Editorial: A victory both for Ukraine and functional American governance

Potomac Fever is a familiar term for people elected to Congress who fall in love with the trappings, power and prestige of life in Washington, D.C. But we see precious little of that affliction these days as working on Capitol Hill has become so unpleasant.

Instead, the fever that’s taken hold in the nation’s capital over the past decade or so has been an unthinkingly partisan pyrexia.

It was gratifying and encouraging, then, over the weekend to see the House of Representatives, the epicenter of partisan extremism in Washington, vote overwhelmingly and on a bipartisan basis for tens of billions in military aid to Ukraine. The 311-112 vote was a victory not only for vital U.S. interests in promoting democracy around the world and resisting authoritarians such as Vladimir Putin bent on conquest but also a win for the idea that this country remains governable.

That seems odd to say. After all, this is the United States of America, the cradle of democracy and for well over two centuries the leading beacon for the powerful idea that people can govern themselves.

But an era in which one of our two political parties has allowed itself to be hijacked by a charlatan has raised uncomfortable and (until recently) inconceivable questions about the future of American self-governance. Donald Trump for months did his best to derail aid to Ukraine. Why the former president is so enamored of Putin is a question to which we’ll perhaps get a satisfactory answer in years to come. For now, Trump’s hold over the Republican-led House inexcusably allowed Russia to attack Ukraine with near-impunity for weeks if not months, as the Ukrainians ran low on arms.

It was left to a rock-ribbed conservative from Louisiana — a man few had heard of before his improbable election as speaker last fall — to summon the kind of courage that would have been unnecessary in a more rational political age and rely on Democratic votes in furtherance of these vital American interests. Mike Johnson deserves immense credit for risking his political future in service to his country. Johnson proved himself a true patriot — in the old-fashioned sense of that word.

In addition to the critical aid to Ukraine, passage of the bill helpfully punctured the aura of invincibility Trump held over House Republicans.

The ex-president was confined last week to a criminal courtroom in New York City, where he may or may not have been dozing off several times during jury selection, as the House wrangled over whether and how to bring the foreign-aid measures for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan to a vote. Trump was unusually quiet on the issue at a time when people might have been expecting him to play a role.

It was left to Republicans such as South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham to attempt over the weekend to make the case that Trump actually had helped win the day for Ukraine. It was Trump’s idea to convert a portion of the aid to loans instead of grants, and that was key to success, Graham contended.

If making $9 billion of $61 billion in the form of loans — loans that can be forgiven, by the way — is a face-saving lifeline for Trump’s political standing, that’s a small price to pay for Ukraine’s future as a sovereign nation. But no one should be fooled.

This is a major political loss for the MAGA forces, far more significant than the failure of fringe figures such as Georgia’s Marjorie Taylor Greene to shut down the government over budget disagreements. Yes, more Republicans still voted against Ukraine than voted for it. But there were 101 GOP House members in the “yes” column. Those kind of numbers are consequential and have the potential to change the poisonous dynamic on Capitol Hill.

Whether the Ukraine vote marks a first tentative step to breaking the partisan fever or ends up a mere exception to what has become the depressing rule remains to be seen. Few prudent bettors would go all-in on the former. But Democrats would be wise nonetheless to keep the crowing to a minimum.

First, the Ukraine bill was a sobering vote — a country’s future hangs in the balance — and not a political football. But, equally as important, one way to encourage more bipartisanship on issues of critical importance, such as border security, is to treat such victories as wins for the country, not for a political party.

And if the machinations emanating from Mar-a-Lago are rendered less relevant in the process, all the better. The efforts of Trump and his acolytes to make it seem as if Trump played a role in the Ukraine bill’s success are encouraging in a perverse way. Trump does what’s in his own interests, not the country’s. That’s well-proven. Cornering Trump into beneficial positions could prove to be a winning formula in the future.

___