Brooks and Capehart on Biden’s accomplishments at NATO summit, GOP defense policy

Geoff Bennett:

For analysis of President Biden's trip abroad this week and the 2024 presidential race, we turn now to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That's New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.

It's good to see you both.

Jonathan Capehart:

Hey, Geoff.

Geoff Bennett:

In looking back at the week that was, President Biden notched a number of wins this past week in Europe. He celebrated some major breakthroughs at the NATO summit. He was able to showcase his devotion to diplomatic engagement.

What were your takeaways from the trip, starting with you, David?

David Brooks:

Well, when he was president, Donald Trump said that NATO was obsolete. And that wasn't a totally crazy position. It seemed to me like we had it for the Cold War, and why do we need it now?

Well, we have learned why it's not obsolete anymore. And Biden has really pinioned his presidency around this idea that we're in a contest between authoritarian governments and democratic governments. And he really has used a lot of different meetings in — with India and with others to try to advance the democratic side's cause.

And no week was bigger than this one. Getting Sweden in over the previous objections of Turkey was significant. Getting more commitments for Ukraine was significant. The slowly developing consensus that Ukraine is not going to join NATO now, but after the war is over, it probably will, that's also significant.

So, either case, he's expanding the democratic camp.

Geoff Bennett:

What were your impressions?

Jonathan Capehart:

I have just — I have nothing to add to what David said, because, I mean, he lays it out perfectly.

But I just want to talk about what the president did after the NATO summit and where he went, Helsinki, and the room he was in, the exact same room where, five years to the day earlier, then-President Donald Trump with Vladimir Putin standing right next to him, when asked about Russian interference in the election, he said: Well, I asked President Putin and he said it wasn't him. And I have no reason to believe — to believe otherwise.

That was a thunderclap moment for the alliance, a thunderclap moment for the American people who care about the United States' standing in the world, but also the American president standing up not just for the liberal small-D democratic order, but for the alliance and for the United States' role in the world.

And there you have President Biden five years to the day later standing there clearly as not just the American president, but the leader of an alliance that is standing firm against the aggression and authoritarianism of Vladimir Putin. And I just think that that is the cherry on top to what David just said about the president's week.

Geoff Bennett:

On the matter of building a coalition of democracies and supporting Ukraine, there is a record high 44 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents who say the U.S. is giving too much aid to Ukraine. This is according to a Pew Research survey released last month.

And Republican presidential candidates have really seized on this wariness of the cost of the war. Do our allies have reason to be concerned about the durability of the U.S. commitment?

David Brooks:

Yes.

In the 1940s, Dwight Eisenhower was thinking of running for president, but he thought, well, there's this guy Robert Taft, a senator, a Republican senator. Maybe he will run. And he wanted to know if Taft would support NATO, to basically support U.S. engagement abroad. And Taft wouldn't. And so Eisenhower decided to run as a Republican.

And because of that move, the Republican Party over the ensuing decades was a pretty internationalist party, obviously, Reagan, George H.W. Bush. George W. Bush. The U.S. should exert power abroad.

But now, over the last couple of years, the Republican Party has been returning to what was the pre-Eisenhower bias toward I don't want to say isolation, but let's take care of ourselves at home, suspicion of foreign alliances. And so for a while, we didn't have big polling gaps between Democrats and Republicans on how interventionist the U.S. should be.

Now we really do. And so it's not just a Donald Trump thing. It's a lot of Republicans that said we should just not be wasting our money abroad. And that's an ancient war cry in America. But we had about 50 years without it. But now it's come back.

Jonathan Capehart:

I mean, David says Republicans, we should take care of our own at home.

But the Republicans we're talking about today don't even want to take care of what's happening here in the country with a lot of the things that they have voted against. So, I just wanted to put that in there.

I know I cut you off, Geoff. You were about to ask me something.

(Laughter)

Geoff Bennett:

Well, I was going to ask, one, what you thought about that.

But, also, typically foreign policy doesn't really resonate in presidential elections. Will that change this year, this cycle, do you think, given what's happening in Ukraine?

Jonathan Capehart:

Sure.

I mean, it very well might. I think the president's leadership makes it something that could be salient for the American people. But this is the other point I wanted to make in terms of the money and the concern of the American people, particularly Republicans, about all the money that's being spent.

I thought it was very important that President Zelenskyy, before he said anything when meeting with the president, thanked the American people for their support, and specifically thanked them — I thank you for your money, because he understands that it is a financial sacrifice for the American people, and he wants us to know that he knows that and realizes that, and that, when the president says, we will be with Ukraine no matter how long it takes, that Zelenskyy is like, hey, we appreciate it. Keep it coming.

Geoff Bennett:

On the matter of defense and money, Congress, as we heard earlier in the program, is considering the National Defense Authorization Act, which sets policy for the Defense Department.

