Conflict Resolution

Who won the GOP civil war over Ukraine?

By
126
Tucker Carlson speaks at Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino Hollywood on November 17, 2022, in Hollywood, Florida. (Photo by Jason Koerner/Getty Images)

The occasion of a Republican presidential forum being hosted by a propagandist for Russia seems like a fine time to revisit this newsletter from October, wondering which faction of the party would prevail on the question of funding Ukraine’s war effort.

“The fact that a propagandist for Russia is hosting a Republican presidential forum seems like a clue to the answer,” you might respond, fairly enough. But it isn’t that simple.

In the nine months since I wrote that column, said commentator lost his prime-time perch at Fox News and now slums it on Twitter, interviewing accused rapists for the edification of “manosphere” incels. His diminished daily influence seems to have emboldened certain top Republicans in Congress to re-embrace their old hawkish selves, particularly the speaker of the House. Under Kevin McCarthy’s leadership, no more than a token effort has been made by MAGA types to cancel military support for Ukraine.

In the upper chamber, meanwhile, backing for the war among Republican leaders remains as rock solid as you’d expect.

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Start Your Free Trial
Already a paid member? Sign In
126
By
Comments (126)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Rdpulfer

    I would point out those against arming Ukraine aren't "doves" in the traditional sense. In addition to defending Taiwan (hypothetically, maybe, if the mood suits them), many also want to use military force against Mexican drug cartels. Like many things Nick mentioned above, there are compelling reasons for/against this strategy, but it does strike me as interesting that many on the MAGA side are particularly hawkish around their chosen strong man...until rival strong man (be it Xi or Putin) enters the ring.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Vlad M.

      They are doves. Mexican cartels are not Russia and some of them don't give a damn about Taiwan. Trump, at least, doesn't.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Rdpulfer

        I guess my issue is the terminology. I think of dove as someone who wants peace, but many in the New Right seem - at best - ambivalent towards peace. They will flaunt the threat of military power when it suits them and practically show their bellies when it doesn't. That doesn't sound like a dove to me. That sounds like someone you don't on your side in a fight.

        Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Gcull94

    F*************ck is my only reaction after reading that.

    Collapse
  3. AJLiberty

    It's early in the primary season I keep telling myself. We have debates. We have inevitable attack ads. We have pending indictments and the potential for collaborators to cut deals. But how soft can Trump's support actually be? We know he will never quit and, worst comes to worst for him and someone beats him for the nomination, I would fully expect him to run 3rd party. It's his best play to create chaos and regain power...ending his legal woes. Or do his best Butch Cassidy...of course with his cult leading the charge.

    The question becomes, what should the remnant of the normal GOP be doing right now? Should we be throwing in with DeSantis because he has the best chance to pick off persuadable MAGAs? Should we go all-in with a truth-sayer like Christie, knowing his suicide mission will end like Liz Cheney's? Should we pick from Haley and Scott and hope that the happy warrior slow-to-criticize-Trump candidate can still somehow catch fire? Do we sit it out and prepare to vote Democrat if Trump's inevitability plays out? Yikes, boiling frogs indeed!

    One wishes that the problem was rational. That there was some argument that could carry the day. That magically Chris Christie would get through to the base....that DeSantis would find some likability and return to his House roots....that Nikki Haley would pick a side of the fence and stay there....that Trump would bow out to concentrate on his defense strateg(ies). But the conditions that brought us to this dumpster fire haven't changed....the environment that hatched Trump is still toxic. Talkers like Tucker, Hannity, and Levin still are high on their own supply. It's a long shot that much will change prior to the first primary vote. We're heading for either a big GO loss or some weird flirtation with authoritarianism that more and more of the base seems resolute about.

    Is it time to jump ship and run a 3rd party candidate? In part to protest...and provide a platform for normalcy.....but to actually lay the foundation for something that isn't so susceptible to hostile takeover. With so many declared independents in the electorate, one would think the right person could inspire the country. Is there room in the political spectrum for a 3rd party? Does it need to be long term or a short-term shock to the system?

