Tangle - Progressives retract letter on Ukraine.

Episode Date: October 31, 2022

Today, we're covering the progressives criticism of Biden's approach in Ukraine — and then the backtracking. Plus, a correction and a question about what it means to caucus with a party.Want to help us decide what we will cover next? Click here to vote!You can read today's podcast here, today’s “Under the Radar” story here, and today’s “Have a nice day” story here.Today’s clickables: Quick hits (2:52), Today’s story (4:00), Right’s take (12:52), Left’s take (7:42), Isaac’s take (17:43), Listener question (21:35), Under the Radar (23:37), Numbers (24:26), Have a nice day (25:14)You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here.Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and produced by Trevor Eichhorn. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, the place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking without all that hysterical nonsense you find everywhere else. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we're going to be talking about the Progressive Caucus's letter about Ukraine and then their withdrawal, kind of retraction of that letter, what it means, some interesting commentary from the right and the left who are quite divided on this. Before you jump in, though, we do have two things ahead of our quick hits today. First up, I have a correction. This was actually an older correction that I just caught when I was scrolling through some reader emails because it was kind of a small one, but a few people did notice it. In our lengthy primer on the 2022 midterms, we noted that Governor Doug Ducey in Arizona had

resigned when previewing the race to fill his seat. This was actually inaccurate language, kind of a silly flub. Ducey is a term-limited governor who was first elected in 2014 and simply can't run again because he's already finished his second term this year. So he's not resigning. He's just stepping down after serving the maximum term allowed in office. This is our 70th correction in Tangle's 168-week history and our first correction since October 10th. As many of you know, I track corrections and place them at the top of the podcast in an effort to maximize transparency with my readers.

Also, I want to shout out some reader feedback we got that I just thought was important, maybe some good context. We covered learning loss across the U.S. last week, and I got a note from a former teacher in New York City who said she thought our coverage overlooked an important piece of the discussion. You're missing a piece to the learning loss puzzle that is really obvious to educators, she said, but not to politicians. The test scores are artificially low because the kids didn't actually try to take the test. They had no real accountability regarding schoolwork during the pandemic, so they didn't take these exams with fidelity. There is learning loss, for sure, but no teacher I have spoken to is as spooked by these results

as the politicians and general public are. That being said, kids are truly struggling to be in school right now after their pandemic experience, and there is still not enough follow through from administrators and parents. They cannot focus and are addicted to their phones that they had complete access to during remote learning. It isn't pretty. to during remote learning. It isn't pretty. All right, that is it for our reader feedback, which brings us to today's quick hits. First up, Paul Pelosi, the husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was attacked in their San Francisco home early Friday morning. Pelosi was beaten over the

head with a hammer and is currently hospitalized. The alleged attacker has been arrested and details surrounding the attack are still emerging. Number two, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in two cases challenging whether race should be considered as a factor in college admissions. Number three, a Tennessee man who dragged a police officer into the mob during the riots at the Capitol on January 6th has been sentenced to more than seven years in prison. 4. Former President Barack Obama is hitting the campaign trail for Democrats, including major appearances in Michigan and Wisconsin. 5. Luis Inacio Lula de Silva appears to have defeated Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil's presidential election with a 1.8% lead in results. Bolsonaro has yet to concede the race. Last week, a group of 30 progressives in the House urged President Biden to shift his strategy

on the Ukraine war before quickly withdrawing their criticism of his approach. It started week, a group of 30 progressives in the House urged President Biden to shift his strategy on the Ukraine war before quickly withdrawing their criticism of his approach. It started on Monday when the group, led by Congressional Progressive Caucus Representative Pramila Jayapal, the Democrat from Washington, released a letter asking Biden to pair funding with a, quote, proactive diplomatic push, redoubling efforts to seek a realistic framework for a ceasefire. It was the first time members of Biden's own party had pushed him to change his approach to the war in Ukraine. Specifically, the group of House Democrats expressed concern that the United States is not engaged in regular dialogue with Russia as part of its effort to end a

protracted war. Rather, the Biden administration has remained steadfast that it is up to leaders in Ukraine to decide when and where to negotiate with Russia. Let me be clear, we are united as Democrats in our unequivocal commitment to supporting Ukraine in their fight for their democracy and freedom in the face of the illegal and outrageous Russian invasion, Jayapal said. Diplomacy is an important tool that can save lives, but it is just one tool. However, the letter caused such a wave of backlash that less than a day after its release, the group of Democrats withdrew it. According to Politico, the letter was initially scheduled for release in early August, but was delayed and eventually released without the knowledge of many of the Democrats who had initially signed it. Representative Jayapal contended that the

