TRUMP YEAR ONE
It has been a year since President Trump was sworn in for his second term as president, time to step back and evaluate what he has and hasn’t done over the past year. That turned out to be tougher than I thought.
Because he is so polarizing, it is hard to evaluate Trump’s policies without getting caught up in the man himself. So, in putting this together, I’ve tried to ask myself how I would feel about this or that policy if they were enacted by President John Smith.
I’ve also tried to avoid “what aboutism” as much as possible. It is one thing to note that some of the Trump policies I am critical of have been used by previous presidents. Chances are very good that I was equally critical of those policies and presidents at the time. And, regardless, two wrongs don’t make a right, and two stupids don’t make a smart.
Finally, I’ve done my best to base my analysis on policies that President Trump has implemented or tried to implement, rather than on the trolling and other babbling that the White House puts out, or the latest Truth Social statement.
I am, of course, used to finding presidents falling short of my idiosyncratic standards. I’m not sure if that applies in this case. I had a very low expectations for a Trump presidency – so low that for what may have been the first time in my life, I swallowed hard and supported a Democratic candidate. Yet, somehow, President Trump has managed to be even worse than I expected.
Let’s take a look at some specifics.
Domestic Policy and the Economy: A great many of my Trump-supporting friends assure me that his election saved us from socialism. Yet, in the last year, he has attempted to fix prices, set CEO salaries, and had the government take partial ownership of strategic businesses. Most recently he has prohibited private equity companies from buying single family homes and sought to cap credit card interest rates. It’s hard to see much difference between Trump and, say, Zohran Mamdani.
In general, I have long held that president’s get too much credit (or blame) for the economy. But President Trump has been more active than most. So, what has Trump’s economic policies brought us?
Trump’s economy today can best be described as ok. Not spectacular, but ok. The much-predicted recession never materialized, and the economy has grown at roughly 2.3 percent, year over year, and faster in the fourth quarter of 2025 (although that data is possibly distorted by the government shutdown). The stock market continues to perform well, which benefits more people than commonly believed. On the other hand, unemployment is beginning to tick up. In December it reached 4.6 percent, the highest level since 2021. Inflation is roughly 2.7 percent year over year, about where it was when Trump took office, and down from the worst of the Biden years. However, progress there has been uneven. Gas prices are down, but other energy prices, notably electricity, are up. Eggs (the ubiquitous staple of the 2024 campaign), are down but most other groceries are up.
The Trump economy is increasingly K-shaped. That is, higher income earners are doing well, while those earning less are struggling. Thus we see continued demand for luxury goods, while foreclosures and credit card delinquencies are on the rise. More than a third of families report difficulties in paying their bills.
Essentially, the president’s economic strategy is a three-legged stool based on tariffs, tax cuts, and the growth in AI. As we head into 2026, all three legs look pretty shaky.
About the best thing that can be said about the tariffs is that they have not yet been as damaging as they will likely turn out to be. It is hard to tease out exactly who pays what portion of the tariffs, but one thing is certain – it is Americans, not foreign governments. Goldman Sachs estimates that roughly 55 percent is being paid by American consumers, with most of the rest being absorbed by American businesses. However, businesses cannot continue doing so forever. Already, tariffs have raised retail prices by about 4.9 percentage points relative to the pre-tariff trend, 6.0 percentage points for imported goods and 4.3 percentage points for domestic goods. Some items, including clothing, coffee & tea, and furniture have seen much larger increases. At the same time, the tariffs have done little to achieve the goals that Trump has claimed for them. For example, tariffs were theoretically going to revive manufacturing. The US lost 49,000 manufacturing jobs in 2025.
Trump’s tax and spending policies have been a mixed bag. The 2016 tax cuts benefited lower-income Americans and were worth preserving. That includes continuing the tax reductions for businesses and higher earners as well. At the same time, Trump has done little to reduce government spending. As a result, the federal government ran a deficit of $1.8 trillion in 2025. Moreover, Trump has taken major entitlement reform off the table, meaning we should expect even greater deficit and debt going forward.
Spending on AI development, including data centers and research, is now the single biggest driver of growth in the U.S., accounting for as much as 40 percent of GDP. In the long run, AI holds the possibility of radically transforming the world economy, mostly for the better. Yet, many observers are beginning to warn that AI may be facing a bubble similar to dotcom bubble of the late 1990s or real estate in 2008. Given the weakness of the rest of the economy, if that bubble were to burst, the consequences could be devastating.
