The end of an era in Congress. „Republican Hawks are leaving”

The recent death of Senator Lindsey Graham has sparked a broader discussion regarding the changes that have occurred within the Republican Party over the years. Does a party today dominated by MAGA supporters still have anything in common with the movement once led by Ronald Reagan? Does Graham’s death mean that Ukraine can abandon any hope of finding understanding among the conservative wing of Congress? We shall attempt to answer these and other questions in this article.

The Loss of a "Safety Switch"

Significantly, Lindsey Graham passed away shortly after completing his tenth (!) visit to Kyiv since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It is difficult to find anyone in the US Congress – on either the Republican or Democratic side – who was as passionately involved in American aid for our eastern neighbours.

It was Graham who served as one of the driving forces behind the bill proposing American sanctions against the Russian Federation and countries cooperating with it, a bill which – it is worth noting – may soon come into force. The senator did not limit himself solely to sanctions against Russia; he was also a vocal proponent of strengthening Ukraine, including through the transfer of military equipment.

Does Graham’s death, therefore, mean that the Ukrainians have lost their last advocate within the Republican Party? Likely not, but they have certainly „lost” the only senator who maintained constant contact with President Trump – a factor that undoubtedly has an indirect impact on relations between Washington and Kyiv. As American studies expert Rafał Michalski emphasises, this policy of mediation had been conducted by the congressman almost consistently since 2017.

„Alongside Marco Rubio, he was perceived as the only »political safety switch« of foreign policy,” Michalski stated in an interview with Defence24, noting that the current Senate Majority Leader, John Thune, does not possess the same capabilities as Graham. Furthermore, he is currently involved in a serious personal conflict with the American President.

The End of an Era

Understanding the role Lindsey Graham played in the Senate allows for a broader look at certain trends currently occurring in the US Congress. According to the aforementioned Rafał Michalski, the senator’s death marks the end of the „neoconservative era” in United States politics. „McConnell’s approaching retirement; the failure of Joe Biden’s presidency. »Hawkish« politicians are departing – for reasons strictly related to age (…),” the expert noted.

„One only needs to look at the demographic profile of those remaining: Bill Cassidy lost his primaries, so we are left with Tom Cotton, Richard Blumenthal, Jack Reed, and Jeanne Shaheen. This generation failed to »raise« successors with neoconservative views on foreign policy. Graham understood this perfectly, which is why he tried to achieve as much as possible while the opportunity existed (hence his fervent support for a war with Iran)),” he added.

What about NATO?

The gradual fading of the era of the „hawks” also prompts questions about the changes occurring in United States foreign policy and the political establishment’s attitude towards American allies. As Rafał Michalski tells us, the majority of moderate Republicans still opt for cooperation within the framework of NATO.

Mikołaj Teperek, another American studies expert from Defence24, points to a very significant aspect. In the discussion regarding the American view of NATO, he distinguishes between support for the alliance and the actual conviction that the North Atlantic Alliance truly serves the security of Americans.

„The latter is systematically declining, while the majority of Republicans – still well over 50% – support the transatlantic partnership with the Old Continent itself. There is, therefore, no fundamental revolution in views; instead, an isolationist voice is growing, demanding priority for national interests at the expense of global engagement,” says Teperek, noting that the phenomenon in question did not originate with Donald Trump and his 2016 presidential campaign but is something that has been ongoing for much longer.

„Americans have been complaining about the level of European engagement in NATO for 80 years – even Joe Biden, as a senator, criticised Europe’s passivity during the war in Bosnia. The novelty lies rather in the method of articulation: the current generation of politicians speaks bluntly, using the method of faits accomplis instead of diplomatic persuasion,” the expert said.

The Republicans – Who are they?

We turn to the final question. What can we say today about the changes that have taken place within the Republican Party? How can we characterise this political movement?

„The change that has occurred in the Republican Party is not the result of a generational shift, but rather a shift in the American geopolitical debate. The party still has its traditional wing known from the era of Reagan or the Bushes, but today the clear majority is formed by Donald Trump’s movement, which has given conservatism a new shade – one that appeals more loudly to the past and is more suspicious of US involvement abroad,” said Mikołaj Teperek. In his view, however, the current American administration is not isolationist in the classic, 19th-century sense.

„Trump engages actively on the international stage – from peace agreements between Azerbaijan and Armenia, through the Abraham Accords, to firm actions regarding Venezuela, Cuba, Greenland, Ukraine, or China. This is rather neo-isolationism: global activity strictly subordinated to the national and economic interests of the USA, rather than idealism,” he stated.

„America First does not mean »America Only« – the president knows that the US economy depends on the stability of the oil market and the health of Europe. Therefore, there is no real risk of the US leaving NATO – slogans about this appear exclusively in campaign rhetoric. However, one can expect that subsequent Republican presidents will have their own version of »America First« and will evaluate every decision through the prism of direct benefit to the United States,” he concluded.