letter was released improperly by a staffer without proper vetting. Just weeks before, Republican House Leader Kevin McCarthy warned that aid requests from Ukraine won't get a quote blank check if Republicans take back Congress. Jayapal said coverage of the letter conflated her caucus with GOP divisions over support for providing more aid to Ukraine. She contends that progressives are unequivocal in over support for providing more aid to Ukraine. She contends that progressives are unequivocal in their support for the aid. Democrats in Congress expressed frustration about the, quote, amateur nature of the letter's release and concern that it would undercut the party's unity and position on Ukraine heading into the midterms. Some conceded they

signed the letter over the summer but would not have supported its release now. Timing and diplomacy is everything, California Representative Sarah Jacobs, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus that Jayapal leads, told CNN. I signed this letter on June 30th, but a lot has changed since then. I wouldn't sign it today. Still, the letter created a wave of commentary about Congress's position on the war in Ukraine and where and why progressives are applying pressure. Interestingly, there are divisions on both sides of the aisle about the letter, as fragments of both parties have expressed growing skepticism about the path forward in Ukraine. Today, we are going to examine some reactions to the letter from the left and the right, and then my take. First up, we'll start with what the left is saying.

The left is divided on the letter, with some criticizing its timing and others praising progressives for a reasonable proposal. Many Democrats worry this could signal to Putin that support for Ukraine is cracking. Some progressives argue that there was nothing wrong with the letter and progressives should have stood by it. In the Washington Post, Charles Lane said Putin is in Ukraine for the long haul and we must be too. It was predictable that Republicans, from would-be House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on down would equivocate about what McCarthy called a blank check for Ukraine. The GOP is in the thrall to former President Donald Trump, who has been loudly demanding a negotiated settlement, Lane wrote.

More surprising was a letter issued Monday by 30 progressive House Democrats led by Pramila Jayapal, which went beyond Trump's call for the United States to broker a Russia-Ukraine deal and advocated a direct U.S.-Russia negotiation. As rationale, it alluded to the nuclear threat and the war's cost to taxpayers. 42 years ago, Saddam Hussein sent his army into Iran, expecting little resistance and easy territorial gains, only to see the invasion stall, Lane said. Eventually, the two sides negotiated peace after eight years of horrific combat and 500,000 deaths. There's no moral equivalence between democratic Ukraine's resistance to Putin and the fight by theocratic Iran against Saddam. Still, a lesson from the Iraq-Iran war is that a dictator can keep pursuing military aggression

long after it is obvious he miscalculated. No one can say how long that period might be in Putin's case, but displays of irresolution from members of Congress probably won't help shorten it. In New York Magazine, Eric Levitz said the letter was right and pointless. The Congressional Progressive Caucus did not counsel capitulation to Vladimir Putin's war aims. Rather, the caucus argued that any negotiated settlement must preserve a free and independent Ukraine, enjoy the support of the Ukrainian people, and include security guarantees that would oblige major military powers, presumably including Western ones, to defend Ukraine in the event of a future Russian invasion,

Levitz wrote. Critically, the CPC stipulated that the White House must not coerce Ukraine into such an agreement, as it is not America's place to pressure Ukraine's government regarding sovereign decisions. In other words, the United States must not threaten to withdraw military aid in order to persuade Ukraine of the merits of a peace deal, but must instead maintain aid for as long as Ukraine deems appropriate. Yet the letter was almost universally condemned for selling out Ukraine, Levitt said. On one level, the controversy the letter generated is easy to understand. The missive came one week after House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy suggested his party might try to cut off funding for Ukraine should Republicans

secure congressional control in November. On another level, though, the brouhaha over the CPC's statement is bizarre. In the document, progressives put forward a framework for peace that is roughly as hardline as any proposed by their party's hawks. The liberal legislators sketch a diplomatic resolution in which Ukraine remains free and independent while enjoying the protection of security guarantees from Western powers, an arrangement that would bring Ukraine under NATO's security umbrella, in fact, if not law. The letter does not counsel any territorial concessions. In CNN, Stephen Collinson said Putin has been waiting for this moment and the first cracks may be starting to appear. It's clear that a bipartisan consensus for aiding Ukraine still exists in Washington, but the rumblings that Biden's hard line on Russia may not always enjoy near-unanimous support came at an especially

