Sargent plays the old hits — and with absolutely impeccable timing.
In the Washington Post, Greg Sargent plays the old hits — and with absolutely impeccable timing. His headline:
Why Putin hopes for a GOP victory, as explained by a top Russia expert
Sargent’s argument is that some Republicans are uncomfortable with Congress’s current level of funding for Ukraine, and that, if the GOP takes control of that Congress, those funding levels might be reduced, which would help Vladimir Putin. This argument isn’t especially strong, as Sargent’s many qualifications indicate. “Many Republicans,” he writes, “continue to support funding for Ukraine, so it’s unclear how real McCarthy’s threat would prove even if he were to become speaker.” “A lot of Republicans,” he adds, “genuinely support the Ukrainian cause and want the United States to help Ukraine prevail. But now we might see a genuine power struggle inside the GOP over whether the party will retreat from backing Ukraine.” But that is not why his piece is so funny. His piece is so funny because, by the time it was written, his own newspaper had learned — in a scoop, no less! — that:
A group of 30 House liberals is urging President Biden to dramatically shift his strategy on the Ukraine war and pursue direct negotiations with Russia, the first time prominent members of his own party have pushed him to change his approach to Ukraine.
A letter sent by the group to the White House on Monday, first reported by The Washington Post, could create more pressure on Biden as he tries to sustain domestic support for the war effort, at a time when the region is heading into a potentially difficult winter and Republicans are threatening to cut aid to Ukraine if they retake Congress.
In the letter, the 30 Democrats led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, call on Biden to pair the unprecedented economic and military support the United States is providing Ukraine with a “proactive diplomatic push, redoubling efforts to seek a realistic framework for a cease fire.”
Naturally, Sargent doesn’t mention this anywhere. His piece contains no references to the Democratic Party; the only time the word “democratic” appears anywhere is in a sentence from Sargent’s expert, who contends that “we’re also on the verge of a tipping point back toward democratic institutions, and I don’t mean just in the West”; and there is no update noting the news. The whole thing is about the Republicans. Why? Because, as is invariably the case with Greg Sargent’s work, his case isn’t actually about what its pretending to be about; it’s about why the GOP is bad. It would have badly muddied the waters for Sargent to accept that there is also a contingent within the Democratic Party that is skeptical about America’s attitude toward Ukraine — “Why Putin hopes for a progressive Democratic victory, as explained by a top Russia expert”! — so he simply left it out. Instead, we got the usual collection of words: “GOP,” “Russia,” “Putin,” “expert,” etc., and then Sargent called it a day.
Which doesn’t make any sense. There’s nothing wrong with noting that the Republican Party isn’t united on Ukraine. Nor is there anything wrong with Sargent’s assumption that America’s support for Ukraine is worthwhile; in my view, it is. But, clearly, whatever threat that Republican disunity might cause to ongoing funding or strategy must also apply to the Democrats. As the Washington Post noted yesterday, 30 Democrats are now urging Biden “to dramatically shift his strategy on the Ukraine war and pursue direct negotiations with Russia.” Sargent suggests that this makes him worry about the prospect of “a genuine power struggle inside the GOP over whether the party will retreat from backing Ukraine.” Fair enough. But why, then, isn’t he worried about the prospect of “a genuine power struggle inside the Democratic Party over whether the party will retreat from backing Ukraine”? Are we really supposed to believe that the leadership in Russia would care which party the “No” votes came from in the House of Representatives? From Ukraine’s perspective, the problem would be a change in U.S. policy. According to the Post’s own reporting, there is going to be a sizeable bipartisan caucus within the next House majority that hopes to achieve such a change. If the Democrats win the majority, they can block funding. If the Republicans win the majority, they can block funding. Why focus only on the Republicans?
I’ll go one further: In my estimation, Sargent should actually be a little more worried about the Democrats than he is about the Republicans. As we have learned time and time again since January, 2021, the center of gravity in this White House is with the progressives. President Biden illegally renewed the eviction moratorium because Cori Bush — one of the signatories to the Ukraine letter — urged him to do so. He blew his chance at a bigger reconciliation bill because Pramila Jayapal — the letter’s primary author — insisted that he must wait for Joe Manchin to come around. He issued his unconstitutional student-loan order because figures such as Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — both of whom signed Jayapal’s letter — pushed and pushed and pushed. There is no particular reason to think that Biden’s priorities will change after the midterms, nor to assume that he will find it easier to push back against the progressive wing of his own party than he will against the Republican House. Given current trends, I’d be marginally more worried to learn that progressives were “urging President Biden to dramatically shift his strategy on the Ukraine war” than I would to learn that Matt Gaetz was. Why isn’t Sargent?
The answer, I suspect, is that Sargent doesn’t care much about Ukraine. Rather, he cares about the electoral health of the Democratic Party. And the chance to insist that a Republican victory would be dangerous for democracy and the wider world was just too tempting for him to pass up.