This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/04/opinion/ukraine-congress-progressives-letter.html
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| A ‘Nothingburger’ Letter About Ukraine, the Backlash and Washington’s New Groupthink | A ‘Nothingburger’ Letter About Ukraine, the Backlash and Washington’s New Groupthink |
| (about 13 hours later) | |
| Rarely does a document so bland generate such heat. | Rarely does a document so bland generate such heat. |
| On Oct. 24, 30 progressive members of Congress wrote President Biden a letter about Ukraine policy. The letter blamed Russia for the war. It endorsed military aid to Ukraine and long-term security guarantees to ensure it remains “free and independent.” And while it proposed “a proactive diplomatic push” to end the fighting, it also insisted that it “is not America’s place to pressure Ukraine’s government regarding sovereign decisions.” | On Oct. 24, 30 progressive members of Congress wrote President Biden a letter about Ukraine policy. The letter blamed Russia for the war. It endorsed military aid to Ukraine and long-term security guarantees to ensure it remains “free and independent.” And while it proposed “a proactive diplomatic push” to end the fighting, it also insisted that it “is not America’s place to pressure Ukraine’s government regarding sovereign decisions.” |
| Given that Mr. Biden has already said the war must end in a “negotiated settlement” and that his top advisers are already talking to their Russian counterparts, the missive largely encouraged him to continue what he’s already doing. Daniel Drezner, an international relations scholar at Tufts University, called it “a giant nothingburger.” | Given that Mr. Biden has already said the war must end in a “negotiated settlement” and that his top advisers are already talking to their Russian counterparts, the missive largely encouraged him to continue what he’s already doing. Daniel Drezner, an international relations scholar at Tufts University, called it “a giant nothingburger.” |
| And yet its release sparked a ferocious backlash. An official from the centrist think tank Third Way claimed the letter’s proposals “dishonor” the Ukrainian people’s “courageous sacrifice by suggesting they give up everything they’ve been fighting for.” Representative Jake Auchincloss, Democrat of Massachusetts, called it “an olive branch to a war criminal.” Within a day of the letter’s publication, its authors retracted it. | |
| They retracted it because a new Cold War atmosphere now pervades Washington. Politicians who suggest even modest compromises with America’s great power foes face censure from both sides of the aisle. During the last Cold War, fears of appearing soft on communism cowed progressive legislators into silence as the United States descended into war in Vietnam. After the attacks of Sept. 11, many Democrats acquiesced to the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq because they feared being called soft on terrorism. When it comes to Russia and China, another climate of conformity is now taking hold. Unless challenged, it could eventually bring disaster as well. | |
| Ukraine’s struggle to recapture its stolen territory deserves America’s vigorous support. But it does not obligate Congress to stop asking hard questions. And the fierce response to last week’s letter makes it less likely that Democrats will ask them. | Ukraine’s struggle to recapture its stolen territory deserves America’s vigorous support. But it does not obligate Congress to stop asking hard questions. And the fierce response to last week’s letter makes it less likely that Democrats will ask them. |
| As the letter notes, legislators are “responsible for the expenditure of tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in military assistance” to Ukraine. According to the Stimson Center, a foreign policy think tank, Washington has sent Ukraine more in military aid this year than it gave either Afghanistan’s or Iraq’s military at the height of the war on terrorism. | As the letter notes, legislators are “responsible for the expenditure of tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in military assistance” to Ukraine. According to the Stimson Center, a foreign policy think tank, Washington has sent Ukraine more in military aid this year than it gave either Afghanistan’s or Iraq’s military at the height of the war on terrorism. |
| The aid is warranted, but its volume and speed raise the possibility of widespread corruption. “Even if it’s a noble cause, there’s going to be theft. There’s going to be misconduct. There’s going to be nepotism,” warned John Sopko, the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, this summer. But despite pleas from good-government groups, Congress and the Biden administration have neither folded Ukraine into the Afghanistan special inspector general’s portfolio nor confirmed permanent inspectors general for the State and Defense Departments as a whole. | The aid is warranted, but its volume and speed raise the possibility of widespread corruption. “Even if it’s a noble cause, there’s going to be theft. There’s going to be misconduct. There’s going to be nepotism,” warned John Sopko, the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, this summer. But despite pleas from good-government groups, Congress and the Biden administration have neither folded Ukraine into the Afghanistan special inspector general’s portfolio nor confirmed permanent inspectors general for the State and Defense Departments as a whole. |
| Unless progressives demand stronger oversight, they will cede the issue to America First conservatives like Rand Paul and Tucker Carlson, who use concerns about corruption to mask the fact that they don’t care what happens to Ukraine at all. | Unless progressives demand stronger oversight, they will cede the issue to America First conservatives like Rand Paul and Tucker Carlson, who use concerns about corruption to mask the fact that they don’t care what happens to Ukraine at all. |
| If progressives risk being browbeaten into silence over Ukraine, there’s an even greater danger that they will acquiesce to America’s increasingly confrontational policy toward China. The more relations between Washington and Beijing deteriorate, the less effectively the two governments can work together against environmental apocalypse and future pandemics. And the greater the risk of a nuclear confrontation over Taiwan. | If progressives risk being browbeaten into silence over Ukraine, there’s an even greater danger that they will acquiesce to America’s increasingly confrontational policy toward China. The more relations between Washington and Beijing deteriorate, the less effectively the two governments can work together against environmental apocalypse and future pandemics. And the greater the risk of a nuclear confrontation over Taiwan. |
