There is something fundamentally wrong with the American political system when there are no issues where Republicans and Democrats cannot work consensually in the national interest. It seems as well as actions taken by many of the elected leadership are couched strictly to embarrass politically the other side; as if the substance of the issue is not compelling enough to justify dropping all of the politically jockeying. This is evident on domestic as well as global issues, spending matters as well as humanitarian concerns. Almost every response is calculated to exploit or to engage in political one-upmanship.
Ukraine had been waiting since December not very patiently to obtain desperately needed $70 billion in essential military equipment from the United States for its continuing fight with Russia. This vital assistance was held up largely because House Republican Members were engaged in a contest of political gamesmanship over how and whether to package the funds. Ukraine needed the arms immediately and extreme right-wing House Members were debating whether and if so how much of the bill should be considered to be only a loan to Ukraine. Meanwhile, most military strategists viewed this delay as having virtually guaranteed that this war definitely will continue into at least a third year, as the battlefield maneuverings were bogged down.
At the same time, Central European Governments, which are part of NATO, have genuinely begun to fear a possible onslaught from the Russian bear. The European states are legitimately concerned whether Ukraine, even with its new infusion of $70 billion of U.S. military assistance will be able to withstand the forthcoming Russian offensive. Poland, Germany, Belarus, Hungary plus the Baltic States, remain extremely disturbed about the consequences if Ukraine were to fall. The combined resources of the West (read the U.S.) would need to be prepared to counter effectively such an eventuality. Given the possibility of a second Trump term as well as given some of Trump’s rhetoric about NATO and U.S. obligation to the Western alliance, many of the European Governments indeed are on edge.
In a similar manner, in the midst of the student uprisings around the country over the Gaza War, the embattled House Speaker Mike Johnson sought to demonstrate publicly a true grip on the crisis. He sought to achieve this by coming to the Columbia University campus in New York to proclaim his solidarity with the pro-Israel voices on the Columbia campus. Johnson also urged that universities adopt policies to contain the aggressive, inflammatory pro-Palestinian groups which have disrupted campus life throughout the country.
His remarks as well as those announcing a set of special House investigation committees could just have easily been delivered in Washington from the House Chamber. Johnson’s actions as well as those of other Republicans and similar visits by politicians to college campuses around the country, were all transparently laced with an intent to demonstrate deep Republican support for Israel. This despite the fact that it was the Republicans who had held up for months the foreign aid supplemental package including aid for Israel.
Perhaps most disturbing of all was how low the Republican led House fell in addressing the antisemitic activities across college campuses. The House initiated a resolution to expand the definition of antisemitism so that the Department of Education could enforce anti-discrimination laws. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) language of 2016 defined antisemitism and was supported by the U.S. and European Union states. The U.S. has not yet officially codified IHRA into law. The House now passed a broadening definition last week, expanding the definition to include the “targeting of the State of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.”
The bi-partisan resolution passed by a vote of 320-91 but it was largely seen as a further step to divide Democrats who are conflicted over issues related to the war in Gaza and controlling campus violence. The opposition to the resolution came largely from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party as well as from those who viewed the proposal as having a chilling effect on free speech on college campuses; not from an inherent opposition to IHRA.
What should have been alarming as well to Democrats and to many American Jews who urged support for the bill was opposition statements espoused from the extreme Republican right. Representative Marjorie Taylor Green declared her opposition to the bill based on her sense that the new proposed definition “could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews.” Her reaction to the proposed bill suggests an affirmation of one of the most serious fundamental antisemitic tropes.