sensitive time as the West seeks to discredit Russia's latest round of nuclear rhetoric, a warning that Kiev could use a dirty bomb. The claims have led to high-level talks between U.S. and Russian military chiefs and are widely being interpreted as either more scare tactics or perhaps an attempt by Moscow to create a false flag operation that could be used as a pretext for its own use of weapons of mass destruction, Collinson said. This is why signs of fraying political resolve in the United States and some in allied nations are so significant. They could convince Putin that a war of attrition over the winter could sooner or later cause fatigue in the West and therefore weaken Ukraine's ability to fight.

And yet, some of the questions raised by those who are cautious about the U.S. stance are relevant and important, Collinson said. A foreign policy operation that lines up the United States against its former Cold War foe and nuclear rival must be constantly evaluated and justified by the president given the costs and risks. The fact that there is no diplomatic track in the conflict, Biden has several times mused privately that he doesn't know what Putin's off-ramps might be, is worthy of discussion and potentially testing in contacts with Moscow. At a time of raging inflation and economic hardship in the United States, it is incumbent on the administration and its supporters to demonstrate to American taxpayers why a war

on the edge of Europe is sucking up billions in public money, even if it's not as if Ukraine currently has the blank check McCarthy mentioned. All right, that's it for what the left is saying, which brings us to the right state. Many on the right are also divided about the letter, with some arguing that progressives got embarrassed and others saying it was a gift to Putin. Some conservatives say it's proof of how wrong think is treated when it comes to the war in Ukraine. Others say the letter was misguided and progressives are undermining the one thing Biden has done right. In Politico, Rich Lau wrong-think is treated when it comes to the war in Ukraine. Others say the letter was misguided, and progressives are undermining the one thing Biden has done right. In Politico, Rich Lowry panned progressives' humiliating retreat.

House progressives made a terrible mistake. They used the D-word in public, he said. The D-word in question is diplomacy, which has long been a favored word of Democrats. Indeed, it's their go-to proposal for solving any international problem, no matter how intractable or threatening. That it has now become a toxic notion in the context of the Ukraine war is a sign of how a justified feeling of moral righteousness among backers of Ukraine is swallowing rational thought about how the war might end. You don't have to endorse any of the specific proposals talked about by these very different people to be disturbed by the campus-like fervor with which they have been deemed unsayable and unthinkable. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza

cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages 6 months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at FluCcellvax.ca.

Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. Although it's possible that the Russia war machine, if it can be called that, simply collapses in Ukraine, it is more likely that war will end in some messy compromise involving a negotiated settlement, Lowry wrote. Acknowledging this and the continuation of the conflict as a humanitarian catastrophe with enormous costs for the West and the world

shouldn't be a quasi-thought crime. Still, a member of the House Democratic leadership told Politico Playbook that Vladimir Putin would have signed the letter if asked. This isn't remotely true, but it shows how departing an inch from the orthodoxy on the war is automatically taking that as an admission of fondness for the Kremlin, even when Democrats are talking about other Democrats. The Wall Street Journal editorial board congratulated Democratic leaders for taking on the progressive revolt. Vladimir Putin watches American politics closely, and this was a sign of U.S. retreat that needed to be beaten back, the board said. The letter had urged President Biden to pursue diplomacy with Russia to end the war in Ukraine.

The missive was a terrible message to send while Mr. Putin is bombing civilian targets in Ukraine, even as his troops retreat from territory they occupied early in the invasion. The letter was drafted several months ago, but unfortunately was released by staff without vetting, Ms. Jayapal said in a statement. That strikes us a too convenient excuse, since the progressives had clearly drafted and signed a letter with an intent to release it at some point. The better explanation is that many senior Democrats in Congress and the White House were furious at this message of appeasement to Russian aggression, the board wrote. Every war ends in diplomacy of some kind, but negotiating with Russia over the heads of the Ukrainians who are doing the dying

is immoral and not in America's interest. No useful diplomacy is possible as long as the Ukrainians want to fight for their homeland and Mr. Putin refuses to cede territory. The quickest way to change Mr. Putin's mind is to continue supporting Ukraine so it can keep rolling back Russian forces. A Ukrainian defeat will make Mr. Putin that much bolder, and NATO's frontline states will be next on his target list. In the New York Post, Dalibor Rohak said progressives have undermined the one thing Biden has done right, rally support for Ukraine. While shrouded in verbal displays of support for the Ukrainian government and people, there is little daylight between the letter and the expressions of indifference to Ukraine's fate

