The only relevant group to persuade are nativist Republicans. Everyone else is irrelevant, either because - like the professional protest left - they have taken themselves out of the political process by not voting, or, like anti-war progressives, they live in such deep blue districts that their vote is inconsequential.
Given this, the only relevant criticism in this piece is the idea that domestic funding is fungible. While I suppose this is true, framing lethal aid to Ukraine as a military subsidy to American manufacturing allows pro-Ukraine politicians to sell Ukraine aid FIRST as morally/strategically right and THEN placate domestic opponents with demonstrations of how aid also directly benefits Americans and not just American interests.
Ukraine hawks aren't vying for the Gaetz/MTG vote. That ship sailed a long time ago because ideological MAGAs have made Ukraine a totemic anti-Biden position. They're gone. They'll go wherever Trump goes.
Instead, they need to convince a Republican base demonstrably uncomfortable with the Afghanistan exit and highly bought into the aesthetics of American power, including the military.
I agree that the financial aid portion of the aid we give to Ukraine aren't addressed by this argument but I dont think that's particularly important. Strategic arguments are obviously only supported by strategic reasoning or moral reasoning.
The discussion about parody I think are not particularly important. Instinctive isolationists are likely to charge profiteering and have been doing so in the States since Smedley Butler. Whatever. Nobody should frame aid as propping up LockMart. Instead, you explain how it gives money to American workers. No need to mention Lockheed Martin or any other company. It would only be a problem to make this argument if it actually gave more fuel to arguments that this is about profiteering. But those arguments are being made anyway.
Additionally, if people truly believe that money is going to companies at home, why not take the opportunity to explain how and why this actually benefits them? This was done in WW2 with war bonds and a constant stream of propaganda, and also done with the Marshall Plan.
Fact is that arguments about the moral salience of defending Ukraine, which I do also subscribe to, are not breaking through to this demographic precisely because they see no concomitant benefit to American citizens. You can either keep going with argumentative lines that are demonstrably NOT WORKING, or you can try anything else. I agree that American leaders must make the case to defend Ukraine independent of its benefits. They must also explain how defending Ukraine defends our interests.
I think the problem that I see with the idea that we can use this argument to persuade people who would otherwise be opposed in the Republican caucus is that their base is fundamentally aligned with the MTG types. Their conference in general is just structurally positioned to be against any aid to Ukraine, and Trump is very much putting his finger on the scale to prevent any actual legislation from getting done.
So I mean, I guess this whole thing was a long way to say "none of this is going to work," but in the context of it not working, I think it makes for a worse argument. If that makes sense.
I disagree that the base is fundamentally aligned with the MTG types, but we can at least agree that not ALL of the base is aligned with the MTG type, or find them shrill, or unacceptable for another reason, yes? If so, due to the nature of coalition politics, you only have to peel off a relatively small proportion of the base to make a difference in marginal seats.
Maybe you think the whole base is being led around by the nose by Trump or that you can't square the circle enough to keep crazy MAGAs and still persuade others with this argument. Okay. But, as I say, we know that what we're doing right now isn't working. Doing something different might be worse. It might do nothing. Or it might be better! If it's worse, no problem, because this demographic is lost. If it does nothing, no problem. If it's better, great.
As retired military and a contractor, I could not agree more. Supporting Ukraine is just a be right thing to do even if the motives are completely selfish.
The only relevant group to persuade are nativist Republicans. Everyone else is irrelevant, either because - like the professional protest left - they have taken themselves out of the political process by not voting, or, like anti-war progressives, they live in such deep blue districts that their vote is inconsequential.
Given this, the only relevant criticism in this piece is the idea that domestic funding is fungible. While I suppose this is true, framing lethal aid to Ukraine as a military subsidy to American manufacturing allows pro-Ukraine politicians to sell Ukraine aid FIRST as morally/strategically right and THEN placate domestic opponents with demonstrations of how aid also directly benefits Americans and not just American interests.
Ukraine hawks aren't vying for the Gaetz/MTG vote. That ship sailed a long time ago because ideological MAGAs have made Ukraine a totemic anti-Biden position. They're gone. They'll go wherever Trump goes.
Instead, they need to convince a Republican base demonstrably uncomfortable with the Afghanistan exit and highly bought into the aesthetics of American power, including the military.
I agree that the financial aid portion of the aid we give to Ukraine aren't addressed by this argument but I dont think that's particularly important. Strategic arguments are obviously only supported by strategic reasoning or moral reasoning.
The discussion about parody I think are not particularly important. Instinctive isolationists are likely to charge profiteering and have been doing so in the States since Smedley Butler. Whatever. Nobody should frame aid as propping up LockMart. Instead, you explain how it gives money to American workers. No need to mention Lockheed Martin or any other company. It would only be a problem to make this argument if it actually gave more fuel to arguments that this is about profiteering. But those arguments are being made anyway.
Additionally, if people truly believe that money is going to companies at home, why not take the opportunity to explain how and why this actually benefits them? This was done in WW2 with war bonds and a constant stream of propaganda, and also done with the Marshall Plan.
Fact is that arguments about the moral salience of defending Ukraine, which I do also subscribe to, are not breaking through to this demographic precisely because they see no concomitant benefit to American citizens. You can either keep going with argumentative lines that are demonstrably NOT WORKING, or you can try anything else. I agree that American leaders must make the case to defend Ukraine independent of its benefits. They must also explain how defending Ukraine defends our interests.
I think the problem that I see with the idea that we can use this argument to persuade people who would otherwise be opposed in the Republican caucus is that their base is fundamentally aligned with the MTG types. Their conference in general is just structurally positioned to be against any aid to Ukraine, and Trump is very much putting his finger on the scale to prevent any actual legislation from getting done.
So I mean, I guess this whole thing was a long way to say "none of this is going to work," but in the context of it not working, I think it makes for a worse argument. If that makes sense.
I disagree that the base is fundamentally aligned with the MTG types, but we can at least agree that not ALL of the base is aligned with the MTG type, or find them shrill, or unacceptable for another reason, yes? If so, due to the nature of coalition politics, you only have to peel off a relatively small proportion of the base to make a difference in marginal seats.
Maybe you think the whole base is being led around by the nose by Trump or that you can't square the circle enough to keep crazy MAGAs and still persuade others with this argument. Okay. But, as I say, we know that what we're doing right now isn't working. Doing something different might be worse. It might do nothing. Or it might be better! If it's worse, no problem, because this demographic is lost. If it does nothing, no problem. If it's better, great.
As retired military and a contractor, I could not agree more. Supporting Ukraine is just a be right thing to do even if the motives are completely selfish.
Indeed