatives were questioning it, Senator Heitkamp spoke a different and disappointing language—that of the Washington insiders who can always find an excuse for tossing aside the Constitution in their rush to empower new presidents to wage new wars.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x