Brooks and Capehart on U.S. aid for Ukraine wavering on partisan battle lines

Read the Full Transcript

• Amna Nawaz:

  As Ukraine marks two years of war with Russia, Americans' support for aid in the country — to the country, rather, is wavering along partisan battle lines.

  On that and the other political story shaping the week, we turn now to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That is New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.

  Great to see you both.

• Jonathan Capehart:

  Hey, Amna.

• David Brooks:

  Good to see you.

• Amna Nawaz:

  Let's start with Ukraine.

  Russia's war, David, as you know, now moving into its third year there. Russia's clearly gaining momentum on the battlefield. Lawmakers here in the U.S. are unable to move through aid. Mr. Trump is now telling Republicans not to back that aid.

  If the Ukraine war was supposed to be this test, right, of Western democracies coming together, showing their strength against a rising autocracy, are we failing that test?

• David Brooks:

  Well, we're on the verge of it.

  If you had told me two years ago that Europe would be united and strong and in support, even though they were so dependent on Russian energy, and that we'd be the faltering ones, and that the faltering ones within our country were Republicans, wouldn't have believed you.

• Amna Nawaz:

  Didn't see that coming.

• David Brooks:

  It seemed like it was universally accepted that defending Ukraine was in our national interest. Even today, 74 percent of Americans think defending Ukraine is in our national interest.

  And yet the president, or the ex-president, said no, and the speaker apparently follows him. And, to be fair, in retrospect, we should have been clearer that the Russian strategy in war is to go on forever and ever, and they're willing to sacrifice casualties that would destroy most other nations. They did it in the Napoleonic Wars. They did it in World War II. They're doing it in Ukraine.

  And we should have been clearer that time wasn't on our side. And the Biden administration was undoubtedly too slow to get the weapons systems. They gave them enough not to lose, but not enough to win. But it's a small, rump isolationist majority, the J.D. Vances of the world, that threaten to really send the world into turmoil.

  And they say, oh, no, we need to focus on China and Asia. Well, talk to the Chinese. Talk to the Taiwanese. What are they worried about? They're worried about Ukraine losing. And so this is the doorstep to chaos, and a large part of the Republican Party doesn't care.

• Amna Nawaz:

  Jonathan, to David's point there, House Speaker Johnson is listening to former President Trump here, right?

  But he's also — he's facing a looming government shutdown. He's trying to oversee one of the smallest House majorities in congressional history. Is Ukraine a top of his priority list right now?

• Jonathan Capehart:

  No, top of his priority list, Speaker Johnson's priority list, is remaining speaker.

  We are right back where we were with Speaker McCarthy. Only, the difference between Speaker McCarthy and Speaker Johnson is, and I can't believe I'm saying this, Speaker McCarthy knew what he was doing. He could actually — he could govern, haphazardly and haltingly, but he could govern. He kept the government from shutting down.

• Amna Nawaz:

  Yes.

• Jonathan Capehart:

  Speaker Johnson has Ukraine aid, which is vital to — as David was talking about, vital to the national interest. He's got to get through two funding deadlines, March 1 and March 8.

  There's an immigration bill that he says — his own that he wants to get through, after rejecting the hard-fought bipartisan Senate immigration bill. This is a person who is woefully unprepared and inadequate for the task that faces him.

  And when it comes to this — this battle between democracy and autocracy, where it is vital that Ukraine win, if they do not win, we will be able to look back and point the finger right at Speaker Johnson, because it's Speaker Johnson who is the one who's getting in the way of something happening on multiple fronts.

• Amna Nawaz:

  You agree with that, David?

• David Brooks:

  Yes, I'm a little hopeful that something will get passed. There are a bunch of different ways you can do it. They're thinking of breaking all the different aid pieces apart.

  There's this thing called the discharge position, where, if you get a majority of House members signing this petition, you can get a vote on something.

• Amna Nawaz:

  You still need a number of Republicans to get that discharge petition.

• David Brooks:

  You need a number of Republicans. But if it's saving democracy, I think there'd be a number. You don't have to get a lot of Republicans. You just got to get a few, and then you can evade the speaker and get a vote.

  And if it got a vote, it would pass, for sure.

• Amna Nawaz:

  Hope springs eternal. I will take that.

  I do want to ask about the other issue raised on immigration in particular, and as it relates to President Biden and his reelection campaign. We heard Laura Barron-Lopez's reporting there on some weakening among the Biden coalition and core groups there.

  And we know, David, that President Biden is now weighing some very harsh immigration tactics through executive action at the U.S. Southern border, reminiscent really of some Trump era policies. So does it make it harder for the president, as a candidate, to draw a bright line between himself and his likely general election opponent, former President Trump, when he's coming out with some of the same policies?

• David Brooks:

  Yes, on this issue, Joe Biden does not want to draw a bright line. The country is with Donald Trump.

