The Tribune

with Charlie Harper

THE lounge, a finger of whiskey still floating one ice cube in the cut glass tumbler resting on the side table next to his favorite arm chair. Several friends sat in a loose circle, arranged on comfortable hard chairs so he could see and respond to each. One of the professor’s oldest acquaintances spoke up.

“So what do you think, Gene? Was Karl Marx right after all?”

“What do you mean, Sheila?”

“Well, I think that one of Marx’s basic 19th Century beliefs was that capitalism, in order to survive, needs periodic wars. Wars are good for a lot of businesses. Military production spikes. That creates a lot of high-paying jobs. Most wars can unify a nation, even a severely fractured one.

“I have even heard the argument that waging war can actually be justified as a legitimate principle of a responsible public policy, under certain circumstances.”

There was a murmur around the lounge. Sheila was known in the group for her outspokenness and provocative comments. But her statements now elicited not controversy but instead, silence. All faces turned toward professor Gene, who thoughtfully took a short pull on his drink, set it down, and started to speak.

“Well, my dear friend,” he began, “I know you’ve often raised tough issues, but you’ve outdone yourself this time.” There were chuckles all around. “I guess you read the paper on the day before yesterday.” Sheila nodded.

Another friend spoke up. “Do you mean the long article in the Washington Post about all the congressional districts that directly benefit from American military assistance to nations like Ukraine and Israel?”

The professor nodded. “Yes. As I recall, the author identified congressional districts in 34 different states where businesses are located that directly benefit from the kind of ramped-up military spending that has just been augmented by the Congress. The author, by the way, is trying to promote Republican support for military aid to Ukraine.

“In those 34 states, 66 different congressional districts were identified as specific beneficiaries. That works out to 15 percent.”

Sitting next to Sheila, her friend Margaret rummaged through her bag. “Here’s the story,” she said, holding it up. “Listen to the names of some of those congressmen whose districts are enriched by increased defense spending.” She read out some names.

“There’s ‘Mr. No More Aid for Ukraine’ – Matt Gaetz of Florida,” she read. “Also, Trump favourite Jim Jordan of Ohio, House majority leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. Perry is now the Freedom Caucus chair, and was the only member of Pennsylvania’s House delegation to oppose last week’s $60 billion Ukraine assistance bill.”

“Yes, Meg,” Gene replied. “There are certainly some apparent political inconsistencies in all this clamour about military and other aid for Ukraine. And it’s true that many of the Republican congressmen and women seemed to vote in favour of a broad, Trumpian isolationist ideology and against the real-life economic interests of their districts.

“I think it’s important to remember that the US has a long history of isolationism. Look how the Vietnam War tore apart the country. You can certainly argue that was not a ‘just war,’ and that most Americans either did not believe that allowing Vietnam to fall to the North Vietnamese Communists would trigger calamitous consequences, nor that the US had any moral responsibility to prop up a corrupt and unrepresentative government in Saigon.

“But that didn’t matter so much to the additional millions of people who just didn’t buy the idea that the US should serve as ‘policeman of the world.’

“And look what happened after that war finally ended in 1975. The US economy basically lost its way. Remember that home mortgage interest rates rose to nearly 20 percent by 1981 and interest on credit card payments soared to the highest level in modern American history. There were lots of factors that caused such high rates, but the fact that the US was also no longer at war contributed to the economic morass.

“Back to isolationism. I’m sure you all recall that Republicans in the Senate fought hard against President Franklin Roosevelt’s impulses to aid Britain and other European allies during the period from 1939-41 when the Nazis were threatening to overrun all of Europe. The truth is that there is a big streak of isolationism in the US, and we’re seeing its traces all over again in the matter of the Russia-Ukraine war.

“A lot of Americans still don’t believe it’s their responsibility to solve all the world’s problems. And Republicans, despite their traditional adherence to an active, even aggressive foreign policy, nevertheless often give voice to that perspective.”

Sheila waggled her fingers self-consciously. Professor Gene looked over at her. “Can I raise a related issue?” she asked. “I don’t want to monopolise the conversation.” He nodded his assent in response.

“OK,” she said. “There’s something else about this big military deal and all the American support for Ukraine that bothers me. I realise that we need to push Putin back. I get that. But in that same Post article, the author – who is very conservative politically – tries to support the aid package with some logic that scares me.

“He wrote the following: ‘In many cases, the weapons now being produced in the US aren’t going to Ukraine at all. Instead, we are sending older versions of weapons systems to Kyiv and building new, more effective systems which we are keeping as we modernise our own army.’ Yikes!” Sheila exclaimed.

The professor nodded. “Information like that can make you cynical in a hurry,” he said. “The Russians are reportedly emptying prisons in an effort to maintain manpower levels; to some observers, the US is upgrading its military stockpile on the backs of heroic Ukrainian fighters.

“But the big issue is still the existential threat to Europe posed by Vladimir Putin. I agree with those who compare his aggression to the rise of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, and I also believe that Putin must be stopped now. If he is allowed to succeed in Ukraine, I see no likelihood that he will not attack other neighbours later on.

“Any policy that looks like appeasement won’t work now with Putin any more than it did with Hitler nearly a century ago.”

The divergence between America’s ideological role as the worldwide champion of freedom and democracy, and its practical responsibility to put first the economic interests of its citizens, is frequently at the heart of political discourse in the US. And it’s certainly true now, with Israel, Gaza and even Taiwan vying with Ukraine for assistance from Washington.

Meanwhile, as this ideological battle continues on Capitol Hill in Washington, a responsible Republican congressional leader may be emerging. Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana, a largely anonymous congressman until thrust into a leadership vacuum by the unseating of Kevin McCarthy last Fall, has delighted many people by shepherding through the Ukraine assistance package.

Under constant threat to his tenure as speaker from Republican MAGA zealots eager to postpone any diplomatic success until after the November election, Johnson has admitted that he has changed his mind on Ukraine. In his new position, the Speaker has received highly classified briefings on the military situation, and has been informally mentored by veteran senators from both parties.

Johnson has been quietly courted by the White House, and he has received visits from the British foreign secretary and other European leaders. He has been persuaded to adopt a kind of mature, bipartisan perspective on the current parlous European security situation.

It’s hard to say how long Johnson will hold his leadership position, given the ease in challenging him that is now accorded by new House rules to a small handful of extremists like Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. And Johnson remains a solid MAGA adherent.

But there is increasing speculation that Democrats in the House may rally to support Johnson if he continues to show signs of reasonableness on foreign assistance. Given the years-long chaos that has hobbled the American Congress, some kind of very rare coalition building from parts of both the Republican and Democratic parties may not only be possible, but essential.

The notion of responsible GOP leadership in the House seems fantastic. But Johnson is offering some hope for the future.