| Yet rather than tell voters that cooperation with China saves American lives and promotes progressive values, many Democrats seem terrified of appearing softer than their Republican rivals on Beijing. When asked in the Pennsylvania Senate debate to name “the greatest foreign threat to the United States,” John Fetterman didn’t answer climate change, which risks rendering swaths of the country uninhabitable. He responded that he’d “stand firm against China” and accused his opponent, Mehmet Oz, of manufacturing merchandise there. | Yet rather than tell voters that cooperation with China saves American lives and promotes progressive values, many Democrats seem terrified of appearing softer than their Republican rivals on Beijing. When asked in the Pennsylvania Senate debate to name “the greatest foreign threat to the United States,” John Fetterman didn’t answer climate change, which risks rendering swaths of the country uninhabitable. He responded that he’d “stand firm against China” and accused his opponent, Mehmet Oz, of manufacturing merchandise there. |
| For close to half a century, America’s “one China” policy — which requires keeping relations between the United States and Taiwan unofficial — has helped keep the peace in one of the most dangerous regions on Earth. But when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi undermined that compact this summer by becoming the highest-level American official to visit the island in a quarter-century, thus prompting a vigorous military response from Beijing, few Democrats in Congress expressed opposition. | For close to half a century, America’s “one China” policy — which requires keeping relations between the United States and Taiwan unofficial — has helped keep the peace in one of the most dangerous regions on Earth. But when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi undermined that compact this summer by becoming the highest-level American official to visit the island in a quarter-century, thus prompting a vigorous military response from Beijing, few Democrats in Congress expressed opposition. |
| Nor have many congressional Democrats challenged Mr. Biden’s repeated statements that the United States would use force to defend Taiwan. Four times now, the president has casually upended a decades-old American policy of strategic ambiguity and committed the United States to wage war, even though the Constitution grants that authority to Congress. Yet Washington progressives have stayed largely silent. | Nor have many congressional Democrats challenged Mr. Biden’s repeated statements that the United States would use force to defend Taiwan. Four times now, the president has casually upended a decades-old American policy of strategic ambiguity and committed the United States to wage war, even though the Constitution grants that authority to Congress. Yet Washington progressives have stayed largely silent. |
| They’ve also acquiesced to higher military budgets. When asked why most Democrats in Congress had voted to allocate even more money to the military than the Biden administration requested, Representative Ro Khanna admitted that the political climate had left his colleagues scared: “I think it’s an irrational fear that our party has of being painted in a TV ad as being weak.” | They’ve also acquiesced to higher military budgets. When asked why most Democrats in Congress had voted to allocate even more money to the military than the Biden administration requested, Representative Ro Khanna admitted that the political climate had left his colleagues scared: “I think it’s an irrational fear that our party has of being painted in a TV ad as being weak.” |
| That fear is nothing new. In June 1964, President Lyndon Johnson told Senator Richard Russell that Americans will “forgive you for anything except being weak.” Two months later, that fear led even congressional liberals to overwhelmingly support the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized Johnson’s disastrous escalation of the Vietnam War. | That fear is nothing new. In June 1964, President Lyndon Johnson told Senator Richard Russell that Americans will “forgive you for anything except being weak.” Two months later, that fear led even congressional liberals to overwhelmingly support the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized Johnson’s disastrous escalation of the Vietnam War. |
| Like the war on terrorism, cold wars create their own cancel culture. They encourage politicians to swallow their doubts as conflicts escalate. They make compromise and cooperation with America’s adversaries appear dishonorable. The backlash against last week’s Ukraine letter will now serve as a cautionary tale. When a diplomatic solution to the war in Ukraine finally becomes possible — a solution that may require the United States to relax some sanctions on Russia — members of Congress will be wary of endorsing it, even if it enjoys Kyiv’s tacit support. When hawks push to ditch the “one China” policy entirely, many congressional progressives will fear objecting, lest they be accused of sympathy for Xi Jinping. | Like the war on terrorism, cold wars create their own cancel culture. They encourage politicians to swallow their doubts as conflicts escalate. They make compromise and cooperation with America’s adversaries appear dishonorable. The backlash against last week’s Ukraine letter will now serve as a cautionary tale. When a diplomatic solution to the war in Ukraine finally becomes possible — a solution that may require the United States to relax some sanctions on Russia — members of Congress will be wary of endorsing it, even if it enjoys Kyiv’s tacit support. When hawks push to ditch the “one China” policy entirely, many congressional progressives will fear objecting, lest they be accused of sympathy for Xi Jinping. |
| The greatest current threat to wise American foreign policy isn’t polarization. It’s groupthink. That groupthink has a greater hold today than it did a week ago. | The greatest current threat to wise American foreign policy isn’t polarization. It’s groupthink. That groupthink has a greater hold today than it did a week ago. |
| Peter Beinart (@PeterBeinart) is a professor of journalism and political science at the Newmark School of Journalism at the City University of New York. He is also the editor at large of Jewish Currents and writes The Beinart Notebook, a weekly newsletter. | Peter Beinart (@PeterBeinart) is a professor of journalism and political science at the Newmark School of Journalism at the City University of New York. He is also the editor at large of Jewish Currents and writes The Beinart Notebook, a weekly newsletter. |
| The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com. | The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com. |
| Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. | Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. |