"America last."

February 8, 2024

On Wednesday, the dysfunction of congressional Republicans plumbed new depths: Senate Republicans blocked a procedural vote to advance funding for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. Supporting each of those nations is in America’s vital interest. Failing to do so undermines global order and brings America closer to active confrontation with Russia, China, and Iran, at least.

The defeat was expected because Donald Trump wants to continue the crisis at America’s southern border to advance his partisan political interest. But the move also advanced the partisan interests of another politician—Vladimir Putin. Like Trump, Putin is temporizing, biding time in the hope that the clock will run out on Ukraine’s resources to resist Russia’s invasion. In Donald Trump's world, the hierarchy of interests is Trump first, Putin second, and America last.

The notion that Trump has re-ordered the national interests to put America last is not mine. It belongs to Thomas L. Friedman, who wrote an op-ed in the NYTimes, The G.O.P. Bumper Sticker: Trump First. Putin Second. America Third. (Accessible to all.)

Friedman writes,

There are hinges in history, and this [aid bill] is one of them. What Washington does — or does not do — this year to support its allies and secure our border will say so much about our approach to security and stability in this new post-post-Cold War era.

Will America carry the red, white and blue flag into the future or just a white flag? Given the pessimistic talk coming out of the Capitol, it is looking more and more like the white flag, autographed by Donald Trump.

“Trump First” means that a bill that would strengthen America and its allies must be set aside so that America can continue to boil in polarization [and] Vladimir Putin can triumph in Ukraine . . . .

A meme is developing that asserts that the GOP has surrendered to Trump. While that may be true, the deeper truth is that Trump has delivered the GOP into the hands of Vladimir Putin. The GOP is no longer serving the interests of the Americans who elect Republicans to Congress but instead acts as a skulk of useful idiots who unwittingly advance Putin’s interests.

Just ask Tucker Carlson, the poster boy for MAGA’s Putin Caucus. He traveled to Moscow to interview Putin because Carlson believes that major media outlets have not reported the truth about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Tucker Carlson believes that Putin will “tell the truth” about Russia’s invasion.

Remember that time when Putin assured the world he had no intention of invading Ukraine? See CBS News (2/24/22), Putin attacked Ukraine after insisting for months there was no plan to do so. Shortly after issuing those denials, Putin brutally attacked the civilian populations and infrastructure in Ukraine and kidnapped hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian children. The International Court of Claims has issued an arrest warrant for Putin for the war crime of unlawful transportation of children from Ukraine to Russia.

It is that Vladimir Putin—the fugitive war criminal and inveterate liar--that Tucker Carlson is preparing to lionize in an interview that will be lapped up by useful idiots who skitter at the mere arching of an eyebrow by Trump. As Trump prolongs a crisis at the US border and delays aid to Ukraine, he is serving Vladimir Putin’s interests first. Commentators are right in asserting that a megalomaniac has engineered a hostile takeover of the GOP—but it is not Trump. It is Putin.

How should we react? Should we despair? Should we shrink from another story that seems to turn the world on its head? No. We need only recognize that the rot in the GOP is beyond repair and that electing Joe Biden is a necessary condition to preserving democracy.

There is no gray area in the 2024 election. A vote for Trump is a vote for Putin. A vote for RFK Jr. is a vote for Putin. A vote for No Labels is a vote for Putin. Staying home is a vote for Putin. A vote for Joe Biden is a vote for Democracy. It’s that simple.

---

The Supreme Court’s hearing on Colorado’s disqualification of Trump

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Colorado’s disqualification of Trump from the primary ballot. You can listen to the oral argument live by tuning into a variety of public sources. See Constitution Center, How To Listen To Donald Trump’s 14th Amendment Case at the Supreme Court.

As we approach the hearing, there is a torrent of superb legal writing about the issues and possible outcomes. I admit that I have been overwhelmed by the volume of the analyses and find myself changing views hourly about the precise contours of my preferred outcome.

