Conscientious objector: when a GOP senator breaks ranks.

          I love and respect the president. He knows my heart.
                        I don't think he questions my motives.
                      --U.S. Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio)
                                                  May 25, 2005

Senator George Voinovich has served the Republican Party loyally for twenty-five years, as mayor of Cleveland, governor of Ohio, and now as junior senator from that state. His conservative credentials are hard to dispute; he routinely receives high marks from the Christian Coalition and the John Birch Society. Yet in June, Voinovich found himself at the center of a conservative feeding frenzy. What was his crime? As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he suggested that the nomination of John Bolton for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations go to the Senate floor for a vote without a positive recommendation from the committee. In other words, he was willing to let the democratic process take its course and allow each individual senator to make up his or her own mind about Bolton. With the chamber divided at 55-45 in favor of the Republicans, this should have been a minor inconvenience at most. Yet for Voinovich's sins, Rush Limbaugh has accused him of "slander," party loyalists screamed for his ouster, and a few vitriolic conservative bloggers called him a "traitor" and a "coward."

One can understand why Bolton's candidacy gave Voinovich pause. Bolton, who was recently given a "recess appointment" as UN ambassador by President George W. Bush when the Senate went into its summer break, has publicly dismissed the importance of the United Nations and, as under secretary for arms control and international security, he was instrumental in keeping the United States from signing the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Why Bush chose someone so opposed to international cooperation for a post devoted precisely to that task is a puzzle.

The episode serves as a fascinating case study in Republican attitudes toward loyalty. For the president's political guru Karl Rove and company, loyalty is both the first virtue and the last. Given that premium on loyalty, we might ask what price a conscientious objector in the Republican Party has to pay for bucking the president's wishes--in other words, what is the cost of "disloyalty"? There are several good candidates for exploring this question. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, is one. His recent flip flop on stem-cell research caused consternation in the White House. But the Bolton nomination produced perhaps the most heart-wrenching example in the person of George Voinovich.

For those unfamiliar with the second-term senator, Voinovich is a longtime Republican politician whose first big political win came in 1979 at the expense of the staunch Democrat, Dennis Kucinich, whom he defeated for mayor of Cleveland. After serving in that post for ten years and revitalizing the city, Voinovich was elected lieutenant governor and subsequently governor. Governor Voinovich was widely rumored to be on Bob Dole's short-short list for vice president in 1996. In 1998, he replaced four-term Senator John Glenn, a Democrat, who had chosen not to seek reelection. Voinovich was reelected in 2004 with widespread support and well over 60 percent of the vote.

Before the Bolton controversy, Voinovich was probably best know for his ultra-conservative fiscal philosophy. He received high ratings from several conservative groups, including the Christian Coalition (100), the Eagle Forum (also 100), the American Conservative Union (76), and the John Birch Society (80). In addition, Voinovich has consistently scored 100 on the National Right to Life Committee's annual scorecard and recently received a score of 0 from NARAL Pro-Choice America.

On a recent broadcast of PBS's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Voinovich explained his reservations about the Bolton nomination. He argued that Bolton had failed to pass "the kitchen test"--that is, the senator would not want Bolton (who is reportedly difficult to work with) hanging out in his kitchen. Bolton simply does not have the necessary social skills to be the leading diplomat representing the nation. There were, of course, other key questions concerning Bolton's positions on various issues, as well as his handling of subordinates. Taken together, Voinovich felt, Bolton clearly failed to possess the minimal qualifications for the job. "Frankly, I went in there to support him," Voinovich said of his decision to stand against his Republican cohorts in the Foreign Relations Committee. After hearing the concerns of some of his Democratic colleagues, however, he changed his mind. After one crucial meeting concerning the Bolton nomination, Voinovich says he apologized to the committee chairman, Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who was apparently caught off guard by Voinovich's dissenting vote. "I just, you know, came here to do what I think is right," Voinovich reportedly told Lugar. "Something inside of me said this is not right. It's not right." The match was lit and the firestorm began.

A month later, as the controversy swirled and the pressure increased, Voinovich distributed a letter to his Senate colleagues defending his continued opposition to Bolton and pleaded with them to "set aside our partisan agenda and let our consciences and our shared commitment to our nation's interest guide us." Claiming that "it is imperative that we have the support of our friends and allies internationally ... built upon robust and effective public diplomacy," Voinovich went on to say, "It is my concern that John Bolton's nomination sends a negative message to the world community and contradicts the president's efforts. In these dangerous times, we cannot afford to put our nation's ability to successfully wage and win the war on terror with a controversial and ineffective ambassador to the United Nations." He then asked his colleagues: "Is John Bolton the best person to serve as the lead diplomat at the United Nations? Does he have the character, leadership, interpersonal skills, self-discipline, common decency, and understanding of the chain of command to lead his team to victory?"

The price Voinovich had to pay for his relatively modest stand was evident two days after the publication of this open letter. Bowed but not broken, Voinovich took to the Senate floor and choked back tears while explaining to his colleagues and the world: "I know, some of my friends say, 'Let it go, George. It's going to work out.' I don't want to take the risk. I came back here and ran for a second term because I'm worried about my kids and my grandchildren. And I just hope my colleagues will take the time ... and do some serious thinking about whether or not we should send John Bolton to the United Nations." His impassioned plea did not fall on deaf ears, but it is also clear that this "disloyalty" will not be forgotten. There is already talk among both national and Ohio Republicans that Voinovich's defiance will not go unpunished.

The Voinovich affair is, unfortunately, a sad and familiar tale. In it, we see a picture of power so frail that it can tolerate no dissent or departure from orthodoxy. The president's isolated position has made it impossible for him to recognize who his real friends are--or to recognize the pretenders and sycophants around him. Leaving aside the fact that George Voinovich was attempting to save the president from himself, and the country from national embarrassment, the lack of honest fraternity within the majority party should give Republicans and everyone else serious pause. To be sure, most Democrats will find it hard to muster much sympathy for this apparently internecine struggle. Still, we should all worry if this is how the administration treats its friends. While I do not share many of Voinovich's political positions, I do share his fear and his disappointment. I also applaud his courage. His friends, it would seem, do not know how lucky they are. For today's Republican Party members, it is unclear whether one can be both "conscientious" and an "objector" at the same time. Bad for them, bad for America.

Christopher M. Duncan is chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Dayton.