From the file. Written for the paper dated July 2021. Opened in the public stacks July 14, 2026.
As the nation grapples with its identity, from the halls of Congress to the streets of our cities, the recent push for treaty ratification reveals a troubling tendency: the prioritization of identity politics over tangible evidence and constructive dialogue.
Treaty Ratification: A Necessary Process
The ratification of treaties is a constitutional responsibility that has historically played a significant role in shaping foreign policy and international relations. Yet, in July 2021, as the debate unfolds around various treaties, it appears that the discourse has shifted from the merits of the agreements themselves to the identities of those advocating for or against them. This is a concerning trend that undermines the very essence of democratic debate.
"A treaty is not merely a piece of paper; it is a commitment to our values and our allies." - Anonymous Senator
In recent sessions, it has become all too common for lawmakers to frame their arguments based on group identity rather than the substantive content of the treaties. The left has often championed social justice causes, but in doing so, they sometimes disregard the broader implications of international agreements. On the other hand, the right has been quick to weaponize these identity arguments, often viewing treaties through the lens of nationalism and skepticism towards foreign alliances.
The Left's Identity Politics
Progressives have made significant strides in advocating for treaties that address climate change, human rights, and global health. However, their approach sometimes emphasizes the demographics of treaty supporters rather than the tangible benefits of the treaties themselves. This has led to accusations that they are more interested in scoring political points than in fostering genuine international cooperation.
For instance, the recent climate accord received backlash not solely on its merits but also due to the identities of its proponents. Detractors argued that it was pushed by a coalition of “elites” disconnected from the everyday concerns of working-class Americans. Such framing detracts from the critical discussion on how treaty provisions might help combat climate change, which is an existential threat requiring immediate action.
The Right's Nationalist Response
Conversely, many conservatives have adopted a hyper-nationalistic stance that vilifies any treaty perceived as infringing on American sovereignty. This is not without merit; the concern for national interests is paramount. However, their argument often overlooks the fact that treaties are meant to enhance security and foster cooperation with allies. By dismissing treaties based solely on the identity of their supporters, the right risks isolating the U.S. on the global stage.
Notably, both sides seem to be engaging in a race to the bottom, prioritizing political expediency over the long-term benefits of ratified treaties. This is evident in the recent debates around the proposed agreements with allies and global organizations, where the focus has shifted from strategic alliances to who is advocating for them.
Evidence Over Identity
What should be the focal point of treaty discussions is the evidence supporting their implementation. Treaties should be evaluated based on their potential to promote peace, security, and prosperity. The emphasis should be on the facts - how these agreements will benefit the U.S. and the world at large, rather than on the political affiliations or identities of those involved.
For instance, the recent negotiations on trade agreements have highlighted the importance of collaboration in a globalized economy. Yet, instead of discussing the economic benefits of these agreements, the conversation has devolved into identity battles, with both sides accusing each other of ulterior motives. This not only stalls progress but also alienates the very constituents who would benefit from these treaties.
A Call for Constructive Dialogue
This July, as we witness a contentious political landscape, it is crucial for lawmakers and the public alike to refocus on evidence-based discussions. The ratification of treaties should not be viewed through a lens of identity but rather as an opportunity to strengthen international partnerships. It is time to demand that our representatives prioritize the merits of the treaties over the identities of those advocating for them.
Ultimately, we must strive for a political environment that values constructive dialogue over divisive rhetoric. The nation’s future hinges on our ability to engage with one another in good faith, prioritizing evidence and reason over identity politics. Only then can we truly address the challenges that lie ahead and ensure that our treaties reflect the democratic ideals we hold dear.
✦ ✦ ✦