Now that the Congress has passed the supplemental legislation providing support to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, requiring Chinese divestment of TikTok and utilizing Russian central bank assets for aid to Ukraine, supporters of an America engaged in advancing freedom can let out a huge sigh of relief. Three fourths of the House of Representatives voted for the legislation, a higher proportion of support even than exists among the public.
The difficulty getting passage of a bill in which 68 cents of every dollar would be spent in the US to replenish our military stocks or buy weapons for Ukraine begs the question of whether this will be the last hurrah of Republican internationalism or an inflection point at which conservatives recognize the dangers for our country of a fraying international order.
In assessing whether Republican internationalism is a dying ember or the vote represents a foundational moment, the first thing to say is appreciation for the fine tradecraft and statesmanship of Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. Ukraine’s President was right to proffer thanks to Johnson. He was not a supporter of aid to Ukraine early on—he voted against earlier supplementals. But he reconsidered, and he consulted widely to figure out where maneuver room existed, plotted tactics like severing the Senate bill into constituent parts to enable variable geometry of support. He went to Mar-a-Lago and persuaded the Republican party’s leader to remain on the sidelines, which was crucial to preventing a fracture among Republicans. In advance of the vote, he made the case succinctly and powerfully for an America committed to advancing freedom, to keeping our country safe by helping others become and remain safe. After the vote the Speaker said simply, “I think we did our work here, and history will judge it well.” He didn’t take a victory lap or denigrate his colleagues who voted against the legislation, but instead projected the solemnity that the issue encompasses and a dignity too little in evidence in American politics in recent years.
It is too optimistic to conjecture that having a taste of international gratitude for an America that helps countries fighting for their freedom will discipline Republican legislators, or indeed the Republican presidential candidate. But the barrage of classified briefings that persuaded a reluctant Mike Johnson may well provide a foundation for less reckless behavior. The world is becoming more dangerous for free societies, and the fundamental logic of internationalist national security politics remains sound: The US is safest and most prosperous when free societies cooperate to prevent predatory behavior. That is the international order American statesmen constructed out of the ashes of World War II.
The vision offered by Senator Vance is to allow the rest of the world to fend for itself, even as it grows more dangerous for the US and its friends. Their argument fails to take into account two crucial elements: first, that maintaining a beneficial order is cheaper than fighting to re-establish favorable conditions; and second, that when the US absents itself, countries that cannot defend themselves without our help won’t just do what we would have wanted but will make concessions that aren’t in either their or our interests.
Those like Senator Vance who would destroy that international order mutter darkly that the supplemental bills’ passage is the last redoubt of the internationalism Senator McConnell represents. And much work will be needed, not just in Washington but in communities across the country and in their local newspapers to continue making the case that persuaded 79 Senators to vote in favor of the bill, and now to defend that vote. But even that will not be enough to ensure the direction signaled by the supplemental bills’ passage.
In particular, advocates for the security and prosperity and burden-sharing with allies that characterize post-1945 US foreign policy need to take up the next stage of the argument, which is that we have been recklessly under-funding our military. Weapons sent to Ukraine are a rounding error of what we need for our own military, and providing them to Ukraine has alerted us to the inadequacy of our stockpiles. But replenishing the current force isn’t enough. As the bipartisan Strategic Posture Commission concludes, we have a one-war military in a two-war world. We will need to increase defense spending, recruit a larger force, and build more ships. That is what this time requires of us if our country is not to sink into accepting terms that China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea’s collusion demands of us.
Senator Vance and his acolytes believe there is no public support for raising defense spending, defending allies, or helping countries struggling to become free, and therefore the US needs to simply write off vast swathes of the world where we have both interests and allies. But 77 percent of Americans understand the need and support increases to defense spending. Passage of the supplemental spending bills’ support for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, suggests a different future is possible—one more conducive to our country’s interests. One that will preserve the blessings of security and prosperity for the next generation of Americans.
The post Speaker Johnson and the Future of Republican Internationalism appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.