  If you ask who do you approve on different issues, on general competency, Trump is up by like 12 points. On who can handle the economy better, Trump is up by 25. On immigration, he's up by 39 points. And so this is an issue where you want to fudge that line.

  And just on the merits, I'm as pro-immigration as I think it's possible to be, but our asylum system is meant for people seeking asylum, escaping repression. And a lot of the people coming across the border are coming across the border for a lot of the reasons.

  My ancestors came across. They wanted economic opportunity. But that's not asylum. And so the system is somewhat broken down, and Biden is right to do something. And, politically, I do think his survival depends on it.

• Amna Nawaz:

  Do these kinds of moves, Jonathan, further alienate members of that Biden coalition that helped get him to the White House in the first place?

• Jonathan Capehart:

  Well, I mean, that sort of answers the question. Yes, it does further alienate.

  But, I mean, I have to agree with David on this, that immigration is an issue that the president has to fudge this line. But what I also think he has going for him is, he gets to say, the Republicans made me do this.

  There was a bipartisan Senate immigration bill that never got a vote. I was in on the negotiations. They never gave us a vote. And so we have to do something. And the election of Tom Suozzi in — on Long Island, gosh, was that a week-and-a-half ago now, almost two weeks ago, was a signal of how salient the immigration issue is.

• Amna Nawaz:

  Meanwhile, David, here is what Mr. Biden could be up against.

  From the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, as it's known, there was a moment when a far right conservative commentator, a man named Jack Posobiec, took to the stage. He was holding up a cross, and he said this:

• Jack Posobiec, Conservative Activist:

  Welcome to the end of democracy.

  (Laughter)

• Jack Posobiec:

  We're here to overthrow it completely. We didn't get all the way there on January 6, but we will endeavor to get rid of it and replace it with this right here.

• Amna Nawaz:

  He's holding up a cross there as he says "Replace it with this."

  This was met with cheers from the crowd there. But, David, how do you look at that? Was that meant to be a joke?

• David Brooks:

  Yes, it's meant to be — I mean, there's a game right-wing commentators of that sort play.

  They get — they say something that offends the left, and then they could say, oh, the left hates me. And then they get popular in their own crowd, and so it's a form of performance art to shock the bourgeoisie.

  And I take it with utmost cynicism, that they are just trying to get attention, and this kind of humor is, shock the left. And then I have owned the libs. So I think it's like, crass, stupid. Do I think it represents the thousands of Trump voters I have interviewed? No, none of them would talk like that.

  They're all serious people who have serious views that I happen to disagree with, but they're not like that kind of guy at CPAC.

• Amna Nawaz:

  Jonathan, what do you make of that?

• Jonathan Capehart:

  This is one lib who's shocked.

  And I don't think that those types of things are funny. And I don't think they're funny in the context of what we're living through right now, Alabama Supreme Court and what it did on IVF, Supreme Court overturning Dobbs, a House speaker who's enthralled to a former president who is preventing him from doing anything that would help move the country forward on a whole host of issues.

  And I have been around Washington long enough to remember that that is the same crowd that was railing against, oh, my God, Sharia law is coming to the United States. You know, it's a religious theocracy taking over the American government. But it's OK if it's Christian nationalism. Or let's just be more blunt about it, white Christian nationalism.

  I take what they say there at CPAC, even though it is sort of a Looney Tunes cafe, but I take them seriously, because their guy is the front-runner for the Republican nomination for president and has a 50/50 chance of being the president. So that joke can become reality.

• Amna Nawaz:

  So let's take a quick look at the context in which this is unfolding.

  Here's a look at the delegate count right now for former President Trump and the lone challenger to him for the Republican presidential nomination. That is Ambassador Nikki Haley. We see there Mr. Trump has 63 delegates to Nikki Haley's 17. They need 1,215. One of them needs 1,215 to clinch the nomination.

  David, the South Carolina primary is tomorrow. What are you watching for? What do you believe will happen?

• David Brooks:

  Yes, I will be curious to see if Haley can climb up to the 40s. I think her campaign has said that 42 constitutes success for them. And that would be a nice lift. It would make her feel good.

  And she can go on to Super Tuesday and then get crushed and then drop out of the race. But either way, we know how the story ends. It ends with her dropping out of the race.

• Amna Nawaz:

  Jonathan, how are you looking at this?

• Jonathan Capehart:

  Look, I go back to the great James Pindell, who said they don't get out because they lose. They get out because they're broke.

  She's got the money. She will lose South Carolina. She will go to Super Tuesday. She will — as David says, she will get crushed there. But I do think, in the grand scheme of things, she is doing a service to the party and to the country by finally speaking truth about Donald Trump and what he means for the Republican Party, but also what he means for the country and for democracy writ large.

• Amna Nawaz:

  Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, always great to see you both. Thank you so much.

• Jonathan Capehart:

  Thanks, Amna.

• David Brooks:

  Thank you.