Foreign Policy and National Defense: A few months ago, I was ready to give Trump a fair amount of credit for his foreign and defense policies. No, he hasn’t ended 8 wars – that’s typical Trumpian braggadocio – but by lending the good offices of the United States and his personal prestige to negotiations, he did play a role in mediating several conflicts. In some cases, such as Armenia and Azerbaijan, this seems to have made a real difference. In others, such as the conflict between Rwanda and the Republic of Congo, fighting barely slowed. The president should also get credit for putting together a Gaza deal that resulted in the return of the last Israeli hostages. Unfortunately, once the ceremonies end, the cameras are off, and the phony peace prizes are put on a shelf, the president tends to lose interest. There is seldom the follow-through needed to bring about real peace and stability. Thus, Gaza remains in chaos, fighting flares back up between Cambodia and Thailand, and other conflicts continue to simmer.
Overshadowing everything else, however, is the ongoing destruction of the post-World War II rules-based order. Trump’s “might makes right” approach, his undermining of traditional alliances, and his adoption of “spheres of influence,” will leave us isolated and the world a much more dangerous place. Throw in our ongoing betrayal of Ukraine and the president’s continued solicitousness toward Vladamir Putin, and it’s hard to see long-term positives here.
Immigration: Few issues have dominated President Trump’s agenda s much as immigration. I understand that my views on immigration are far more permissive than those of the average American. And even I have to give the president credit for restoring order to a border that was in complete chaos under the Biden administration. The Trump administration’s call for deporting those illegal immigrants who have committed violent crimes makes sense.
But that is not what is happening. Just 5 percent of those detained by ICE have been convicted of a violent crime. In fact, nearly three-quarters have never been convicted of anything at all. Rather than “the worst of the worst,” Trump is busy deporting our neighbors, business owners, veterans, and long-time members of the community. Too often, even US citizens are being detained and sometimes held incommunicado for days.
It’s not just the who that I find problematic, it is the how. The tactics, especially those employed by ICE and CBP, have been unnecessarily aggressive, and deliberately cruel. Indeed, cruelty often seems to be the point. We have reached the stage where the authorities can stop you randomly on the street and demand to see your papers. That is not the kind of country that I want America to be.
Civil Liberties and the Rule of Law: The Hitler analogies are probably overblown, but one doesn’t have to be “literally Hitler” to be very, very bad. Trump has eroded the rule of law and threatened civil liberties in a way that emulates authoritarian strongmen like Orban or Erdogan. Whatever one thinks about politicization of the justice system under the Biden administration, Trump has weaponized the Justice Department well beyond the abuses of previous administrations. His revenge tour has morphed into threats to prosecute virtually anyone who disagrees with him. Nor is it just the Justice Department, Trump has unleashed federal regulators on a host of perceived enemies from late night comedians to law firms to universities And, the sight of armed troops on American streets should give every American pause.
Some 20 years ago, I wrote a book on big-government conservatism. One chapter warned about the growing use of executive orders and the accretion of presidential power. Since then, both Democratic and Republican presidents, have seized more and more unilateral authority, while Congress retreats further and further into irrelevance. Trump didn’t start this trend, he has certainly taken advantage of it, issuing 225 executive orders in 2025. Many were innocuous and others simply reversed Biden executive orders, but Trump has clearly centralized power in the presidency to a degree that would make the Founding Fathers weep.
And the Rest… Time and space prevent me from weighing in on the other issues where Trump has had an impact. No one can say that the first year of Donald Trump’s second term has not been eventful. For good or ill, he has been an omnipresent force, upending long-established policies, programs, and norms of operation. People will be speaking of the Age of Trump for a long time to come.
Robert Kennedy Jr. and the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement have done some good work in highlighting the dangers of processed foods, calling attention to the importance of lifestyle, and shining a light on some of the excesses during the COVID pandemic. But he has also perpetuated misinformation about vaccines, measles, Tylenol, and more. Actions and inactions that will ultimately cost lives. The president took positive steps on permitting and deregulation but also attempted to purge science that investigated climate change. DOGE promised trillions in savings, but, in the end, delivered hardly any. Trump’s anti-DEI policies went far beyond a needed corrective to whitewash history and squeeze women and people of color out of top positions. He has tolerated antisemitism and racism in ways that normalized them on the right.
Certainly my readers can – and will – quibble with my depiction of any particular issue, but I think the evidence is overwhelming that Trump’s first year has been anything but a success.
Political Violence is Unacceptable
The assassination of conservative political activist Charlie Kirk is more than just a crime – it is a tragedy. It is a tragedy obviously for his young wife and children, for his friends, and his many followers. But it is also a tragedy for this country, yet another step along the road that is making America less America.
