(Bloomberg Opinion) -- It's not yet clear how President Joe Biden's response to Russian saber-rattling over the last months, and then to the invasion of Ukraine, will eventually be evaluated by experts and historians. Biden failed to prevent the invasion; he also helped keep the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and much of the world united, at least so far. Beyond that … as political scientist Dan Drezner wrote in the Washington Post on Wednesday, “A week into the war in Ukraine, it is impossible to judge how this conflict will play out.” Which means it's also impossible to judge Biden's actions.
But whatever one thinks of the administration's efforts, the episode has established once again how far the Republican Party and most of its politicians are from being ready to govern.
One group of Republicans spent the buildup to the war mocking Biden's warnings about Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion plans; that includes the rump faction that had, until about a week ago, ranged from Putin-curious to full-on Putin fans. Perhaps former President Donald Trump will turn out to be correct that invading Ukraine was a “genius” move, but at this point that judgment seems, well, a classic “Donald from Queens” ignorant blowhard talk-show caller comment.
(I should point out that a faction of liberals also mocked Biden's talk about the upcoming invasion, including some who blame the conflict on NATO expansion, not Putin's aggression. Whatever one thinks of their views, it's clear that they have zero influence within the Democratic Party when it comes to foreign policy. The same is not true of Republicans who have been sympathetic to Russia).
As for most other Republicans? They have demonstrated they have little or nothing to offer. They've been at their best — or I suppose their least-worst — when they bash Biden for vague, unspecified weakness without suggesting how he's been weak in Europe or what specifically they want him to do to be stronger. But it goes downhill when they do suggest specifics, whether it's Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker advocating for a U.S.-imposed no-fly zone (which Florida Senator Marco Rubio, to his credit, knocked down as the beginning of “World War III”) or South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham calling for someone to assassinate Putin.
Republicans are so averse to agreeing with anything a Democratic president is doing that, when a Democratic president occupies the middle ground, they have little to say. That may be because they don't want Biden to thrive politically, but it's likely that what really motivates Republican politicians is paranoia about angering the party and its voters and sparking a successful nomination challenge in the next election. So they're left with either vague generalizations or reaching for policy options that have been rejected for good reasons.
There's more to it than that, however. Republicans are still suffering the after-effects of leading the nation into a major foreign policy disaster in Iraq two decades ago. The Democrats dealt with Vietnam by going to war with each other, eventually purging many of those involved from the party and struggling for over a decade to figure out a new party consensus on national security. Republicans after Iraq took a different course, essentially pretending for a decade that it hadn't been a disaster at all — a stance that was among the reasons they were vulnerable to Trump in 2016.
The result was (in national security matters) a split within the party, with foreign-policy professionals, many of whom continued to defend the Iraq invasion, making up the core of the policy-oriented anti-Trump faction. Trump, however, was even less equipped to build a new foreign policy consensus than Jimmy Carter had been for Democrats in the 1970s, even as he chased away more and more of the professionals who might contribute sensible policy ideas, with some leaving the party altogether and others, such as the families of former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, partially or completely purged.
None of this will prevent Republicans from winning elections, even presidential elections. But it does leave them unprepared to govern. Or, for now, to be a constructive opposition.
For weekend reading, here are some of the best items from political scientists this week:
The Washington Post's Monkey Cage continues to run all sorts of terrific commentary about Russia and Ukraine. Here's Sharon Werning Rivera on Putin's hold on Russian elites.
Dave Hopkins on the State of the Union speech.
Dan Drezner has some skepticism about sanctions.
Robert Farley on the Russian military and political situation.
Matt Glassman on Twitter and thinking.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Jonathan Bernstein is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy. He taught political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio and DePauw University and wrote A Plain Blog About Politics.
©2022 Bloomberg L.P.
Essential Business Intelligence, Sharp Market Insights, Practical Personal Finance Advice, Daily Fuel, Gold and Silver Prices and Latest Stories — On NDTV Profit.