coming earlier from the likes of J.D. Vance, Ohio's Republican Senate candidate. The far left and the far right believe wrongly that the United States and its hard power is a force for ill in the world and that our government should focus instead on problems at home, Rohak said. The squad would benefit from talking to actual Ukrainians first. Sure, a short war is preferable to a long one. Yet what matters far more is whether Ukrainians liberate their country and stop the enslavement of thousands of their fellow citizens in occupied territories. More important, their call for the administration to, quote, seriously explore all possible avenues, including direct engagement with Russia, end quote. The signatories, including Representatives Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, put on display their complete lack of understanding of

Ukraine's situation, she wrote. The reason this is not the time for some chimerical negotiated settlement and ceasefire has nothing to do with anyone's lack of effort, but rather the fact that the existing differences of opinion between Russia and Ukraine cannot be resolved at the negotiating table, but only on the battlefield. Specifically, the Kremlin continues to believe it can successfully destroy Ukrainian statehood or, at the very least, absorb a sufficiently large part of Ukraine's territory and population in Russia. Ukrainian leadership, in contrast, is convinced it can repel the Russian invasion altogether. Alright, that is it for what the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take.

I was actually pretty glad to see this letter. You know, I've written a lot about Ukraine over the last year or so, and most recently I wrote about the worthiness of imagining a best case scenario where Putin loses, he's forced out of power in Russia, and Ukraine retakes territory at loss, beginning with the 2014 annexation of Crimea. Seeding points to many of my readers who wrote in and criticized my writing, I've begun to think it is worth at least imagining and wishing for that reality in the future, as it truly does look like the best case scenario. Even if it isn't the most likely outcome, it's a possible one. But my own political ideologies are also fundamentally anti-war, and so long as we are continuing to operate with global reach, as a global superpower, with the strongest military on planet earth, I'd much prefer there

be a significant, outspoken, and unafraid group of congresspeople that are pushing an anti-war agenda. To me, that's how the letter read. That it put some progressives on similar footing as the potential GOP leader and other House Republicans is a good thing, not a bad thing. Our country has been desperately starved of a strong, bipartisan, war-skeptical coalition for decades. We should all want a Congress that fears protracted war and nuclear holocaust and operates with an abundance of caution when it comes to funding conflicts thousands of miles away from our shores. I also think it is critical that we center the content of what the letter actually

said. Progressives called for direct talks with Russia, yes. They also called for bringing Ukraine under the protection of NATO, zero territorial concessions, and preserving an independent, sovereign, and democratic Ukrainian state, which sounds to me exactly like what Volodymyr Zelensky wants. Such a framework for negotiating a ceasefire would presumably include incentives to end hostilities, including some form of sanctions relief, and bring together the international community to establish security guarantees for a free and independent Ukraine that are acceptable for all parties, particularly Ukrainians,

the letter said. The Washington Post framed such a proposal as a dramatic shift to Biden's strategy in Ukraine, but as Eric Levitz noted, the U.S. Defense Secretary was speaking directly with his Russian counterpart the day before its release. As progressives point out in the letter, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky himself has reiterated that the war will only definitively end through diplomacy, and had previously explained that any mentally healthy person always chooses the diplomatic path because he or she knows even if it is difficult, it can prevent the loss of thousands, tens of thousands, and maybe even millions of lives.

Does a diplomatic end to this war with zero territorial concessions look likely right now? No, it doesn't. But it shouldn't be offensive to suggest we become proactive about seeking one out, especially when it's explicitly suggested we don't negotiate over Ukraine's head. Progressives were right to release the letter. Furthermore, they should stop being afraid of looking like certain members of the House GOP who might actually see eye to eye with them on the war's future. The same goes for House Republicans and the Progressive Caucus. Each party's purity test kills any hope for legitimate bipartisan agreement before the platforms are built, even when agreement is plain to see,

as it was in the brief 24 hours that progressives stood by the letter's release. We should continue to defend Ukraine. We should support them in their fight for independence and reclaiming the territory that has been annexed. And we should use all the diplomatic skill, leverage, and experience we have to actively seek out an end to the war. This should not be controversial, and it should not be cause for condemnation. and it should not be cause for condemnation.