I agreed with almost nothing that Kirk said or stood for. I found much of what he said to be hateful and divisive. But the answer to opinions that one disagrees with, even hateful and divisive opinions, is never political violence. If someone says something you don’t like, the response should be to disagree, tell them they are wrong, debate, criticize, and reason. Change people’s minds. Laugh at them even. Or just ignore them. But the answer is not murder.
As someone who makes a living debating about public policy, I have seen firsthand the deep and emotional divisions in this country – and collected my share of death threats along the way. And I can tell you it’s getting worse.
The last few years have seen:
- The shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise during a congressional softball practice;
- A plot to kidnap and possibly murder Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer;
- A riot and attempt to storm the U.S. Capitol;
- The brutal beating of Paul Pelosi;
- At least two assassination attempts on President Trump;
- An attempt to kill Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro;
- The assassination of Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband (and the shooting of Minnesota Senator John Hoffman and his wife);
- The murder of United Health Care CEO Brian Thompson;
- And, now, the killing of Charle Kirk
No doubt I’m forgetting some, which shows just how bad this has gotten.
The essence of this country is the open and free discussion of our differences. It is part of what makes us who we are. Violence, censorship, and other forms of intolerance make us – all of us – less than we should aspire to. When we demonize opponents as enemies, or traffic in dehumanizing language, and tolerate threats as a normal part of politics, it contributes to a climate in which violence becomes an inevitable result.
Now is not the time for excuses, arguing over who is more blameworthy, or seeking retribution. Rather all of us should pause, take a deep breath, and recommit ourselves to the liberal principles of free speech, the rule of law, and the democratic process.
What Now?
The election is over and the candidate that I voted for lost. That happens in a democracy (in my case, most of the time).
What does this mean for policy and the country going forward? How should we respond? Some thoughts for people on both sides of the Trump divide.
First, let’s get over the idea that President Trump’s election is a mandate for whatever crazy idea enters his mind. Yes, Trump won, not just the electoral vote but the popular vote as well. That entitles him to a certain amount of deference. Elections have consequences. But it was not a landslide. While he won the popular vote, Trump fell short of 50 percent – he won a plurality not a majority. In fact, his victory is only the 16th largest in US history since WWII. And this was at a time of worldwide anti-incumbent sentiment and the record unpopularity of the Biden administration. Victory? Sure. Mandate? Meh.
Moreover, a lot of voters supported Trump because he was not Kamala Harris (or Joe Biden). Many if not most, had modest demands – reduce inflation, control the border, reduce crime. There is a strong tendency for new administrations to overreach. (See, for example, Biden, Joe, who thought a mandate to not be Trump was a call for the second coming of FDR.) The Trump administration is unsurprisingly already showing signs of this sort of hubris.
And, for those of us who were and are not Trump fans, there’s plenty of reason to be concerned but not yet reason to panic.
Let’s not reflexively oppose everything the administration proposes simply because it’s the Trump administration. It’s not how I would go about it, but the DC administrative state could certainly use a little disruption. Maybe some unconventional department heads asking inconvenient questions will change some of the stagnant bureaucracy. DOGE is, of course, over promising, but does anyone doubt that the federal behemoth is inefficient, costly, and mired in old ways of doing things? I’m no fan of Musk or Ramaswamy, but if they kick a little bureaucratic butt – good for them.
If done right, lower taxes and less regulation are generally good things. School choice and welfare reform are possibilities. And given Trump’s lack of fixed ideology, disinterest in policy, and transactional nature, he might be talked into supporting other worthwhile things.
As for dumb, mistaken, or wrongheaded policies (tariffs anyone?), well, we will survive. Donald Trump is not the first president with terrible ideas. Kamala Harris had more than a few policies I disagreed with.
On the other hand, if Trump follows through on his anti-democratic impulses and thirst for revenge, opposition will be a moral imperative. And we will have to hope that the guardrails hold. The deep-sixing of the Gaetz nomination is a reason for some optimism – the Senate is not totally supine. And, there will be push-back in the courts.
I’m not saying that Immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community, women, and other disadvantaged groups shouldn’t be wary – and I’m certainly not in their position – but premature panic is unlikely to be effective. If everything is a five alarm fire, then nothing is a five alarm fire.
There will be new congressional elections in two years and a new presidential election two years after that. I expect to be writing on the future about the direction that I hope both parties will take (hint: it’s not a further decent into populism), but for now let’s all take a deep breath, stay civil, stay involved and do our homework. I remain an optimist. America’s best days are still ahead.
My Vote 2024
Less than three weeks until election day.
Pundits like to describe every election as “the most important in our lifetime.” This one may actually come close to meeting that criterion. At the very least it is fair to describe it as truly consequential. Sadly, though, for classical liberals who believe as I do, this election is even more disappointing than usual.
