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.

Can we count on you?

In the coming election, the fate of our democracy and fundamental civil rights are on the ballot. The conservative architects of Project 2025 are scheming to institutionalize Donald Trump’s authoritarian vision across all levels of government if he should win.

We’ve already seen events that fill us with both dread and cautious optimism—throughout it all, The Nation has been a bulwark against misinformation and an advocate for bold, principled perspectives. Our dedicated writers have sat down with Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders for interviews, unpacked the shallow right-wing populist appeals of J.D. Vance, and debated the pathway for a Democratic victory in November.

Stories like these and the one you just read are vital at this critical juncture in our country’s history. Now more than ever, we need clear-eyed and deeply reported independent journalism to make sense of the headlines and sort fact from fiction. Donate today and join our 160-year legacy of speaking truth to power and uplifting the voices of grassroots advocates.

Throughout 2024 and what is likely the defining election of our lifetimes, we need your support to continue publishing the insightful journalism you rely on.

Thank you,
The Editors of The Nation

Ad Policy
x