But the most helpful commentary I have read was recommended by a reader. It is Timothy Snyder’s reflection on his Substack blog, Thinking About . . . , Law or Fear. This beautifully written essay provides clarity and confidence as we approach a historic decision by the Supreme Court.

Snyder notes that many people resisted the notion that Trump could be disqualified. Objections varied, but as Snyder notes, for many, “It didn’t feel right” that a state could bar Trump under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Others feared the reaction of red states or MAGA extremists if Trump were excluded from the ballot. But as Snyder notes,

[F]ear is a poor counselor; it is certainly a poor legal counselor.  When we are afraid, we are no longer seeking reasons to make the right decision; we are seeking excuses to do nothing. 

Snyder also notes that what might seem abnormal—removing a candidate from a ballot—is actually normal:

The existence of Section 3 reminds us of another sense of the word “normal”: what we should do.

It is abnormal . . . to be an oath-breaking insurrectionist. It should be normal . . . to react in a decisive way when we face oath-breaking insurrection.

Section 3 is constitutional self-defense, enabling us to handle a difficult problem of the twenty-first century: what to do with people who are elected to office and then use that office to destroy the rule of law.

Finally, Snyder notes that the seemingly radical remedy of Section 3 disqualification is a tailored remedy that applies to a narrow group of candidates:

One thing that helped was the realization that Section 3 defines a qualification for the presidency.

Of all of the qualifications for presidential office, not having been an oath-breaking insurrectionist is, let us say, the least demanding.

Section 3 targeted a very specific group of people: not all insurrectionists, not all oath-breakers, but very precisely oath-breaking insurrectionists.

If you are anxious about the hearing in the Supreme Court and the possible consequences of disqualification, Snyder’s article is a good resource to help put the controversy in context. More importantly, he will convince you that the right result—the normal result—is to disqualify an oath-breaking insurrectionist.

---

Immigrants contribute to the economy and the tax base—a LOT!

The Congressional Budget Office released on updated report on the estimated deficit over the next ten years. Many factors put upward and downward pressure on the deficit. Of particular note is the role that immigration plays in economic activity and tax revenues. The CBO Director writes the following in his report to Congress:

In our projections, the deficit is also smaller than it was last year because economic output is greater, partly as a result of more people working. The labor force in 2033 is larger by 5.2 million people, mostly because of higher net immigration.

As a result of those changes in the labor force, we estimate that, from 2023 to 2034, GDP will be greater by about $7 trillion and [tax] revenues will be greater by about $1 trillion than they would have been otherwise. We are continuing to assess the implications of immigration for revenues and spending.

Conversely, the aging population in America puts upward pressure on deficits—a demographic factor that can be offset by—wait for it—immigration. So, next time someone tells you that “immigrants” are a drain on the American economy, you can tell them that immigrants will contribute $7 trillion to GDP and $1 trillion to tax revenue over the next ten years.

---

Concluding Thoughts.

Yesterday’s newsletter was packed with significant stories—some positive, some unsettling. Several readers commented about the length, density, and emotional burden of the news (and the newsletter). It was an unusual day, to be sure. Although it brought multiple developments of historic significance, their consequences will take months or years to unfold.

Don’t collapse the slowly evolving future into a single moment. And remember that the future is contingent. We can affect its outcome. Yesterday’s developments were mile-markers or pivot points, not penstocks that channel us to a pre-ordained conclusion. We have agency and control over what happens next. What we do matters.

Although Wednesday was filled with noise and urgency, it was mostly fallout from the events on Tuesday. So, I will cut short this newsletter to give us all a break. We are in this for the long run. We need to pace ourselves. Thursday will bring another momentous event—the argument before the Supreme Court on disqualification. But like other such events, it will take time for the consequences to unfold—and longer still to understand its ramifications. In the meantime, we have work to do. Let’s keep at and not be distracted.

Talk to you tomorrow!