Press "Enter" to skip to content

ResCon1

Last Night, Ron DeSantis Won the 2024 GOP Presidential Nomination

DeSantis’ smashing victory, coupled with Trump’s disastrous defeats, means that, 18 months from now, the Republicans inevitably will coalesce behind DeSantis, not Trump, as they fight to win back the White House.

As I observed in my election day post, the 2022 mid-terms were all about Trump 2024 and whether the Republican Party would nominate him again, for a third-straight time, in 2024.

Well, the results are basically in (or at least sufficiently tallied); so we can draw a definitive conclusion:

Yesterday’s dismal GOP performance, albeit deeply disappointing, will have a chastening effect that will strengthen the party for the 2024 presidential election cycle.

Consequently, two years from now, Trump will not be the Republican Party presidential nominee; Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis will be.

How do we know this? Because Trump’s handpicked candidates and toadies overwhelmingly went down to defeat, while DeSantis enjoyed a smashing victory.

Indeed, there was a red wave alright, but it began and ended in Florida. The rest of America, by contrast, saw only a weak and unimpressive Trumpian drizzle.

The Republicans barely captured the House of Representatives and they lost every competitive Senate race save for Wisconsin (a real squeaker), Nevada (still too close to call), and Georgia (headed to a runoff election in December).

DeSantis, by contrast, won nearly 60 percent of the vote, while winning the Hispanic vote and the Democratic stronghold of Miami-Dade County.

For Republicans, the implications are crystal clear. If they want to win the presidency in 2024, they have only one viable option: They must eschew Donald Trump, who is a political loser, and embrace Ron DeSantis, who is a political winner.

It really is that simple and that obvious, and the Republicans nationwide know it.

Donald Trump. Even Trump knows it, which is why it is doubtful now he even runs. But if he does run, DeSantis will clean his clock in the primaries: because the Republicans want to win, not lose, the presidency.

I don’t expect DeSantis to announce that he is running for president until next fall, a year from now. He owes that to the people of Florida, who overwhelmingly reelected him as their governor.

Executive Experience. Waiting also will help DeSantis to secure the 2024 presidential nomination. His greatest calling card, after all, is his executive record and his executive experience. As a governor, he gets things done. He solves real problems for real people.

Other politicians, like Trump, talk a good game, but they don’t run anything other than their mouths.

DeSantis, by contrast, runs the state of Florida and he runs it extraordinarily well. That’s why, throughout the pandemic, hundreds of thousands of Americans moved to Florida: to enjoy the bountiful opportunities accorded by that state under his leadership.

The more the American people see DeSantis doing his job, the better off he will be, politically, for 2024. He has time to declare his candidacy, and he should bide his time and take his time before announcing that he’s running.

The reality is: no other potential candidate can match DeSantis’ record of accomplishment. The nomination is his for the asking and his to lose, and he will take it, by near-universal acclamation. It is only a matter of time.

Trump is yesterday; DeSantis is tomorrow; and a 2024 GOP presidential victory lies within reach. That’s what we learned last night, and that’s what the Republicans’ dismal 2022 performance means for 2024.

The GOP lost yesterday because of Donald Trump, but it will win tomorrow because of Ron DeSantis. Stay tuned. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

Feature photo credit: Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis, courtesy of Fox News.

The 2022 Mid-Term Elections Are All About Trump 2024

Trump’s not on the ballot, but his handpicked Senate candidates are, and whether they win or lose today may determine whether the GOP nominates Trump again in 2024.

Regardless of how, exactly, they turn out, the 2022 election results won’t effect any substantive change in public policy. However, they will have a dramatic impact on the 2024 Republican presidential nomination fight and, for the reason, are worth watching.

Legislatively, nothing will change because Democrat Joe Biden will still be president and the Republicans will win control of at least the House of Representatives. This will result in legislative gridlock.

Consequently, there will be no major legislation enacted into law for at least the next two to three years. But whether the Republicans win control of  the Senate matters big-time for judicial nominations.

More importantly (because there likely will be no Supreme Court vacancies in the next two years), the fate of Trump’s handpicked Senate candidates will affect Trump’s standing within the GOP, and whether the Republican Party adopts a more non-interventionist or isolationist foreign policy. Ditto Trump-backed gubernatorial candidates.

Trump, of course, intervened in the 2022 GOP primary races by endorsing specific candidates, who often won the party’s nomination because they had Trump’s backing.

