Abandoning Reagan's legacy

A package of $60 billion in vitally needed aid to Ukraine has already passed the Senate with a strong bipartisan majority. Now the inexperienced speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, faces a critical test: Will he have the guts — and the sense of responsibility — to defy an isolationist faction of Trump toadies in his own party and bring the Ukraine bill to the House floor, where it would almost certainly pass?

As a New York Times editorial put it, the stakes are enormously high: “After more than two years of brutal, unrelenting war, Ukraine is still ready and has the capacity to defend its democracy and territory against Russia. But it cannot do so without American military assistance, which the United States had assured the Ukrainians would be there as long as it was needed.”

What’s so maddening is that the aid package is entirely in America’s own self-interest. Most of it would be spent in the U.S., purchasing American-made weapons and creating American jobs. More seriously, there are no cheap options.

An investment in arming Ukraine today could prevent a wider war and save taxpayers far more in the future — not just in American dollars, but in the lives of American troops who would be obligated to defend NATO allies against Putin’s territorial ambitions.

As Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has warned: “This is not some political skirmish that (only) matters on the American political scene. Mr. Johnson’s failure to make a positive decision will cost thousands of lives. He takes personal responsibility for that.” NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg adds that Washington’s waffling “undermines all of our security, including that of the U.S., and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk.”

But an even larger issue is also at stake: nothing less than America’s role in the world and its willingness to stand up for democratic values in the face of power-hungry dictators.

Reagan embraced that mission and helped cause the collapse of the Soviet Union. Trump, by contrast, is a weakling, a coward who quails before Putin’s brutality, and even admires it, while deriding America’s European allies.

In an unguarded but telling moment at a campaign rally in February, Trump said he would encourage Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to any NATO country that doesn’t pay its fair share of defense costs.

A small but growing faction of Republicans are willing to label Trump for what he is: an apologist for Putin, even a tool of Russian disinformation. Former GOP lawmaker Liz Cheney said on CNN: “We have to take seriously the extent to which you’ve now got a Putin wing of the Republican Party.”

Cheney is not alone. Rep. Mike McCaul, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, told Puck News, “I grew up with this construct of Ronald Reagan, and I tell my constituents: ‘What would Reagan do?’ Well, he believed in leading the free world. He believed in a strong NATO. He didn’t attack NATO.” Russian propaganda, he added, has “infected a good chunk of my party’s base.”

When Jake Tapper on CNN asked Rep. Michael R. Turner, chairman of the House Committee on Intelligence, whether he agreed with McCaul’s observation, Turner replied: “Oh, it is absolutely true. We see directly coming from Russia attempts to mask communications that are anti-Ukraine and pro-Russia messages — some of which we even hear being uttered on the House floor.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a leading foe of Ukrainian aid, asked on X, formerly Twitter: “Why doesn’t anyone in Washington talk about a peace treaty with Russia??” Channeling Trump, she added that the U.S. should seek “a deal with Putin promising he will not continue any further invasions.”

Really? Depend on Putin to keep his promises? This is appeasement, pure and simple. Plus profound and dangerous self-delusion. Trump and acolytes like Greene have completely turned their backs on Reagan’s legacy. True conservatives should ask themselves when they vote this fall: Are these the sort of wobbly wimps they want running the country?