Greg Sargent: This is The Daily Blast from The New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR network. I’m your host, Greg Sargent.
It seems like an unusually good opportunity to indict the whole GOP for its crave and embrace of Trump and all he represents. Will they seize it? We’re talking today about this to Brian Beutler, author of the great Substack, Off Message, who’s offered some of the sharpest advice to Democrats on how to proceed in the Trump era. Good to have you back on, Brian.
Sargent: Let’s start with Trump’s tweet. He said Zelenskiy is a “dictator” who talks the United States into spending money on Ukraine’s self-defense, that Zelenskiy played Biden “like a fiddle.” He said only Trump, speaking of himself, will be able to “settle” the war, that Zelenskiy had “better move fast or he’s not going to have a country left.” He said Zelenskiy has done a terrible job and that millions have needlessly died. Brian, note the complete erasure of Vladimir Putin’s invasion as the cause of the war. The truth is Zelenskiy and Ukraine have put up a resistance that no one thought was possible. Trump wants to “settle this war” by giving Putin what he wants. Could this be clearer?
Sargent: To your point about the capacity here for driving a wedge among Republicans on this stuff, the Republican responses to Trump’s craziness were really almost comically evasive. Senator Lisa Murkowski said, “I would like to see that in context,” meaning Trump’s quote, “because I would certainly never refer to President Zelenskiy as a dictator.” Senator Thom Tillis admitted Putin is the cause of the invasion, but on Trump calling Zelenskiy a dictator, he said, “It’s not a word I would use.” Maybe best of all, Senator Kevin Cramer described Trump as “factually wrong” about Zelenskiy, but added that Trump is a negotiator who’s always positioning himself. Brian, note that these Republicans are all treating Trump’s quotes as some error, a slip up, or alternatively that he’s got some shrewd ulterior motive at work. Do Republicans ever have to confront what you said, which is that Trump wants Russia to win?
We have not seen that lead to mass Republican rebellion against Donald Trump in the past, and I don’t think we should expect it to now. So the question becomes, What can you hope to get out of the fact that Republicans know that there’s something deeply wrong going on here? And that comes back to Democrats describing the problem in a way that anticipates the horrible consequences that Trump is inviting, and letting Republicans know that they are going to own those consequences. It’s not just on Trump. It’s on all of them.
That’s Blumenthal saying that Republicans should be on the side of Ukraine and our allies, and they’re not. Is that coming close to what we need to see?
Senator Blumenthal, all the Democratic senators, can be a little less homed in on Trump’s verbiage; you can write it off as just shit talking: We’re used to Donald Trump lying and abusing weaker people, and we don’t expect anything better of him, but you guys, if this leads to World War III, you’re owning that right now. You are making that possible right now, and we’re not going to let the world forget it.
Sargent: It seems very clear that Republicans actually do worry about being perceived that way, don’t you think? You often hear them talking about the importance of the Western alliance and the consequences of what could happen if it’s broken up and if we don’t stand by Ukraine against Russia. Clearly, they are aware of the potential consequences and want to be perceived as aware of them as well. They want to be perceived as being mindful of them and trying to avert them, don’t you think? That makes me think that there really is an opportunity for Democrats to press that point harder.
One of the places that they can do that is in committee hearings. Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth are eventually going to have to come testify to Congress when it comes time for budgeting. That will create opportunities for Democrats to make viral moments like, Hey, Marco Rubio, you said you were committed to NATO. What about this? Listen, here’s all the things you said about Vladimir Putin and his war on Ukraine. Why are you walking away from all of that? I mentioned they might have some leverage with Republican senators who control the budgets of those agencies.
It was a huge controversy at the time because there was this informal agreement that that members of Congress wouldn’t intervene in foreign policy and at the executive branch level. But the precedent has been set, and Democrats can do something similar now. Generate publicity around this betrayal and the fact that it doesn’t define America’s character by writing a letter of their own that says to Putin that you may walk away with ill-gotten gains from having launched this war, but if you think that that means that there’s a new axis on the world stage, you should watch your step because there’s more than one party in the United States.
Beutler: Absolutely. If only for their own sense of self-dignity and pride, and then having something to feel like they’re rallying toward as opposed to always being on the hind foot in fights against Republicans. The Western alliance wasn’t under this exact threat during George W. Bush’s presidency because he wasn’t nearly as corrupt as Donald Trump, and he didn’t have pretensions about throwing NATO in the trash and aligning with foreign dictators; his whole thing was democracies. But he did because that led him into war with Iraq. That created a lot of tension with what he referred to at the time as old Europe, like France and Germany. That’s yesterday’s news, and we’re with new Europe and they’re more supportive of our foreign policy adventures abroad.