As a policy wonk, I dream of elections being decided on issues, but that is rare under the best of circumstances. And these are far from the best of circumstances. Still, Trump and Harris do have very different approaches to the problems facing this country, and it is worth considering them.
Economic and Domestic Policy: It has been a long time since there has been a true free market candidate for president. But really, has either of these two ever even talked to an economist?
Harris has been maddeningly vague about her plans as president. Tied to the Biden record, and trying to move to the center without antagonizing her left flank, she tends to speak in platitudes. When she does venture into policy, it is mostly to pander.
Harris is not a communist or even a socialist, but she is a tax and spend Democrat – on steroids. She would mostly continue the policies of the Biden administration. That is not a good thing. And her refrain that she can pay for all this by “making the rich pay their fair share” is demagogic nonsense.
But Trump offers little better. His insistence that other countries pay tariffs rather than U.S. consumers may be the single most economically ignorant statement of the campaign – and that’s a high bar. At the low end of estimates, Trump’s tariffs would cost the average family more than $2600/year. His immigration policies, even if you ignore their basic inhumanity, would be an economic disaster. Deporting huge swaths of workers, including large numbers of agricultural and construction workers, will drive prices higher, while the loss of consumers will undercut the economy more broadly. Estimates suggest that mass deportation would lower GDP growth by more than 7 percent by 2028.
My readers know I’m no fan of taxes and am temperamentally inclined to look on tax cuts favorably. But tax cuts without corresponding reductions in spending are a recipe for disaster. Trump not only has taken most significant spending cuts off the table – he steadfastly refuses to consider reforms to Social Security and Medicare for example—he regularly proposes new subsidies and benefits.. During his first term, Trump added $8 trillion to the national debt, and according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), the proposals he has laid out so far would add at least $7.5 trillion and possibly as much as $15 trillion to the national debt over 10 years. Estimates for Harris’ plans are only slightly less bad: an additional $3.5 trillion in debt at the low end and potentially as much as $8.1 trillion. And, given her propensity to solve every problem by spending more, we should expect even higher deficits.
Harris’s suggestion that inflation is caused by corporate greed and price gouging is deeply unserious, and her proposals to combat it could easily segue into price controls. But it is Trump who has explicitly called for price controls, notably a cap on credit card interest rates.
Foreign Policy: Trump had some foreign policy successes during his first term, but his coziness with dictators and his willingness to abandon Ukraine is particularly disturbing. Harris’s record on foreign policy is thin, and not without blemish, but she does appear to understand our vital national interests and the importance of alliances and international stability. She can be counted on to stand by Ukraine, the right move both morally and strategically. She also appears to be getting the balance right in support for Israel’s right to self-defense, while also pushing back against its excesses.
Civil Liberties, Freedom, and Constitutional Rights: Neither Trump nor Harris has been a beacon of civil liberties. Harris’s record as a district attorney and as California attorney general was dreadful, frequently running roughshod over the rights of defendants and others. Both her statements and the actions of the Biden administration raise serious concerns about free speech and censorship. She shows an unhealthy attachment to unilateral executive action.
But Trump’s positions run the gamut from simply concerning to truly terrifying. He threatens to use the military against his enemies. He would shut down media outlets that criticize him. He promises to immunize violent and abusive police. He sees virtualy no limits to his powers as president.
Certainly, Harris is to be preferred on issues of individual autonomy such as abortion, gay and transgender rights. These issues are every bit as important as economic ones.
The Deciding Factor: I could go on, but in the end, this is not just another choice between disappointing candidates with policies I dislike. Donald Trump is not “literally Hitler,” but you can do a lot of damage to the fabric of this country and to democratic norms without being literally Hitler. Trump’s behavior on January 6, his advocacy of violence, and his desire for revenge and retribution are entirely disqualifying. Likewise, his xenophobia, race-baiting, and misogyny. And this time, there will be fewer adults in the administration to set guard rails around his behavior. I know that a lot of my friends simply do not believe that Donald Trump wants to do what he says he wats to do. They chalk it up to hyperbole and showmanship. Maybe. But can we really take the chance?
I disagree with Kamala Harris on so many issues. And if she is elected, I will undoubtedly spend the next four years criticizing her. But ultimately this is a rare binary choice – if Harris will likely be a bad president, but bad in the usual way. Donald Trump will be an unfit one. I will be voting for Kamala Harris in November.
What I Believe
The last few years have left me increasingly politically homeless. The Republican party has abandoned any pretense of free markets or fiscally responsible economics, while ratcheting up populist demagoguery, conspiracy mongering, racial antagonism, and anti-democratic threats. Meanwhile, Democrats show no sign of recognizing any limit to the size, scope, or cost of government. Their failure to understand basic economics can be stunning. And, their commitment to civil liberties blows with the wind. I cannot identify with either.
For many years I called myself a libertarian. But the more I study public policy, the more I find libertarianism too often dogmatic, too obsessed with theory, and too willing to ignore the real-world consequences that policies can have on people. Moreover, the Libertarian Party has been taken over by a clique of alt-right trolls and cranks.
I do not fit neatly into any of the rival camps. For most people, who do not follow policy or politics on an intimate day-to-day basis, this can be confusing and annoying. Therefore, for my readers sake, let me set out what I believe, the basic principles that undergird my political and policy choices.
- All people have the same fundamental rights, chief of which is the right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force and coercion. These rights are natural and inherent to our humanity, not given to us by governments. People own their own bodies and the fruits of their labor. These rights, while not absolute (no rights are), put a high burden on governments to justify the use of force and coercion. In practice this means government should not mandate something simply because it is desirable, nor should it prohibit things because people believe something is wrong or bad for society. Liberty is indivisible, and political freedom and individual liberty cannot long exist without economic freedom. Likewise, economic freedom cannot last in the absence of personal liberty.
- A vibrant free market is the foundation of prosperity. As a rule, this means taxes should be low and regulations as unobtrusive as possible. Governments should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. It is important to recognize that being pro-market is not necessarily the same as being pro-business. Nor does it mean that there should be no taxes or regulation. But our default should always be in favor of free trade, free exchange, competitive markets, entrepreneurship, innovation, consumer choice, and the freedom to contract.
- The skyrocketing federal debt—which now exceeds the annual economic output of the United States—is an existential threat to the future prosperity, liberty, and happiness of all Americans. There is no way to stem this tide of red ink through increased taxes, especially only taxes on the rich. In fact, you could confiscate every penny from every millionaire and billionaire in America and barely dent the problem. Importantly, there is no way to control our skyrocketing debt without reforming middle-class entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security.
- Immigration is an important driver of American prosperity and achievement. America is exceptional because anyone can become an American. Of course, the immigration process should be orderly, and we should be able to bar those with obvious criminal or terrorist backgrounds. Beyond that, if someone wants to come to this country, let them come. It will make us a richer, more entrepreneurial, and more vibrant country. Unfortunately, we make legal immigration very difficult, which leads to higher levels of illegal immigration and chaos at the border.
- America is uniquely based on the promise of equal opportunity regardless of race or other immutable characteristics. It is a foundation and commitment we should be proud of. However, we have not always lived up to that promise. Native Americans, African Americans, women, Latinos, members of the LBGTQ community, and others have all suffered exclusion, discrimination, and violence. Our historical treatment of African Americans, in particular, has been one of the great evils of our history. And, while we have made much progress, we have not yet achieved full equality. Systemic racism and discrimination continue to be problems today. Moreover, many continue to suffer from the downstream effects of past, often government-sponsored, mistreatment. Of course, we should strive for policies that are race neutral (and the equivalent for other groups), but at the same time we cannot ignore that the playing field is not level yet.
- The American criminal justice system is badly broken from top to bottom. Far too many things are illegal that shouldn’t be. Police are far too abusive and prone to hair trigger reactions. People of color and the poor are disproportionately accosted, arrested, sentenced t longer terms, and ess likely to be paroled. Prisons are crime schools rather than routes to rehabilitation. Criticism of criminal justice reform is far more often a political cudgel rather than a reflection of crime rates (which are declining in most major cities). We should rethink the goals, tactics, and purposes of policing and the criminal justice system to emphasize restorative justice, rehabilitation, and reintegration.
- Being poor is not a moral failure. Obviously we shouldn’t strip the poor of agency by ignoring the role their choices and decisions play in their poverty. But equally, we should recognize the role played by factors outside their control, including race, gender, economic upheaval, and simple bad luck. The goal of welfare programs should be to both provide immediate assistance for basic needs and to enable recipients to escape poverty and become self-sufficient over the long run. However, most welfare programs focus exclusively on the former. In essence they attempt to make poverty less miserable. I am not suggesting that it’s not important to take care of the material needs of poorer Americans. But, in the long run, we need a completely different approach to fighting poverty—one that focuses on opportunity, self-sufficiency, and self-determination—rather than simply throwing more money at the problem.
- While the United States has often been too quick to intervene in foreign conflicts, we remain the indispensable force for freedom in the world. We have an obligation to speak out for human rights and against oppression wherever it occurs. We should, of course, be very careful about direct intervention either militarily or economically. Most such interventions are counterproductive, and the United States cannot and should not be the world’s policeman. Our time, attention, and resources are limited. But there will be occasions when such intervention is not only reasonable and just, but morally required.
- We have an obligation to preserve the environment and the glories of nature for future generations. However, neither right-wing denialism nor left-wing catastrophism reflects either the true state of affairs or the best ways to deal with the issue. Nor does dealing with climate change and other environmental issues require centralized economic control, massive government subsidies, or reductions in our standard of living. Of course sometimes government must play a role, but generally we should rely technology, innovation, and human ingenuity – from nuclear power to planting micro-forests – not command and control to find better ways to coexist with our planet.
- There are few if any cost-free choices. Public policy almost always involves tradeoffs, seen or unseen. Moreover, no matter how good a particular policy may sound, or how much we might believe that policy to be correct, there is always the possibility that we are wrong. If the facts and the evidence show something different, there is an obligation to rethink one’s views. Certainly, I have changed my opinion on issues over the years. I expect to do so again in the future. This same recognition that we can be wrong should also inform policy, meaning centralized and one-size fits all solutions should be resisted. And, when the data changes, policies should change as well.
I would expect there to be something on this list to annoy pretty much everyone. Yet, I believe my positions are based on facts and evidence applied within a coherent philosophical framework. Your mileage may vary. And, obviously, I haven’t the time or space to cover every issue here. Still, as issues come up, I hope this will give you a better idea of where I stand and why.
War!
There are no good wars, but sometimes there are necessary wars. Of course, we should always be skeptical of wars, often rushed into too blithely, without careful consideration of the geopolitical consequences or the suffering that inevitably accompanies them. The United States has notably intervened too often and too widely, often believing that it can reorder the world by force. That said, nations, like people, have an inherent right to self-defense. Whether Ukraine resisting a brutal Russian invasion, or Israel responding to the barbarism of Hamas, sometimes wars are both justified and necessary.
We should also recognize that there is not always a moral equivalence between combatants. Yes, prewar Ukraine was too frequently corrupt. Perhaps we should have been more sensitive to Russian fears of NATO expansion. Russian speakers in the Donbas may have had legitimate concerns. But none of that justifies Russia’s invasion of a sovereign nation, the deliberate targeting of civilians, the use of rape as a weapon of war, the torture and murder of innocents.
Similarly, the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians has been reprehensible. The isolation of Gaza, effectively an open-air prison, and the indignities heaped on Palestinians in the West Bank should be roundly criticized. The Netanyahu government has been divisive, anti-democratic, and expansionist. But that cannot possibly excuse massacring young people at a concert, burning and beheading babies, or raping and torturing civilians. That’s not resistance; that is evil.
We’ve all become cynical in recent years, with justification, seeing the world in shades of gray and trusting no one. But sometimes there really are good guys and bad guys. Even if the good guys are imperfect, the bad guys here should be readily apparent.
There is plenty of room to be critical of Ukrainian and Israeli tactics. One can even oppose U.S. assistance to either nation, though I would strongly disagree. But if you can’t bring yourself to denounce the barbarity of Hamas or the aggression of Putin’s Russia, I would suggest your moral compass is in serious need of repair. Silence is complicity.
Update October 2024
While I stand by everything I wrote above, I must also express my concerns over Israel’s tactics over the past year. The right of Israel to defend itself and the depravity of Hamas is uncontestable. But that does not mean there are no limits to the tactics that can be used in self-defense. Israel’s disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians crosses the line and risks squandering the moral high ground. It is wrong both morally and strategically.
New Adventures, New Opportunities
After nearly 30 years in various roles with the Cato Institute, it is time to move on to new adventures and new opportunities. Actually, I was prepared to gently slide into retirement, but it turns out that I still have important things to say. So, today (April 3) I will take up a new position as a senior fellow with the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP). In this capacity I will be continuing to speak out on the issues of poverty and inequality that are important to me.
FREOPP is a non-partisan thinktank, firmly committed to free markets, individual liberty, and limited government, but one that looks at public policy exclusively through a lens of how those policies impact those with wealth or incomes below the U.S. median. Readers of my book, The Inclusive Economy, will recognize a holistic approach to fighting poverty, that encompasses issues ranging from criminal justice and education reform to housing policy, welfare reform, and economic development. It offers a bridge between left and right on ways to create greater and more widespread opportunity for those who are struggling most today.
I am deeply appreciative for my time at Cato. I had an opportunity to work with some of the finest scholars I know and believe I helped bring about important changes to both policy and public perceptions. But all good things come to an end, and now I have an opportunity to tackle fresh challenges and bring my message to different audiences.
I look forward to sharing this new adventure with you, my readers. Onward and upward!
