On September 30, Congress passed a spending bill to avert a government shutdown through mid-November. The bill omits spending to support Ukraine.
It is notable that this bill illustrates one way that our fiscal incompetence hurts our international standing. Whatever the merits of funding Ukraine, the reduction occurs not by any decision or choice, but out of desperation to avoid a shutdown. Whatever policy we might adopt toward Ukraine, regardless of any stopgap support we can give now, and whether or not we restore funding in November, we have de-funded a standing commitment.
Worst of all is that we did so with no deliberation over the actual question. Some argued, and aid advocates accepted, that funding at home comes before funding abroad. What gets lost in this simplistic line is what is at stake with Ukraine. And it is not democracy, and it is not peace – Ukraine’s democracy is incomplete and the killing will go on regardless of what we do.
But Putin unilaterally launched a full-fledged, naked invasion with no justification save that he wanted to destroy a country. Acquiescing in this, allowing him any gains without at least serious opposition with punitive effect, is in fact a matter of national interest for us. Why? First, a world in which winning a war in itself can justify a country’s claims is unsafe for anyone. It would not be a new world, but a reversion to the days of kings and emperors in a state of nature, taking what they can when they can with no regard for principle or people. If we accede to aggression like Putin’s, not only will he not stop, and not only will China be emboldened to invade Taiwan, but we, who underwrote the post-1945 norm of non-aggression, will have abandoned that principle.
This abandonment poses the second, bigger threat to our national interest. If a democracy abandons its convictions, it is either weak or craven. Our weakness arises out of incompetence and craven politics, not a lack of means. We have kicked the can down the road and temporarily, or permanently, abrogated our prior commitments to Ukraine. We damage our credibility, not only to Ukraine but as a competently governed nation. We will face the same issue in six weeks, and again next year, in the midst of a presidential election, likely between two highly unpopular candidates.
Practically speaking, could the Ukraine advocates have put up a fight? The bill required a two thirds majority, or 291 votes, and received 355. Would the “yeas” have lost fewer than 64 votes if they had inserted Ukraine aid? Perhaps. Would they have been able to craft and pass an amended bill in time to avert a shutdown? Unlikely.
Should we have allowed a shutdown to occur, given the chance that it will happen in just a short time anyway? Is it likely that a “permanent” spending bill will restore Ukraine aid? Maybe. That said, it is almost certain that actual deliberation of Ukraine policy will not happen. In our politicized rhetoric some try to say otherwise, but we are telling an invaded nation we will allow might, not justice, to determine their fate. And we know this.
The bottom line here is not about money, or even Ukraine, and certainly not about elections, though that’s clearly the politicians’ focus. It isn’t per se our international influence, though the values that underpin that influence will recede another step because of our incompetent self-management. The question is whether our democracy, founded on the premise that free people should govern themselves, is viable. Is democracy itself of any real value? Right now we make no case for “yes.” Where do we start, except to point out that failing? Perhaps saying it out loud will focus more minds.
Common Conviction 