If these candidates win on election day, it will strengthen Trump’s claim that the Republican Party should nominate him again for president in 2024. (Trump has basically said he will announce next Tuesday that he is running again for president.)

If, however, at least a couple of Trump’s handpicked candidates lose on election day, it rightly will be seen as a repudiation of Trump and a blow to his image as a political winner. The GOP then will be less likely to nominate him for president in 2024.

The Preferred Scenario. For this reason, I am hoping that the Republicans win control of the Senate, even as their most Trumpian Senate and gubernatorial candidates go down to defeat. Because if that happens, it is much less likely that the Republican Party will nominate Trump again for president.

Granted, this is unlikely to happen. If the Republicans win control of the Senate, then Trump’s toady candidates almost certainly will win their respective races. However, my preferred scenario is possible.

If, for instance, non-Trumpy conservative GOP Senate candidates in Colorado and Washington State win, then the GOP could suffer losses in Georgia, Arizona, and Ohio, and still win control of the Senate.

Here, then, specifically, are the races I am watching:

Georgia. The Republican Party Senate nominee, Herschel Walker, is frighteningly unfit for political office and should not have been nominated.

Walker won the nomination only because Trump endorsed him and because he is the greatest college football running back (a Heisman Trophy winner) ever produced by the state of Georgia. If Walker loses (unlikely), then it rightly will be seen as a repudiation of Trump.

Unfortunately, Walker is running in the red-purple state of Georgia against a likable but extreme leftist, Raphael Warnock—which means Walker probably will win.

Ohio. JD Vance emerged as the winner from a crowded field of GOP Senate hopefuls only after Trump endorsed him. He is a weak and uninspiring candidate, but an intellectual leader of the Trump wing of the Republican Party.

Vance also is infamous for loudly and proudly declaring that he doesn’t care if Russia conquers Ukraine. His defeat, therefore, would go a long way toward saving the GOP from its growing non-interventionist or isolationist wing.

Unfortunately, Vance is running in solidly red Ohio, which means he almost certainly will win Tuesday.

Arizona. Blake Masters is a weak and unattractive candidate who also bends the knee to Trump. Masters is in a very tight race with incumbent Democratic Senator Mark Kelly.

Most analysts agree: if the Republicans had nominated two-term Governor Doug Ducey, then this race long ago would have been called safely for the GOP. But Ducey declined to run, because he knew Trump would vociferously oppose him after he refused to participate in Trump’s fraudulent 2020 “stop the steal” election scheme.

Consequently, the Republicans turned to Masters, whose off-putting persona and servility to Trump has made him politically unappealing to many Arizona voters. This race is a tossup.

Pennsylvania. Trump endorsed the weaker of the two GOP Senate candidates, Dr. Mehmet Oz, a heart surgeon. Trump emphatically rejected the stronger, Reaganesque candidate, David McCormick, because, Trump said, McCormick wasn’t really MAGA.

For most of the race, Oz has been trailing ultra-leftist John Fetterman, the incumbent Lieutenant Governor. But Fetterman’s disastrous debate performance showcased his obvious cognitive impairment suffered as a result of a stroke May 13, 2022.

Oz has since taken a slight lead in the race and is now expected to win. And although Trump endorsed him, Oz is hardly a Trump toady.

Instead, Oz enjoys a well-deserved reputation as an independent-minded thinker who will put Pennsylvanians, not Trump, first.

Colorado. Trump angrily denounced Colorado Senate nominee Joe O’Dea after O’Dea mildly said he would prefer that the GOP nominate someone else other than Trump for president in 2024.

O’Dea is a superb candidate, but a long shot in this purple-blue state. However, if he pulls off an upset, it will be an indication that Trump’s hold on the GOP may be less firm than many think.

Washington State. Tiffany Smiley is another superb candidate and even more of a long shot than O’Dea, because Washington State is even more Democratic than Colorado.

Her story, though, is moving, inspiring, and compelling. Smiley is a 41-year-old nurse with three young boys. Her husband, Scotty, is an Army veteran who was blinded and temporarily paralyzed in 2005 by a suicide bomber in Iraq.

Smiley fought and advocated for her husband to ensure that he got the medical care he needed and had earned.

As a result, notes the Tunnel to Towers Foundation, Scotty “became the first blind active-duty officer in military history. After many years, he officially medically retired from the military in 2015.”