All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This one comes from Josh in Clinton, Utah. Josh said, I'd like to understand more about the possibility of Evan McMullin caucusing with Republicans, Democrats, or neither. What does it mean to caucus with one party or the other, and what are the implications of or neither? What does it mean to caucus with one party or the other, and what are the implications of choosing neither? Would he have reduced influence or maybe more as a possible deciding vote? Thanks for the thorough and impartial coverage. I really appreciate your newsletter. Josh, great question, and thank you for the kind words. So there are a few different definitions of caucus. There are, as in Iowa, caucuses of voters who determine a presidential

nominee, which is how it used to be done before the primary elections. In this context, though, caucusing is about the decision to partner with a political party in Congress, which is very significant. For instance, when you hear Bernie Sanders, you probably think of a far-left Democrat. Yet Sanders is actually an independent. He just caucuses with Democrats, making him a reliable Democratic vote in the Senate. In the U.S., caucusing with one political party or the other means you tend to negotiate and meet with that party privately. Internally, caucuses in Congress, both broadly speaking or more specifically like the Congressional Black Caucus, operate under specific rules to advance ideas, vote on positions

or on leadership, and negotiate legislation. So, if Evan McMullin were caucusing with Democrats, that means he is unlikely to be invited to private internal meetings among Republicans. If, as he says he intends to, he were to caucus with neither party, it'd be an open-ended question as to what kind of access he'd get on either side. For instance, a Republican Senate caucus might meet to decide which candidates it wants to back in the primaries, or a Democratic Senate caucus may meet to decide whether it wants to support or oppose another round of COVID-19 funding. These caucuses are opportunities for each party to wield and direct power, which means opting out of them would make McMullen a uniquely unaffiliated member.

All right, that is it for your questions answered, which brings us to our under the radar section. Russia said on Saturday that it is suspending its participation in a UN-brokered deal to allow Ukraine to export agricultural products like grain through the Black Sea. The deal, which was negotiated earlier this year, helped ease worries of famine and hunger spreading in parts of the world that rely on Ukraine's exports for food. But Russia says drone attacks launched against its fleet in the Black Sea are cause for abandoning the agreement. A total of 218 vessels are now effectively blocked, Ukraine says. Some 9 million tons of agricultural cargo have been shipped through the Black Sea port so far. The Associated Press has the story and there's a link in today's episode description.

All right, next up is our numbers section. The amount of military assistance the United States has provided Ukraine since the beginning of the war is $17.9 billion. The percentage of Americans who support the U.S. providing weapons to Ukraine is 66%, according to an early October poll. The percentage of Americans who said the U.S. should send troops to Ukraine and help it defeat Russia was 34%, according to the same poll. The fall in the number of legal abortions in the first two months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade was 6%. In states that have banned or severely restricted abortion, the decrease in abortions in those two months was 95%. In states where abortion remained legal, the increase in the number of abortions was 11%. Alright, and last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. This one is about a restaurant

owner in Kirkland, Washington, who noticed that there was a lack of fish in the stream outside of her business. Holly Smith is the owner of Cafe Juanita, named after Juanita Creek, which runs along the restaurant. In 22 years, she said she has seen just one fish in the creek. So, she decided to partner with King Conservation District and adopt the stream to help restore the creek by pulling out invasive plants and adding wood retaining walls along some of the shoreline. The day after the two non-profits finished their work, Smith says, she came outside and saw 15 to 20 fish in the creek. It was so astonishing she thought someone had stocked it overnight with salmon, but it was

really just the immediate result of her work. K5 News has the story and there's a link to it in today's episode description. All right everybody, that is it for today's podcast. As always, if you want to support our work please go to retangle.com membership you can also spread the word about our podcast by just sending this to friends or giving us a five-star rating on the app wherever you're listening to this podcast and we will be right back here same time tomorrow have a good one peace our podcast is written by me isaac sa, and edited and produced by Trevor Eichhorn. Our script is edited by Ari Weitzman, Sean Brady, and Bailey Saul.

Shout out to our interns, Audrey Moorhead and Watkins Kelly, and our social media manager, Magdalena Bokova, who designed our logo. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. For more from Tangle, subscribe to our newsletter or check out our website at www.readtangle.com. We'll see you next time. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th,

only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to

your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca.