Mike Gallagher as a future leader

Many years ago, New York Times columnist Russell Baker conjured up an oracle called the Great Mentioner, who prophesied the rise of future political stars by mentioning their names. Baker passed on his secret source to one of my mentors in newspaper column writing, William Safire, who channeled the Great Mentioner throughout his career, predicting the rise of presidents, vice presidents, national security officials, Cabinet secretaries.

Baker and Safire are no longer with us, but the Great Mentioner lives on. And with the Republican Party in flux and a presidential campaign set to begin, it’s a good time to see who appears in his crystal ball.

Who are the future leaders who can guide the Republican Party into the next era and shape conservative public policy, from national security to health to education to the economy? In a series of periodic interviews in the months ahead, I’ll carry on the tradition passed on by Baker and Safire and shine a light on some of the individuals I’d like to see take up that mantle of leadership.

And the oracle has revealed his first choice: Rep. Mike Gallagher (Wis.).

Gallagher is a rising conservative star who is making his mark in the national security field. Not long after this interview was conducted, he was named as the chairman of the next Congress’s House Select Committee on China. He serves on the House Armed Services Committee, where he’s the ranking Republican on the subcommittee for military personnel, as well as on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Before being elected to Congress, Gallagher served with the U.S. Marine Corps and completed two combat deployments in Iraq. He was also the lead Republican staffer for the Middle East and counterterrorism on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as a staffer. He has a bachelor’s degree from Princeton, a master’s degree in Security Studies from Georgetown University, a second master’s in Strategic Intelligence from the National Intelligence University and a PhD in International Relations from Georgetown — all of which mean he’s deeply overqualified for any national security position.

Here are some of Gallagher’s most interesting answers to my questions.

Thiessen: Where did the GOP go wrong in the midterms?

Gallagher: I think what the message the American people are sending . . . is that both parties are kind of on probation right now. They don’t want to hand either [party] the keys to the car, [and are] sort of forcing them to sit in the car and have it idle until they figure it out. But they want less crazy and more common sense. They want more discipline and less just reckless bomb-throwing.

And I think where you saw candidates that were disciplined, that were able to connect overall concerns, ephemeral concerns that we talk about here at the federal level, to just the day-to-day reality of people in the Midwest or wherever, they were successful, really in both parties.

And I think they want a forward-looking approach. If we had a problem on our side, I think it was the idea that relitigating the 2020 election was the most important issue in the 2022 midterm, when it clearly was not, right? They want more winning and less whining.

Thiessen: What’s the answer to calls to cut Ukraine aid?

Gallagher: I think it’s fair for people to say, “All right. If we’re spending this money on Ukraine, we want to know that it is well spent.” And I am fully committed to that effort in transparency. But for those of us who want to continue to support the Ukrainians and deliver a massive loss to the Russians . . . we have to do a better job of tying the threat posed by Russia to the threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party. And it’s really teasing out the fact that for at least a decade, if not longer, these countries, who at times have interests that diverged and at times were outright hostile, at least in the present day, have locked arms to wage a new Cold War against the West, and are aided in that by the Iranian regime as well. And this idea that, “Well, we can be tough on China, but we have to strike some grand bargain with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin in Europe because our resources are limited.” I just think that reflects a naive view of the way the world is working right now.”