The Human Heart Still Sings for Liberty
Not so very long ago, many astute observers thought that liberal democracy was in decline globally. Enlightenment values of individual rights, liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, and constitutional government were outmoded, irrelevant to the needs of modern society, and threatening to long held beliefs and traditions. Populist authoritarianism was in ascendence and providing a new model for the world. Counties like Russia and China were increasingly seen as providing a more efficient mechanism for “getting things done” without all the messiness of individual choice and democratic rule.
Yet, if one looks around the world today, authoritarianism is being challenged everywhere. The struggle for – and desire for – liberty is seeing a rebirth.
In Ukraine, a liberal democracy, admittedly flawed but fundamentally embracing ideals of liberty and self-determination, has proven more than a match for the authoritarian behemoth that invaded it. The Ukrainian success, of course, owes much to western aide and Russian incompetence. But the ultimate key to the Ukrainian fortitude we are witnessing in the face of hardship and atrocity has been the belief that they are fighting for freedom and independence. Compare that to Russian conscripts forced to fight for a system that they neither care about nor cares about them.
Meanwhile, women and others have risen up in Iran in the wake of the death of of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old student likely murdered by the regime’s infamous morality police. The authorities have responded with brutal force, arresting thousands, and killing more than 300. Yet, the protests have continued for nearly four months, if anything growing larger, under the slogan, “Women, Life, Freedom.”
Even in China, long considered the epicenter of the authoritarian alternative, is now experiencing unprecedented protests that have sprung up across the country. The protests, small by international standards, have not been seen since in China since the 1989 protest in Tiananmen Square. These latest protests started in opposition to the country’s draconian “zero COVID” policy, but now the demonstrators are calling for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and “the democratic rule f law.” Some have even called for President Xi and the Chinese Communist Party to relinquish power.
Of note, in this country, voters in the midterm elections largely rejected the most extreme candidates and delivered a strong rebuke to those who flirt with anti-democratic norms.
Of course, to differing degrees, all these pro-liberal movements may fail. It seems unlikely but Russia could get its act together enough to complete its conquest of Ukraine. The Iranian protests may fizzle out the way others have in the past. China’s demonstrations are almost certainly not going to topple Xi. In the US, troubling strains of extremism remain among both political parties. New threats to freedom will arise, and old ones will have their triumphs.
Yet, successful or not, we are seeing that the desire for liberty is unquenchable. We should have understood this. After all, we’ve been through dark times before. We’ve fallen short of our ideals and seen liberty stumble and be momentarily eclipsed. But always the spark has rekindled.
We should remember. We should continue to fight the good fight and to support those who share our struggle. And we should be optimists. In the end, liberty will triumph.
Some Thoughts about the War in Ukraine
War is always a horrible thing – and the war in Ukraine is bringing that home to us in a way that is impossible to ignore. Moreover, I have friends and people I have worked with, fellow libertarians, in both Ukraine and Russia. As the war grinds on, and the Ukrainian people continue to suffer, I think it time to offer a few thoughts.
The case for staying out of the conflict is not an unserious one, and the concerns shouldn’t be dismissed lightly.
To start with, it takes more than a bit of gymnastics for the U.S. to claim the moral high ground on matters of war and peace. It’s not just the U.S. invasion of Iraq, it is decades of propping up dictatorships and/or supporting regime change in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Even now, we continue to provide military support for Saudi Arabia’s barbarous war in Yemen.
And, we probably should have been more sensitive to Russia’s geopolitical concerns in our race to expand NATO. Russia may be paranoid, but that’s a long-standing condition of Russian foreign policy, and we knew it going in. Moreover, there are still questions about whether the defense of Europe might better be accomplished through some-sort of EU-linked force rather than through an organization that by its nature threatens to drag the United States into a wider war.
Nor is our assistance to Ukraine cost-free. The most recent package of military and economic aid runs to $40 billion on top of what we’ve already spent. We will almost certainly end up spending even more before it’s all over That’s real money, even by Washington standards. The Biden administration may spend like there’s a magic money tree out behind the White House – but there’s not.
Finally, the risks of our being drawn into a direct, shooting conflict with Russia are real and could be catastrophic. If Russians and Americans start shooting at each other, the road to Armageddon beckons.
But despite these legitimate concerns, I still favor aid to Ukraine for reasons of both morality and national interest.
Let’s be absolutely clear, whatever we’ve done wrong in the past, there is no justification for Putin’s brutal aggression against Ukraine. Not only is the invasion unprovoked in any realistic sense, but it is being executed in the most criminal way. Russia’s deliberate targeting of civilians, destruction of Ukrainian culture, and other war crimes are not something that can be ignored. The idea, pushed by some on the far right, that Putin is conducting some sort of noble crusade against wokeness is a vile calumny that should not be entertained by civilized people.
