Republicans appear to be astutely growing weary of a lost war, but not apparently the new Speaker?
Can the Speaker Sell Ukraine and Israel Aid?
Mike Johnson wants separate packages, possibly with offsets, frustrating Biden.
By William A. Galston, WSJ
Oct. 31, 2023 12:13 pm ET
Don’t tell Donald Trump and the Freedom Caucus, but the new speaker of the House, “MAGA Mike” Johnson, is a strong supporter of continued aid to Ukraine.
In his first full-length interview after being elected speaker, he told Sean Hannity that the Ukraine situation was among his “big priorities,” explaining that “we can’t allow Vladimir Putin to prevail in Ukraine, because I don’t believe it would stop there, and it would probably encourage and empower China to perhaps make a move on Taiwan. We have these concerns. We’re not going to abandon them.” This statement aligns him with the outlook of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the leader of the traditional internationalist forces among Senate Republicans.
The two leaders disagree on tactics, however. Mr. Johnson isn’t going along with the Biden administration’s request, which Mr. McConnell supports, to link aid for Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan and other matters in a single bill costing $106 billion. He announced Sunday on Fox News his intention to proceed quickly with a bill funding only aid to Israel, leaving the remaining issues to be dealt with later. This bill should enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support in the House, though the speaker’s suggestion to offset the cost of assistance to Israel with cuts elsewhere in the federal budget may be a stumbling block. If this bill passes the House, the Senate will have to decide between passing it and insisting on something closer to President Biden’s broader request.
Although the speaker has clarified neither the terms nor the timing of a bill to bolster Ukraine, it isn’t hard to guess this bill’s four likely parameters. First, few elected officials in either party are eager to vote repeatedly on this issue during an election year, so the bill will likely extend assistance long enough to get through the 2024 presidential election.
Second, if the speaker insists on offsetting the cost of aid to Israel, he could hardly do otherwise with an aid proposal for Ukraine that would enjoy much less support within his own caucus. This wouldn’t be easy, because aiding Ukraine will cost more than aiding Israel, even if Congress reduces Mr. Biden’s request. Ukraine’s needs are broader than Israel’s, and the scale of its struggle against Russian aggression is larger than Israel’s fight against Hamas and its backers.
Third, former Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s insistence that Ukraine no longer receive a “blank check” has broad support among House Republicans, and the new speaker has strong incentives to follow this line. Mr. McCarthy never spelled out what his new policy would mean, but it presumably would include more timely, detailed and transparent accounting for the funds appropriated for Ukraine, along with an intensified fight against corruption, which, despite President Volodymyr Zelensky’s efforts, continues to plague the country’s war effort. Well-crafted oversight measures should enjoy substantial bipartisan support.
Finally, House Republicans have inveighed against the Biden administration, claiming that it cares more about Ukraine’s eastern border than America’s southern border. When negotiating a package to aid Ukraine, House Republicans won’t be satisfied simply to increase funding for current immigration policies, but will insist on tougher border measures as well. If this happens, the Biden administration will have to choose between breaking with the pro-immigration progressives in its own ranks and ending aid to Ukraine. This should be an easy choice, but judging from the administration’s performance on immigration so far, it probably won’t be.
Overcoming these hurdles and passing a bill to aid Ukraine will not end debate on this matter. Donald Trump is the most isolationist leader the Republican Party has had in more than 70 years, and he will speak against aiding a country he views as irrelevant to American interests. Besides, he regards Mr. Putin as someone with whom we can do business and openly admires him as strong and smart. He has made similar remarks about other autocratic thugs such as North Korea’s Kim Jong Un.
If Mr. Trump is the Republican nominee and Mr. Biden the Democratic nominee, Mr. Trump would be up against a committed internationalist whose views were forged in the crucible of the Cold War. Mr. Biden believes that a more democratic world is better not only for people newly emerging from the darkness of autocracy but also for the U.S. There is nothing transactional about his support for Ukraine. The question for him is not what we get right now in return for our investment, but what kind of Europe and world successful resistance to Russian aggression would help build in coming decades.
The internationalists will ask Americans to bear the continued burdens of global leadership, and this will be a hard sell in 2024. It is easy to see the upfront costs of aiding beleaguered friends and allies in distant lands, harder to understand the long-term costs of failing to do so. But one thing should be clear: Abandoning Ukraine would send shock waves through the American-led alliances that have defended democracy and kept peace among the great powers since World War II, with incalculable consequences for us all.
Comments