Sargent: Yes, agreed. You raise a really interesting point in comparing this to George W. Bush and Democrats of the time. It’s worth stressing that in a way, Democrats are in a slightly better position toward Trump than they were toward George W. Bush during the invasion of Iraq. As you’ll recall, September 11 had just happened. Democratic Party was badly split. Half of it was endorsing the war in Iraq as of response, even going along with the fiction that it was in some sense a response to 9/11; the other half, meanwhile, wasn’t.
Beutler: No. After 9/11, George W. Bush’s popularity shot up to something like 90 percent. It was crazy, right? And he held on to more than majority support for years. All the freedom fries stuff happened when he was popular, and Democrats were divided and Republicans were united. Right now, Donald Trump, depending on which poll you look at, is either treading water or a little bit below water. And he’s getting less popular. And on this issue of Russia-Ukraine, Democrats are united and Republicans are divided. That’s recipe for preventing Donald Trump from doing fatal damage to the Western alliance and maybe even fatal damage to Ukraine.
Sargent: It’s interesting. In a way, Democrats also benefit from another difference between now and that time, which is in addition to George W. Bush being super popular as you said, the culture, the American people were really behind the invasion because of September 11. Now the main thing that reigns nationally is apathy. I don’t think that there’s this intense public opposition to spending money on defending Ukraine and keeping the Western alliance together. Do you?
I don’t imagine the country rallying for him to capitulate to Vladimir Putin. I don’t imagine the country rallying for him to make the errors that could send the world spiraling into war, and then America would have to take a side in that war. So he doesn’t have much room to maneuver. He has plenty of room to talk shit, and he does that very well, but that’s about it. And I don’t see how he makes what he’s doing here as slimy and backstabbing as it is popular, something that Democrats feel that they have to get in line with. Certainly not something that all Republicans feel they have to get in line with, or they wouldn’t be talking the way they are.
Sargent: So there’s a paradox here, isn’t there? It’s not as if Democrats can appeal to Republicans to be on the right side. You made an interesting point the other day, which is that Democrats basically have two options open to them. One is to appeal to Republicans to be better people and put the interests of the country and the world over those of Trump. The other option is to figure out how to rally the public. The former of those pretty clearly is a hopeless thing. On the other hand, you want to create space for them to join this popular front. I think the rules should be forget about shaming Republicans into being faithful public servants, but how do you straddle that tension? How do you put all your eggs in the basket of rallying the public while also creating space for Republicans to break from Trump?
There’s no reason to make the antagonism the thing that closes the door to future cooperation. We’ll leave a light on for you. The water’s warm here. But we can see what you’re doing, and we’re not going to let it go unmentioned. There’s a way to merge those two things, and it’s the one that I just outlined—where Democrats don’t give them a pass, but also say, When you’re ready, if you ever find your conscience again, we’ll work with you on this.
Beutler: Donald Trump is doing a lot of shit talking. He is making clear that between Putin and Zelenskiy, he’s got Putin’s back—but he’s also attuned to the backlash he’s going to face for that domestically. And it’s very possible that in the medium term, he’s going to have a meeting with Zelenskiy, and they’re going to talk about how they have reached a new understanding. A lot of it’s just going to be smoke and mirrors and for show and Trump pretending that his chaos style is actually clever like a fox.
The question of what Republicans will do at that juncture is going to turn heavily on what’s happening in U.S. domestic politics. Is Donald Trump still at 48 percent approval or has he dipped down to 40 or below? And if they side with Trump, the imperative has to be to make them own the consequences when they arrive. And if they break with Trump, it has to be to work with them in good faith to bring this episode to an end and put America back on the right side of it.
Sargent: Really well said. If there’s one thing we could all use, it’s a sign from Democrats, top Democrats, that they’re actually thinking this stuff through. I don’t think we have that sign. Folks, make sure to check out Brian Beutler’s Substack because he constantly talks about what Democrats could be doing better in a way that few others do. Brian, it’s always good to talk to you, man. Thanks for coming on.
Sargent: You’ve been listening to The Daily Blast with me, your host, Greg Sargent. The Daily Blast is a New Republic podcast and is produced by Riley Fessler and the DSR Network.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Transcript: Trump’s Ugly “Dictator” Rant Forces GOP into Contortions )
Also on site :