Most wars are painted in shades of grey. This one is far less so. Ukraine was undoubtedly imperfect before the war, but there is a clear aggressor here. Moreover, as noted above, the Russians are carrying out their aggression in a particularly heinous fashion. I don’t believe that as a nation (or as individuals) we can turn away from helping the Ukrainians defend their country.
Moral outrage by itself is probably insufficient to justify U.S. intervention. After all, horrors are being committed all around the world. The U.S. cannot and should not be the world’s policeman. Most often, that type of intervention not only fails to solve the original problem, but it can also generate more bloodshed and expand the conflict (see, for example, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria…). The U.S. should only intervene if its national interests are at stake.
That appears to be the case in Ukraine. Russian aggression has destabilized the post-war geopolitical and legal order in a way that threatens to invite other conflicts. The outcome and the price inflicted on Russia and Putin will be watched carefully by dictators everywhere. Moreover, Putin gives every indication that his aggression is unlikely to end with Ukraine. Certainly, Moldova is in his sights, but so is much of Eastern Europe, the Caucuses, and elsewhere. I’m generally skeptical of appeasement analogies, but this looks like a situation where it applies.
Under the circumstances, it seems more than reasonable to provide the Ukrainians with the support that they need to defend themselves – including weapons. The Ukrainians are not asking for U.S. troops – I would oppose that – but are doing the fighting themselves – bravely and effectively. Of course, we cannot give Ukraine a blank check. At some point, we will have to discuss the differences between their interests and ours. But for now, we should do what we can.
And regardless of what side of the larger debate about U.S. government policy you come down on, I urge all my readers and friends to contribute voluntarily to those charities and other organizations supporting the courageous Ukrainian people in their fight for freedom and independence.
Slava Ukrayini!
Fusionism No More
During the 1950’s, the threat of Soviet communism and an overweening domestic state as typified by the New Deal, brought together a very diverse coalition on the American right: fiscal conservatives, religious conservatives, national defense hawks, and what would eventually become known as libertarians. Frank Meyer, an editor at National Review, was perhaps the most ardent proponent of the concept know as fusionism, which attempted to bring these unlikely allies into a single philosophical framework. The idea was that, even if we disagreed on the destination, for the moment we were traveling in the same direction.
Despite Meyer’s efforts, libertarians were always, at best, uneasy members of the coalition. After all, Frederick Hayek, one of the most important libertarian philosophers, famously wrote an essay entitled, “Why I am not a Conservative.” Even so, libertarians have long been broadly identified as part of the American Right.
For most of my political life, I was comfortable with this. Of course, I had my differences with conservatives, but the right seemed like a reasonable default home. I wrote for National Review and other conservative outlets and tended to vote Republican if there was no Libertarian on the ballot. Long ago, I even ran for office as a Republican. I took seriously Ronald Reagan’s statement that “Libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism.”
Whether or not those sentiments were once justified or I was just politically naive, it is clearly no longer the case. Today’s conservatives no longer have even a tangential relationship with libertarianism. The slide from traditional small government conservatism, even with its baggage on social issues, to Trumpism, with all its nationalism, jingoism, racialism, and the rejection of the values of enlightenment liberalism, has made the break complete. Even on traditional conservative issues involving taxes, spending, or reducing the power of the federal government, today’s conservatives have abandoned the field.
After all, what does it mean when I agree with Alexandria Ocasio Cortez on as many if not more issues than I do with even a so-called “liberty conservative” like Rand Paul. No, I haven’t lost my mind. AOC and her colleagues on the left still have little to no understanding of — or appreciation for — economics. They need to be kept far away from the federal budget. They too often believe that government power can be used for good if only they are in charge of it. But on important issues like immigration, civil liberties, racial justice, women’s rights, LGBQT issues, police reform, war and peace, Trump’s legacy, and many others, AOC is more libertarian than many self-professed libertarians.
I am a libertarian because I believe in certain basic values: chief among them individual liberty, free markets, limited government, and peace. I believe that these values are essential to human flourishing, and I believe that big government is generally inimical to those values. I believe that low taxes and tolerable regulations are the key to wealth creation and that wealth creation is necessary (if not sufficient) to reducing poverty. I believe that most government programs are counterproductive and that entitlements are bankrupting the country. None of that has changed. I’m not going to turn into an AOC clone any time soon.
But I no longer believe that there is any natural affinity between libertarianism and conservatism. We are no longer headed in the same direction. Fusionism is dead.
TannerOnPolicy 