Maybe the Dnipro

MBD, that Rich is such a cynic! For once, I’m going to be more optimistic, and for two reasons.

First, while there are a number of congressional clown-acts who get too much attention, the current House GOP conference gives me hope: There are some serious thinkers on foreign relations, the armed forces, and how our government is supposed to function (including spending and borrowing) consistent with the Constitution. Based on conversations I’ve had, I believe there is a lot of unease among conservatives in the House about not only Ukraine, but also other foreign-policy/national-security issues that have irresponsibly gone unaddressed for the past decade (or more).

These questions include:

• Why are we still conducting military ops based on a nearly 22-year-old AUMF (i.e., one that went into effect years before some of the groups against whom our government claims the AUMF justifies said ops existed)?
• By what constitutional authority are we conducting military ops in Syria?
• Putting aside the juvenile “You’re pro-Putin!” demagoguery in response to what ought to be the commonsense observation that Ukraine shouldn’t get a blank check, what are we committing to in terms of military aid and reconstruction, particularly in the not unforeseeable events that the war goes on for a few more years and Ukraine is neither admitted into the EU or gets much reconstruction help from the EU?
• Are we in what Niall Ferguson labels Cold War II, and if so, how do we navigate that successfully without its becoming World War III?

There is a lot more, but that makes for a lot to bite off for starters.

Second, on the part of the faction I believe is acting in good faith in the impasse over whether McCarthy becomes speaker, the simmering anger over spending money we obviously don’t have erupted over the scandalous $1.7 trillion, GOP-establishment-backed spendorama. The impasse is Exhibit A, and there will be more.

The obvious thing is that this is headed to a very necessary debate over the debt ceiling (which is to say, over the debt). The less obvious thing is that, as interest rates rise and debt service eats away and the (borrowed) funds allocated for everybody’s goodies on both sides of the aisle, the cost of things is going to move from being a conveniently forgotten issue to a pressing issue. As pointed out by those maligned for having the temerity to inquire about Ukraine spending, such questions are going to be: If we’re going to spend $100B per annum on Ukraine, what are we going to cut in order to pay for that; and if we’re not willing to cut $100B from other “priorities,” then how much are we willing to spend on Ukraine?

Since Dems want their domestic programs funded, and the GOP wants military funding increased to account for years of cutting corners and what is now a more dangerous world, it seems inevitable that foreign policy has to be debated because it’s the first thing people try to slash in order to show how fiscally responsible they are.

Bottom line: I think we are going to get some of the debates we need to have. Doesn’t mean it’s for all the right reasons, doesn’t mean the debates will necessarily lead to the right policies, but we’ve got to start someplace.