On the Sad Progressive Caucus ‘Diplomacy Letter’ Backpedal

Democrats ignore the polling and withdraw a request to maybe-kinda-sorta try a tiny bit of diplomacy

Everybody who follows Democratic politics knows that the Progressive Caucus is a bad joke. Sure, there are some good members, but they ask any candidate if they want to join the club and around one hundred members of the House of Representatives bare the label. They’re not held to a standard, don’t vote as a unified block, and can rarely be found at critical times to oppose the Washington consensus.

These days, being a member doesn’t mean anything, and it’s mostly a branding exercise to put in campaign emails or gaslight kind-hearted college kids into volunteering.

And the world recently got a taste of just how spineless and ridiculous the Progressive Caucus really is.

By now, most are familiar with the events of last week. On Monday, October 24th, a letter was sent to President Joe Biden, signed by 30 members of the Progressive Caucus, that very very very gently asked for a ‘proactive diplomatic push.’

That was enough for other Democrats, pundits, and the liberal internet sphere to flip the f*ck out, and the letter was retracted 24 hours later after being blamed on freaking staffers. The caucus said it was drafted in the summer and wasn’t properly vetted before being released to the public.

Has the Twitter world even read the letter?

It is the most tepid thing ever.

The caucus clearly took their time in crafting a set of paragraphs as non-triggering as possible, heaping ridiculous amounts of praise on Biden with phrases like, “We write with appreciation for your commitment…Your administration’s policy was critical…Crucially, you achieved this while…We agree with the administration’s perspective.”

They then went on to add a dose of reality, writing, “The risk of nuclear weapons being used has been estimated to be higher now than at any time since the height of the cold war… Given the destruction created by this war for Ukraine and the world, as well as the risk of catastrophic escalation, we also believe it is in the interest of Ukraine, the United States and the world to avoid a prolonged conflict. For this reason, we urge you to pair the military and economic support the United States has provided to Ukraine with a proactive diplomatic push, redoubling efforts to seek a realistic framework for a ceasefire… In conclusion, we urge you to make vigorous diplomatic efforts in support of a negotiated settlement and ceasefire, engage in direct talks with Russia, explore prospects for a new European security arrangement acceptable to all parties.”

That’s about it.

‘Hey, we fully support you and your administration, but we’re on the verge of nuclear annihilation, so maybe, while everyone has their finger on the trigger for armageddon, engaging in a tiny bit of diplomacy is a good idea, so everyone you’ve ever met doesn’t die in a mushroom cloud or starve to death in the subsequent nuclear winter.’

Thanks.

— Your’s truly, thirty members of the Progressive Caucus.

Withdrawing the letter so quickly and then blaming staff was the icing on the cake to make sure they annoyed as many people as possible.

Again, it was spineless and ridiculous.

The whole episode shows that there is no anti-war movement in the US.

They full-throatedly agreed with the administration's approach and supported continued military aid but simply asked for “redoubling efforts to seek a realistic framework for a ceasefire.” That bland and obvious statement is what passes as controversial in American politics at the moment.

The United States of Amnesia has forgotten that wars end in diplomacy, and one can’t always bomb and spend their way out of a problem. Long gone are the memories of JFK negotiating with Khrushchev or Nixon visiting freaking Mao. Nope. Neither ever happened in liberal flag-in-bio world.

Americans know their government lied about the last war and the one before that and the one before that, but this time, everything we’re being told is 100% factual and this time it’s the real new Hitler and this time even thinking about diplomacy is akin to treason and endorsing war crimes.

They fall for it every single time — well, many do.

The Progressive Caucus would be wise to look at recent polling because the numbers show that a majority of Americans are tired of the continued diplomacy-free support with no end in sight.

The poll shows a majority of people think the war will end in a negotiated settlement (57%) and that the US has a leading role to play in helping negotiate that end (59%).

The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft did a poll that clearly lays out the figures: Americans want diplomatic negotiations to end the war. Given the current economic atmosphere and the very recent ending of America’s longest foreign conflict, it’s not entirely surprising that a majority of people support a rapid diplomatic solution.

To be fair, it is only one poll, but it shows that pluralities are in favor of negotiation. That is honestly still surprising because the media coverage has been insanely one-sided toward escalation.

MSNBC has all but been calling for nuclear annihilation for the past seven months while nice soccer moms shout-spit at televisions that we need a ‘No Fly Zone’ and nuclear first strike as they spill their morning coffee onto white marble countertops and aged ‘Hillary 2016’ t-shirts.

But most Americans aren’t there.

The poll shows a majority of people think the war will end in a negotiated settlement (57%) and that the US has a leading role to play in helping negotiate that end (59%).

It also reveals how 57% of likely voters strongly or somewhat support the US pursuing diplomatic negotiations as soon as possible to end the war. And more respondents only support further military aid if it is paired with diplomacy than support the current negotiation-free trajectory (47% to 41%).

When it comes to the administration's actions thus far, only 37% said they have done enough diplomatically while 49% believe they have not.

“Americans recognize what many in Washington don’t: Russia’s war in Ukraine is more likely to end at the negotiating table than on the battlefield. And there is a brewing skepticism of Washington’s approach to this war, which has been heavy on tough talk and military aid, but light on diplomatic strategy and engagement… As long as it takes’ isn’t a strategy, it’s a recipe for years of disastrous and destructive war — conflict that will likely bring us no closer to the goal of securing a prosperous, independent Ukraine. US leaders need to show their work: explain to the American people how you plan to use your considerable diplomatic leverage to bring this war to an end.” — Trita Parsi, Executive Vice President at the Quincy Institute.

The second half of that quote is critical and is worth repeating. ‘As long as it takes’ isn’t a strategy,’ but that’s all we hear from Washington.

What is the plan? Spend $150 billion a year on a decade-long proxy war? Get further involved with more destructive weapons or troops? The poll showed that 64% of Americans oppose direct military involvement.

The Biden Administration really needs to explain how they see the conflict ending and the steps they’re taking to get there. Regime change in the Kremlin is a childish fantasy.

And as the Progressive Caucus letter said, there should be direct talks with Moscow because we’re one miscommunication or accident away from the end of the world.

That’s not radical or appeasement or genocide denial.

The fact that it’s treated as such shows what an infantilized and insecure place Western discourse is in. There’s no room for nuanced debate let alone an even slightly heterodox perspective.

Intellectuals like Chomsky, academics like Richard Sakwa or Jeffery Sachs, and former diplomats like Chas Freeman should regularly be discussing the situation on mainstream networks. Instead, there’s a steady stream of intelligence officials and military-industrial complex-linked ‘analysts’ who only push in one direction.

It is precisely at this time when influential members of Congress should be standing up and offering an alternative voice.

They tried, couldn’t take the heat, and backpedaled in the most embarrassing way.

Now more than ever the world needs voices calling for de-escalation.

Surprisingly, most Americans are in favor of diplomacy.

It’s a tragedy and indictment of American politics that the Progressive Caucus can’t stand by a very common sense and tepid request for exploring options for a ceasefire.