Election Results: More of the Same

By Dennis J. Wamsted

Following an eight-year apprenticeship, Vice President George Bush cruised to victory in the November 8 presidential race. Democrats added one seat in the Senate, and will enjoy a 55-to-45 margin when the 101st Congress convenes in January. Similarly, Democrats added five seats in the House, boosting their margin to 262 Democrats to 173 Republicans.

The results make it impossible for either party to claim a political mandate. Neither President Bush nor the Democratically-controlled Congress will be able to carry out their policies without the agreement, or at the very least the acquiescence, of the other. This de facto policy check will play a key role in the 1989 debates on such issues as the budget deficit, taxes, defense and entitlement spending, environmental policy, and the Middle East.

If the need to safeguard its political capital dampens the administration's interest in pursuing politically unpopular initiatives in the Middle East, the electoral standoff will likely work to the detriment of America's relations with the Arab and Islamic world.

Closer Look

Notwithstanding the electoral status quo, there were a number of fascinating individual races that merit discussion.

Senator John Chafee's (R-RI) surprisingly easy 54-to-46 percent victory over challenger Richard Licht, Rhode Island's popular lieutenant governor, has crucial long-term ramifications for US Middle East policy. It demonstrates conclusively that the powerful pro-Israel lobby, which had targeted Senator Chafee for defeat, is not invincible.

Chafee earned the wrath of the pro-Israel lobby, led by the American/Israel Public Affairs Committee, back in 1981 when he cast a key vote in favor of President Reagan's multibillion dollar arms package to Saudi Arabia (which included a number of Airborne Warning and Control System planes). Beyond that vote, Chafee largely avoided Middle East issues, concentrating instead on environmental policy. Still, the lobby demands complete fealty. Hence the decision to back Licht—who in addition to being a popular Democrat also happens to be Jewish.

Backing from the 80-plus pro-Israel PACs and pro-Israel individual contributors around the country played a crucial role in Licht's campaign. Indeed, the Democratic challenger actually raised and spent more money in 1987-1988 than his incumbent opponent—a feat that is virtually unheard of in modern US politics. Specifically, through September 30 (the latest date for which Federal Election Commission figures are available, Licht had received $172,000 from pro-Israel PACs—an astonishing sum from any single special interest group.

Despite this enviable degree of outside support, Licht was unable to pull ahead of the two-term Republican—even though Rhode Islanders voted strongly for Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis.

A similarly promising development occurred in Rep. James Traficant's (D-OH) reelection campaign. Traficant, one of the limited number of congressmen willing to criticize Israel publicly, was reelected by a virtual landslide-winning 75 percent of the votes in his eastern Ohio district.

AIPAC Power Waning?

Traficant went public with his criticism of Israel's hard-line policies in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip earlier this year. In March he called on his congressional colleagues "to speak out against the abuses of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. A roar of outrage should be the voice of the House, and everybody should hear it." Later, Traficant called for selfdetermination for Palestinians, noting that they too have a right to freedom. Not surprisingly, his Republican opponent in this year's election tried to use Traficant's evenhanded approach against him, arguing that the Ohio Democrat's policies could undermine a "special relationship" between the US and Israel. That demagoguery failed. Apparently mindful of Traficant's popularity in Ohio, AIPAC didnot become involved in any special activities to unseat the popular Democrat.

Notwithstanding these signs that AIPAC's power to intimidate may be waning, the Israel lobby played a key role in successful reelection campaigns of several influential pro-Israel senators and representatives. In particular, pro-Israel PAC donations boosted the campaigns of Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH). Both outspokenly pro-Israel members of Congress were caught in tight reelection battles. Metzenbaum collected over $200,000 from pro-Israel PACs, while his Republican opponent George Voinovich received nothing. Lautenberg, who is a member of the Senate Appropriations important foreign operations subcommittee, raked in about $150,000 from pro-Israel PACs. His Republican opponent, Pete Dawkins, was shut out, despite attempts to depict himself as even more protective of Israel than his Jewish opponent. Metzenbaum garnered 57 percent of the vote in Ohio. Lautenberg won 54 percent of the New Jersey vote.

Two other Senate races deserve mention, although their long-term ramifications are unclear. In Connecticut, Republican Senator Lowell Weicker was defeated by Joseph Leiberman, the state's two-time attorney general. Weicker lost by only 11,000 votes. Interestingly, Weicker, who is not Jewish but has a long record of support for Israel, received about $100,000 from pro-Israel PACs during the campaign. Lieberman, who is Jewish, received little. Most pro-Israel political action committees have been advised by AIPAC to support incumbents who vote for foreign aid and against arms sales to Arab states even where the challenger is Jewish and the incumbent is not.

Similarly, in Nevada, Republican Senator Chic Hecht was defeated in a close race by Democratic Governor Richard Bryan. Hecht, who is Jewish, was unable to tap into the pro-Israel money tree, while his opponent, who is not Jewish, was the beneficiary of substantial pro-Israel support. Like Chafee, Hecht was targeted by the lobby because he voted in favor of Reagan Administration arms sales proposals for Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

A House In Statis

In sharp contrast with the turnover in the Senate, virtually all of those House incumbents running were reelected. However, there is one key change that may have some impact on US policy toward the Middle East. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the House's most outspoken supporters of Israel and an influential member of the Appropriations Committee's foreign operations subcommittee, will not return in the 101st Congress. The conservative New Yorker made a run for the Republican presidential nomination in late 1987 and early 1988, and withdrew from the House race. His replacement on the committee remains uncertain at present.

Committee Previews

With the exception of Rep. Kemp, all of the members of the key Senate and House subcommittees—particularly the two appropriations subcommittees with responsibility for foreign aid and the two foreign affairs subcommittees that focus on Middle East affairs—were returned to the 101st Congress. However, leadership elections and committee membership and party ratios have not yet been finalized so the exact make-up of these influential panels may change in the months ahead.

Dennis J Wamsted is a free-lance writer specializing in Middle East affairs and the US Congress.