    I'm starting to think the patient is dead....and resuscitation is unlikely.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Margaret.Friedberg

    Nick I don’t think you are correct suggesting that dove perspectives are largely trumpian GOP views. As a dem in a very blue city, literally no one I know is down w the ridiculous yellen “as long as it takes” scenario. Zelensky himself has already admitted he will not compromise, and Biden is not forcing him to the table. Russia was the clear aggressor and deserves reckoning , but it didn’t help that Biden had lots of photo ops w Zelensky in the Oval Office just prior, and along w early talks of NATO possibilities. Spend some time reading John Mearscheimer, at U Chicago one of the foremost authorities in Russian hegemony. It’s not just the populist GOP that wants a resolution, rather than additional munitions. You are not reading the electorate.

    Collapse
    1. T

      Nick was just analyzing the two perspectives WITHIN the Republican Party, not all perspectives within US politics. There was no need to address the anti-Ukraine positions of the left in this article.

      Collapse
    2. Hikingguy

      I do not like appeasers. Mearscheimer is an appeaser. Anything Putin wants is fine with him. Nuts to that.

      Collapse
    3. MrMalredo

      John Mearscheimer is a Pro-Putin and anti-West hack, he'll always take the side of whomever is opposed to "American imperialism"

      I've also seen this a lot, the idea that Ukraine was "asking for it" by cozying up to NATO. But it's Russia's previous (successful) efforts to violate Ukraine's sovereignty and them making it very clear that the plan on absorbing more Ukrainian territory. So obviously Ukraine would look to find stronger allies. The Russians have no one to blame but themselves.

      Collapse
  5. Jfan

    Michael Barone speculated in 2008 that John McCain's primary win in New Hampshire was catalyzed by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto a few days before, causing voters to care about foreign policy in a rare instance. Perhaps events will bring foreign policy back to prominence in the Republican presidential race again.

    Collapse
  6. Rblik

    C'mon man. Every major candidate not named Trump is pretty solid "neocon" on foreign policy, save maybe DeSantis...which I sorta disregard because he knows so little about foreign policy at this point. So is Mitch McConnell and even McCarthy. And you're still declaring a loss to the MAGA cult on Ukraine even though they've accomplished nothing but gotten Tucker fired? I still think this issue will break the GOP.....so lets wait for a few debates before calling this one. The Tucker forum tomorrow should be nuts.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Alina M.

    "Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz suggested adding Russia to NATO instead of Ukraine" Facepalm X 100000000. There is no limit to human stupidity.

    Collapse
  8. Russell J

    Even though the Tucker forum disgusts me just for possibly giving him visibility, there are likely to be some illuminating comments from candidates. Maybe their strongest test yet. Hopefully someone answers well and starts to consolidate support. There’s also the risk for them to kiss Tucker butt (Looking at Ron) and create general election issues.

    Collapse
  9. Neelthakrebew

    "Christie and Scott both announced July 11 rhat they had met the donor requirements."

    Thank you to all Dispatch readers who responded to my request to send $1 to Chris Christie. We reached our goal. It feels great. I hope the Orange Mess shows up at the debate now.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      JohnM.

      Thank you for publicizing this so well here and for the motivation.

      Collapse
      1. Neelthakrebew

        The result exceeded my expectations in a delightful way. Christie probably didn't need us to get to the 40,000 goal, but maybe we gave him some of the broad geographical distribution that he needed.

        Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Mpowell-Household

    Put a hypothetical question out there to registered Republicans: "Given a choice in 2024 between Trump and X, for whom would you vote?" Pick the worst case for which you'd pick X. For me, X could even be Kamala, but I can vote how I please, since I live in California and my vote won't count. Meanwhile, I'm supporting Tim Scott in the primary.

    Collapse
Load More