Here’s a great question from a reader that I really want to answer. Thank you, reader, for asking it.
Voters are asking, “why should we invest money into defending Ukraine’s borders when we aren’t defending our own?” I’ve been asked this in person, on social media, and during a public talk. This is a very good, reasonable question. I don’t blame people for asking it. They should be asking it.
There’s no good answer to this question. Do you have one? I don’t. I mean, I do but it’s all about the nation-state and the Budapest Memorandum, and you need to be capable of a high degree of abstraction to understand it. Nobody owes me or anybody a higher degree of abstraction.
I don’t know if Mike Johnson is sincerely for closing the border. Maybe he’s pretending, like all politicians. But he’s responding to the genuine and valuable concern of the voters by trying to say, “here’s what I got for you, American citizens, in exchange for Ukraine aid.” There’s no US citizen who is more pro-Ukraine than I am but I don’t blame Mike Johnson for trying to get something for American voters. I do blame the people who are so opposed to doing anything at all for our country that they’d sacrifice Ukraine for that shameful goal. Biden should agree to close the border. He should agree to the natural gas export licenses. Not for Ukraine but for America. And if Ukraine benefits as a result, all the better.
Now my question is, why is Biden refusing? These are good measures that have overwhelming support among voters across the political spectrum. Why can’t we get all three of these things that are beneficial for our economy and the preservation of our nation-state?