Trump has been a non-factor in this race, and Smiley is clearly not a Trump Republican. Instead, she is the type of Republican—positive, forward-looking, and solutions-oriented—that the party needs more of on the national scene and in elected office.

Her opponent, incumbent Democratic Senator Patty Murray, is an aging political fossil and arguably the dumbest and least influential member of Congress.

Arizona Governor’s Race. Republican nominee Kari Lake is a superb politician, but also a total Trump toady. That, however, is not what most concerns us.

More worrisome is Lake’s newfound political alliance with former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), her denunciation of “warmongers,” and apparent embrace of a non-interventionist or isolationist foreign policy that retreats from the world even as America’s enemies advance and move forward in Europe, Asia and the Middle East.

The danger is that if Lake wins the Arizona governor’s race, she’ll be well-positioned to run for vice president or president in 2028 or 2032. Her political skills are unique and compelling and Lake would be a formidable candidate. Better to stop her now before it’s too late.

The polls say Lake will win Tuesday, but the race is considered close. So an upset is not beyond question.

The bottom line: The 2022 election results matter because of what they portend for the 2024 presidential race, not because of what they will mean legislatively.

Truth be told, we are in for two to three years of legislative gridlock, as a Democratic president and a Republican House of Representatives check each other legislatively.

But if Trump’s handpicked Republican Senate candidates in Georgia, Ohio, and Arizona all lose, then the former defeated president will be a diminished political figure with a much-reduced political standing.

It then will be easier for a strong Republican presidential candidate—Florida Governor Ron DeSantis most likely—to knock off Trump and return the GOP to its winning ways.

A GOP Senate. Defeating Trump’s handpicked Senate candidates also would deal a crippling blow to the non-interventionist or isolationist wing of the Republican Party. And the GOP can still win the Senate if its non-Trumpy conservative Senate candidates in Colorado and Washington State pull off upset wins.

GOP control of the Senate matters because it will help to stop or at least slow down Biden’s disastrous judicial nominees.

For these reasons, let’s hope and pray that my preferred scenario—a Republican-controlled Senate without Herschel Walker, JD Vance, and Blake Masters—materializes on election day.

Feature photo credit: Trump’s handpicked candidates Herschel Walker (Georgia), JD Vance (Ohio), and Blake Masters (Arizona), courtesy of CBS NewsScripps Media, Inc., and AZ Central, respectively.

The West Must Safeguard Ukrainian Grain Exports

The United States and NATO have the moral and military means to force Russia to stand down in the Black Sea. What they seem to lack is the will.

Russia’s threat to withdraw from its grain deal with Ukraine underscores Russian criminality and Western weakness. But the West is weak-willed; it is not militarily weak.

In fact, quite the opposite: the United States and NATO possess overwhelming military superiority and could quickly destroy the Russian military in Ukraine if they chose to do so.

Western Inaction. This is not to argue for a preemptive Western military strike on, say, Russia’s Black Sea naval fleet. Instead, it is to argue for a more forceful and assertive Western posture vis-à-vis Russia and the flow of Ukrainian grain to the rest of the world.

The fact is: the West occupies the moral high ground. Russia’s threat to block Ukrainian grain exports serves no military purpose.

However, it does serve to jeopardize the survival and well-being of millions of people worldwide—especially the poor and impoverished in less developed nations that struggle to overcome poverty and malnutrition.

Russian War Crimes. This latest Russian threat, moreover, cannot be divorced from ongoing Russian attacks on civilian infrastructure and residential neighborhoods in Ukraine. These attacks are quite literally criminal. They, too, serve no military purpose. They are war crimes and crimes against humanity.

For this reason, the West ought to be far more insistent than it has been about safeguarding the right of Ukraine to export grain through the Black Sea ports of Chornomorsk, Odesa, and Yuzhny/Pivdennyi to the rest of the world.

This means not simply protesting against Russian threats, but declaring, unequivocally, that the United States and NATO will ensure that Ukrainian grain exports continue unmolested; and that any Russian ship that tries to stop or interfere with this crucial humanitarian mission will be destroyed.

As the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board observes:

Denouncing Mr. Putin isn’t likely to change his mind about the grain initiative.

If he insists on a food blockade, the best response is for the U.S. to organize a coalition of the willing to escort grain shipments from Odessa and through the Black Sea.

It needn’t be a NATO operation, though the U.S. would have to lead it.

Wartime Ironies. One of the ironies of this war has been that Russia is economically and militarily weak, but brazen and aggressive. The West, by contrast, is economically and militarily strong, but timid and tentative. Consequently, the West too often has yielded the initiative to Russia.

This has been a big mistake. It is long past time for the United States and NATO to recognize that they have the whip hand, both morally and militarily, vis-à-vis Russia and to act accordingly.

A good place to start would be in the Black Sea: by ensuring that Ukrainian grain shipments to the rest of the world continue unabated without Russian interference.

Feature photo credit: TheWorldofMaps.com.

Wit and Humor are Ron DeSantis’s Keys to the White House

Just ask Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, Jr., and Antonin Scalia.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is widely seen as the Republican Party’s strongest presidential candidate in 2024.

As a highly successful governor who is cruising to reelection in America’s third-most populous state, DeSantis has executive experience and a proven record of accomplishment that none of his likely GOP rivals (speechifying senators, mostly) can match.

There is, however, one thing that might hold DeSantis back and keep him from ever reaching the Oval Office: his lack of wit and a sense of humor.

“It’s not apparent to me that DeSantis has a sense of humor,” Dexter Filkins told Andrew Sullivan on The Dishcast. “He’s not a very jokey guy, at least not in public.”

Filkins knows of what he speaks. In June, he published the most insightful reportorial piece to date on Florida’s governor.

Filkins told Sullivan that, based on his reporting,  DeSantis would wipe the floor with most of the Democrats who would likely run against him in any general election matchup. However, he warns, DeSantis’ “entire persona is strident and angry,” and the governor does not excel at small talk.

This is a glaring red flag and a real problem for DeSantis. Wit and a sense of humor, after all, are integral to political success, especially for conservative Republicans. Why?

Because conservative Republicans are seen as more hard-edged and tough-minded. A sense of humor thus helps to soften their image and humanize them in the public mind.

Social conservatives in particular run the risk of being caricatured as harsh and judgmental, rigid and dogmatic. Wit and humor can compellingly show otherwise and put the lie to this caricature.

Ronald Reagan. It is no accident, after all, that the most successful conservative politician in American history, the man who won reelection as president in an historic 49-state landslide, was Ronald Reagan.

Reagan had a wonderful sense of humor that endeared him to the American people, even those who strongly disagreed with his conservative political philosophy and public policies.

Consider, for instance, how the 73-year-old Reagan handled concerns about his advanced age during a 1984 presidential debate with Walter Mondale:

I want you to know that, also, I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.

As Politico reports: “Many members of the audience, gathered in the cavernous Municipal Auditorium in Kansas City, Mo., applauded and laughed. So did Mondale.”

And, as a result, Reagan won more than the debate. He won, by an overwhelming margin, a second term in the White House.

Buckley and Scalia. After Reagan, the next two greatest conservative public figures in recent decades are author and columnist William F. Buckley, Jr. and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. And what distinguishes these two men aside from their towering intellects?

Their wit and sense of humor, which showcased a humanity and a warmth of personality that made them impossible to demonize.

When asked, for instance, what would be the first thing he would do “if he actually won his rollicking, long-shot campaign for mayor of New York City in 1965,” Buckley responded: “Demand a recount!”

As for Scalia, “he had a great sense of humor,” admits left-wing comedian Stephen Colbert:

People have actually broken down the transcripts for [Supreme Court] oral arguments and he told more jokes and got more laughs than any of the other justices.”

“In a big family,” quipped Scalia, the father of nine children, “the first child is kind of like the first pancake. If it’s not perfect, that’s okay. There are a lot more coming along.”

“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” he amusingly wrote in a dissent from a Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

That quip even drew a chuckle from Chief Justice John Roberts, who had written the Court’s decision that aroused Scalia’s ire.

Ron DeSantis. If DeSantis wants to succeed at the highest level of American politics, if he wants to win the presidency and move America in a socially conservative and economically dynamic, free-market direction, then he has no more urgent task than to emulate Reagan, Buckley, and Scalia.

He needs to understand that for a conservative Republican especially, having and demonstrating wit and a sense of humor are of paramount importance.

Wit and Humor. To be sure, wit and humor are not things that can be instantly conjured up and created. They take time, effort, and practice. They are a reflection of life and personality, playfulness and camaraderie, joy, triumph, anguish, and even pain.

“Humor: a difficult concept to learn,” Spock tells Admiral Kirk in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. “It is not logical.”

True, but wit and humor can be developed. Jokes can be incorporated into political stump speeches. Witty remarks can be crafted and used out on the campaign trail. A politician can consciously cultivate a more joyful public persona that wins converts even as it disarms critics.

And make no mistake: this matters, politically. Why? Because, as one website helpfully explains:

Humor is a great leveler. It is almost impossible to remain angry with someone who is making you laugh.

Donald Trump. Exactly, and yet, this is precisely what Donald Trump did not do. Trump did not disarm his critics. He did not make people laugh in recognition of his humanity.

To the contrary: Trump angered and repelled too many voters by his insistence on being “tough” (read: nasty and unpresidential) and refusing to show “weakness” (read: humanity). Consequently, a record number of voters turned out to vote in 2020 precisely so they could vote against Trump.

Ditto the 2018 election cycle, which flipped the House of Representatives from Republican to Democratic control. A critical mass of voters turned out to vote Democrat for Congress because Trump so angered and repelled them.

DeSantis needs to avoid Trump’s mistake or politically fatal character flaw. He needs to show voters that he cares; that he has a heart; that he’s human; and that he is worthy of leading this great nation. And the best way, the most effective way, to achieve this is through wit and humor.

Is there a political market for this? Absolutely.

Consider, for instance, the astounding success of the The Babylon Bee, a conservative Christian satirical website, as well as the sky-high ratings of  Fox News’ Greg Gutfield, whose late-night show is tops in the nation.

Gutfield! is “beating CBS’ The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, NBC’s The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, and ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Livewith FNC outpacing the broadcast networks even through their fall premieres,” Forbes reports.

As for The Babylon Bee, it is the most popular satirical site on the Internet, with more than 20 million page views per month, reports Ben Shapiro. “Fake news you can trust,” is the site’s witty tagline.

Conclusion. Politics and culture increasingly intersect. The political marketplace is waiting for a conservative Republican politician who can do politically what The Babylon Bee is doing journalistically and Greg Gutfield is doing for late-night television or streaming.

DeSantis has crucial executive experience and a highly successful track record as governor. These make him a compelling Republican presidential candidate.

But he is wants to be a winner and not just a contender, DeSantis will have to demonstrate that he can make people smile and laugh, even as he himself smiles and laughs. He will have to showcase a sense of humor that, thus far, has been conspicuously absent in his public appearances.

Can he do it? Yes, but only if he works at it. Only if he consciously makes liberal use of humor to achieve conservative political ends.

Only if recognizes that a politician elevates himself through self-deprecation, not self-promotion; and that while successful public figures take ideas seriously, they do not take themselves too seriously. Just ask Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, Jr., and Antonin Scalia.

Feature photo credit: (L-R): Author and columnist William F. Buckley, Jr., President Ronald Reagan, and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, courtesy of National Review, FramedArt.com, and YouTube, respectively.

Why the Right-Wing Critics of Ukraine are Wrong

They don’t understand the crucial nexus between Ukraine, Russia, and American national security.

Most Americans support Ukraine, and most Congressional Republicans support Ukraine. Yet a small but vocal contingent of so-called America First conservatives opposes U.S. aid to Ukraine.

Like former President Trump, these so-called conservatives call for a negotiated solution to the conflict now before, they say, it “escalates” out of control and leads to “nuclear war.”

These so-called conservatives are grievously and historically wrong. Here we expose and debunk their arguments for abandoning Ukraine and appeasing Putin’s Russia.

Right-Wing Lie #1: Ukraine is corrupt and illiberal and thus undeserving of American support.

Yes, there is corruption in Ukraine, but so what? Corruption exists in many countries, including the United States. But this is very different from saying a country is defined by its corruption.

In truth, Ukraine is a relatively new and fledgling democracy. Like many new and fledgling democracies, it has problems—including corruption—that it is working to overcome. For this reason it deserves our support.

If we held every country in the world to an impossible standard of utopian perfection, then we would have no foreign policy or engagement with other countries, since they all would fall short.

As for being illiberal, this is nonsense. Ukraine is fighting to be part of Europe, part of the West, which is defined by its commitment to (classically) liberal principles of personal autonomy, personal responsibility, and democratic self-rule.

Do Europe, America, and the West deviate from these principles in ways that are sometimes alarming and disconcerting? Does Ukraine?

Of course they do—we all do—but again: so what? If an impossible standard of utopian perfection is what must guide U.S. foreign policy, then we have effectively jettisoned the idea of a foreign policy.

Right-wing critics who complain about alleged Ukrainian corruption and illiberalism also miss the crucial clarifying context, which is Russia.

Indeed, the alternative to Ukrainian self-rule is not American-style democracy; it is Russian imperialism, which is orders of magnitude more illiberal and authoritarian than anything proffered by the Ukrainians.

Oscar Wilde famously said, “You can judge a man by his enemies.” So, too, with a country. Ukraine’s enemy is Russia, and that tells us a lot about what Ukraine is fighting for and against.

Ukraine is fighting against a truly corrupt and illiberal authoritarian dictatorship (Russia), and it aspires to be a liberal democracy that is an integral part of Europe and the West. Enough said.

Right-Wing Lie #2: Ukraine and Russia are enmeshed in a heated “border dispute” that does not implicate American national security

Calling Russia’s war on Ukraine a “border dispute” is like saying the American Civil War was about “regional differences.” Both assertions are literally true, but they obscure far more than they reveal.

In truth, Ukraine is fighting for its nationhood and its very existence as a free and sovereign country. The so-called border dispute exists only because Russia seeks to erase from the map any and all Ukrainian borders.

This is a dramatic moral difference that talk of a “border dispute” hides or conceals. In the same way, talk of “regional differences” obscures the larger-scale moral truth that the American Civil War was about slavery first and foremost.

As for the American national security interest in Ukraine, it is real and significant.

The truth is: America is an international commercial power, with a clear and demonstrable stake in the international order. To allow Russia to subsume Ukraine would be to invite America’s enemies to do the same (illegally seize sovereign territory)  in other parts of the world.

Think China vis-à-vis Taiwan, for instance.

Moreover, U.S. foreign trade with Europe dwarfs our trade with any other region and is a driver of American prosperity. The idea that the United States can be indifferent to the fate of Europe in the 21st Century ignores the economic facts of life, the military facts of life, and the importance of alliances to keeping Americans safe and secure.

Right-Wing Lie #3: Ukraine is not America’s concern, it is Europe’s problem; and it is a diversion from our real 21st Century strategic challenge, which is the rise of China.

Again, in a world where millions of Americans travel and do business internationally, the idea that we can indifferent to the fate of Europe simply is not credible. And the idea that the Chinese will not draw lessons and inspiration from any Western appeasement of Putin in Ukraine is delusional.

In truth, Russia and China are aligned, formally and on paper. So by ensuring Russia loses in Ukraine, we weaken the Sino-Russian alliance and send a powerful signal to Beijing about Western resolve in the face of aggression.

Right-Wing Lie #4: Putin’s Russia is not an enemy of the United States; it is a potential ally whom we foolishly risk losing because of our misplaced concern for Ukraine.

This is unadulterated nonsense. In fact, well before Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Putin had demonstrated, by his words and his actions, that he viewed the United States as an enemy.

For this reason, Russia has worked assiduously and unceasingly to undermine American national security interests—in Syria, Iran, and the Middle East; within Europe and NATO, Taiwan and the South China Sea; in the United Nations and other international bodies; and on social media (Twitter and Facebook).

A few throwaway lines about cancel culture, woke ideology, and LGBT designed for gullible American and European conservatives does not make Putin’s Russia a potential U.S. ally.

In truth Putin’s Russia is  clear and demonstrable enemy of the United States. Thus inflicting a catastrophic defeat on Russia in Ukraine will help to weaken one of our nation’s most significant and implacable adversaries.

Right-Wing Lie #5: Whatever the merits of aiding Ukraine, the United States cannot afford to spend tens of billions of dollars more on another “endless war.” We already are $30 trillion in debt. On this path lies financial ruin, which will truly devastate American national security.

True, the national debt is a very serious problem that must be addressed. But the idea that it is caused by excessive military spending, let alone excessive aid to Ukraine, is simply untrue.

The United States spends less on a defense as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product than it did during the Cold War. Meanwhile, entitlements—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—have been skyrocketing and consuming an ever-increasing share of the federal budget.

Entitlement spending, not military spending—and certainly, not aid to Ukraine—is what is driving America’s growing debt crisis.