And the House narrowly approved its version last night, and it includes Republican provisions blocking abortion coverage, diversity initiatives at the Pentagon, transgender care. In years past, this was a bipartisan enterprise.

What do you make of this effort by Republicans to use this bill as a cudgel in the culture wars and to really virtue-signal to members of their base?

David Brooks:

Yes, I mean, there are two things going on here. One is the amendments, which I'm basically fine with.

Like, having the Pentagon pay for people to travel for abortion, that's a policy choice. The Pentagon made a policy choice. It's based on a set of philosophies. And some other Republicans have a different philosophy, and so they can try to vote it down. And that's fine. That's — to me, that's the democratic process.

The terrible thing that's happening with Senator Tuberville is blocking promotions until he gets his abortion policy correct. And that just weakens the military. It's fine to have a debate. It's fine to have amendments. It's fine to have a policy process. It's not fine to weaken our military because of your philosophy.

And there's a — I'm doing a lot of history tonight. The ghost of Mark Shields is smiling upon me.

(Laughter)

David Brooks:

Abraham Kuyper was at 19th century or 20th century Dutch prime minister, and he had a thing called the philosophy of the spheres, that we have different spheres of life.

Politics is over here. The military is over here. The media is over here. You ruin a society if you don't respect the differences of the spheres. And the military does its own thing by its own logic, by its own standards and should not have outsiders screwing up the way it does its business for an ideological culture war issue.

Geoff Bennett:

President Biden has called on Republicans to talk to Tuberville, Senator Tuberville, to get him to change his ways here. It doesn't seem like that's going to happen.

Jonathan Capehart:

Yes.

And the onus is on Senator Tuberville, because what he's doing is — it's shameful. It's reprehensible. It puts our national security at risk. And, sure, the Marine Corps commandant in waiting can be acting, but this is the first time in, what, 150 years that there hasn't been a Senate-confirmed commandant of the Marine Corps.

And that's important, because for that person to be Senate-confirmed, it means that that person is beholden to the American people, accountable to the American people. And I don't know what it's going to take for Senator Tuberville to change his view.

I wish he could change his view on holding up these promotions in the same way he changed his view right quick on his definition of white nationalism and whether it's racism or not. But that's another conversation, isn't it, Geoff?

(Laughter)

Geoff Bennett:

Well, in the few minutes that remain, let's talk about 2024, because former President Donald Trump is not among the Republican presidential candidates gathering in Des Moines for the Family Leadership Summit, a gathering of Christian conservatives.

At this point, does it even matter, or is he so far ahead that his lead is basically just insurmountable?

David Brooks:

I don't think it's insurmountable.

And there's a lot of rumbling among the donor class turning toward Tim Scott or others as the DeSantis bubble fades a little. So I think there's going to be a lot of movement. Whether he can get away with not debating, I really don't know. It's — I'm very curious to learn. I think I am going to learn, because I don't think he's going to do a lot of these debates.

And this may be just another rule that he's allowed to break with impunity. You think voters want the guy to show up, but the polling on Trump is, he's still so popular. They think he's going to beat Biden. They like his economic policies. He could win without debating, which would be bad.

Geoff Bennett:

I see you shaking your head.

Jonathan Capehart:

Yes. Yes, it would be bad. And he thinks he can win without debating, and he probably can.

I mean, each indictment, his poll numbers have gone up. I'm old enough to remember, you get indicted, criminally indicted, you might as well just close up your campaign shop and go home. And the reverse is — the opposite has been true. So don't show up for a debate, watch his poll numbers go up.

Geoff Bennett:

The fact that the Republican donor class is now giving a second look to Tim Scott, given concerns about the DeSantis campaign, how does that strike you?

Jonathan Capehart:

It strikes me as smart on their part.

I mean, I haven't used these words, but I will use them now. And please don't @ me. But, to my mind, from the moment Senator Scott got into the race, he was the dark horse in this campaign, that he was the one person, while I don't agree with him on pretty much anything, I thought his launch of what he had to say to the Republican Party faithful was something that was interesting.

He was a happy warrior. He is worth the look. And it's telling that that leaked memo from the DeSantis campaign shows that Governor DeSantis wants to focus now on Tim Scott, because they see what I see. Senator Scott is the one they should be worried about.

Geoff Bennett:

Yes. How do you see it?

David Brooks:

I see it the same.

At this point in the race, I think mostly what you want to do is focus on — it's like spring training. You're looking at pitchers. Can they throw a curveball? Can they throw a slider? Are they — do they have political skills? And that's more important than the numbers or the — but they — Tim Scott has skills.

And so he's just good at this. And so he's going to get his moment.

Geoff Bennett:

All right, David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, our thanks to you both.

Jonathan Capehart:

Thanks, Geoff.

David Brooks:

Thank you.