For greater context, aid to Ukraine amounts to tens of billions of dollars in a federal budget that is trillions of dollars. And it is money well spent to safeguard the rules-based international order that drives American prosperity.

Ukraine, moreover, is not asking for Americans to fight and die on its behalf. Instead, Ukraine is asking for armaments and battlefield intelligence.

We aid Ukraine now to forestall and prevent a worse crisis later, which will cost us much more, potentially, in dollars and lives lost should Russia win and Ukraine lose.

Right-Wing Lie #6: The war in Ukraine is another “endless war” that we should exit before it needlessly saps our blood and treasure.

Projecting the American experience in Iraq and Afghanistan onto Ukraine is a big mistake. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Ukraine is a European country with a relatively advanced and capable military that has no need for American combat troops to fight on its behalf.

In fact, recent Ukrainian battlefield successes demonstrate that the country’s military can and will inflict a catastrophic defeat on Putin’s Russia—provided the West maintains its support and assistance.

And so, we can see a clear end to the war, a time when (within the next 9-18 months, most likely) all Russian troops are expelled from all of Ukraine, including Crimea.

Right-Wing Lie #7: The biggest danger right now is that America “escalates” the conflict in Ukraine, thereby risking a “nuclear war” with Russia. This is madness! We must step back from the brink and find ways to “deescalate” the conflict.

This is an emotional appeal that defies reason. Escalation sounds bad, but what it actually means is accelerating our shipment of arms and munitions to Ukraine, so that the Ukrainians can successfully drive the Russian invaders out of their country.

This is a good and necessary thing, not a bad and dangerous thing.

As for the risk of “nuclear war,” this is another emotional appeal that defies reason. Any time you are confronting a nuclear-armed state (which Russia is) there obviously is a risk of nuclear war. But that risk is negligible if the United States and NATO have a real and credible deterrent, which they do.

Moreover, the real risk is not a strategic nuclear war, which would threaten cities in Russia and the United States, but rather a regional nuclear war in Ukraine involving tactical or battlefield nukes.

A regional nuclear war in Ukraine would be bad, obviously; but it is not nearly as bad or as dangerous as a full-fledged strategic nuclear war that could endanger Washington, D.C. and Moscow.

Finally, Russia derives no military advantage from using nuclear weapons in Ukraine. And any Russian nuclear strike would require the connivance of hundreds of individuals in the Russian military and civilian chains of command. Such connivance is unlikely to say the least.

So the idea that Putin could launch a nuke in a fit of pique or because his “back is against the wall” is silly. As Timothy Snyder points out:

States with nuclear weapons have been fighting and losing wars since 1945, without using them.  Nuclear powers lose humiliating wars in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan and do not use nuclear weapons.

Putin’s Russia today will be no different.

Or, if it is different, it will be so in a small and militarily insignificant way. Putin will detonate one or more tactical nukes to try and scare the world and intimidate the West into backing down. Sorry, but that won’t work—nor should it.

Right-Wing Lie #8: America should force Ukraine and Russia to negotiate now and reach a compromise solution that will end the war.

This sounds good. Who, after all, doesn’t want to end this horrendous war, which has wrought so much death and destruction on Ukraine? But what, exactly, is there to negotiate? And, at this point, what could a “compromise solution” possibly mean?

Russia wants to conquer and subsume Ukraine. Ukraine wants to be free and independent of Russia. This an irreconcilable difference that cannot be negotiated or compromised away.

Russia either will take Ukrainian territory or it will be driven from Ukrainian territory. The only thing Ukraine can compromise on, after all, is its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Thus the problem with forcing Ukraine to negotiate now is that it means Russia wins and Ukraine loses.

That is and ought to be a nonstarter.

The bottom line: authentic American conservatives support Ukraine. They recognize that critical America national security interests are at stake, with ramifications that extend far beyond Ukraine. Failure, they realize, is not an option.

Right-wing populist imposters, by contrast, are stooges for Putin. They don’t understand the crucial nexus between Ukraine, Russia, and American national security.

Consequently, their criticism of American foreign policy a vis-à-vis Ukraine is grievously and historically wrong. Their objections to Ukraine and to American support for Ukraine cannot withstand critical scrutiny.

In truth, America First necessarily means Ukraine wins and Russia loses.

Feature photo credit: So-called America First conservatives (L-R): Ned Ryun, Laura Ingraham, and Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis (Ret.) via a Fox News screenshot.