The United Nations is no great moral arbiter of anything, but at least the United States has tried over the years to have that group of nations recognize the truth about bad actors. That wasn’t the case Monday, as the U.S. voted with Russia against a General Assembly resolution calling out Russia for its invasion of Ukraine three years ago.
What a regrettable moment. The resolution, sponsored by Ukraine and European nations, wasn’t even all that strong. It merely noted “with concern that the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation” has had “devastating and long-lasting consequences” and called for “an early cessation of hostilities.”
Apparently even this was too much of a rebuke to Vladimir Putin for President Trump to tolerate as he seeks to negotiate an end to the Ukraine war. The U.S. had supported these resolutions since the war began but is now voting with the world’s rogues rather than with its allies. The U.S. tried to pressure Ukraine to withdraw its resolution in favor of an American draft that didn’t cite Russia as the aggressor in the war. Kyiv understandably refused.
Ilya Somin accurately describes Trump’s support of Russia as “shameful.” A slice:
Today is the third anniversary of the beginning of Russia’s full-blown assault on Ukraine, on February 24, 2022. Sadly, over the last few weeks, the Trump Administration has moved towards abandoning Ukraine to its brutal enemy. Trump has essentially adopted the Kremlin line on the war – blaming Ukraine for Russia’s aggression, and made a series of concessions to Vladimir Putin (foreclosing Ukrainian membership in NATO, letting Russia keep the territory it occupied, etc.), without demanding anything from Russia in return. The Administration has been trying to make a deal under which the US will have rights to much of Ukraine’s mineral resources. But they aren’t offering any security guarantees or continuation of military aid in return. On top of that, as part of a broader assault on legal immigration, Trump has suspended the highly successful Uniting for Ukraine program, under which Americans are able to sponsor Ukrainian refugees to live and work in the US.
Scott Sumner writes wisely about U.S. policy toward China and Russia. A slice:
Here’s a question I have for all of the people that have argued we need sanctions on China due to its ambivalence on the Ukraine War issue. What sort of sanctions do you favor being put on the US, now that our government is far more supportive of Russia’s policy than China ever was? Should the EU, Canada and Japan put even stricter sanctions on the US than on China?
China’s poor human rights record is also cited by cold warriors. But China’s single worst human rights violation–it’s decision to put roughly a million Uyghurs into concentration camps–was endorsed by Donald Trump during his first term in office. Once again, it’s difficult to see the argument for putting sanctions on a country because of concern over human rights, when the country considering sanctions endorsed those policies.
“Fake News is an UNPARDONABLE SIN!” President Donald Trump declares in a Truth Social rant inspired by the cancellation of Joy Reid’s MSNBC show. “This whole corrupt operation is nothing more than an illegal arm of the Democrat Party. They should be forced to pay vast sums of money for the damage they’ve done to our Country.”
Trump’s claim that journalism he does not like is “illegal” and constitutes a tort justifying massive civil damages should be familiar by now. He has made such claims not only in social media posts but also in actual lawsuits against news organizations. As the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) explains in a motion filed last Friday, these chilling attempts to convert Trump’s complaints about press coverage into causes of action are legally baseless and blatantly unconstitutional.
Deirdre McCloskey reveals the heart of true liberalism. (HT Arnold Kling) A slice:
What is this “liberalism” enunciated by the forefathers and foremothers—Tom Paine and Mary Wollstonecraft, Frédéric Bastiat and Alexis de Tocqueville, Ramon Aron and Rose Wilder Lane? Briefly, it is equality of permission. Parts of such an equality are human dignity, in cosmopolitan fashion ,and equality of standing to speak, in pluralistic fashion. But more generally it is an equality for all responsible adults to endeavor.
It is not the equalities of outcome or of opportunity, which of course are properly accorded to children in a loving family. Outcome and opportunity as political ideals, to be contrasted with an adult and responsible permission, became popular—though never achieved—in the middle of the 19th century. Socialism and “New” Liberalism arrived well after equality of permission had begun the liberal revolution and its resulting Great Enrichment. In 1846 the true liberal Thoreau began “Resistance to Civil Government” by declaring “I heartily accept the motto,—’That government is best which governs least,’ and I should like to see it acted upon more rapidly and systematically.” By contrast, the New Liberalism of the 1880s, still with us, summons the government to attempt to assure the equalities of outcome and opportunity, as children are assured in a loving family. The state has largely mostly in the attempt at such material equalities. But it has succeeded spectacularly in making us more and more into children, then serfs. The residue of the new liberty of permission made us rich in matter and soul, from Scotland and Tuscany to Hebei and Maharashtra. And the enrichment from equality of permission, ironically, achieved indirectly a substantial degree of equality of material outcome and opportunity.
Barry Brownstein argues that the government makes vaccines less safe than these would otherwise be.
America prides itself on being a land where individuals and businesses can plan their futures. Control over the design of your life is essential to liberty, and the nation prospers when people know that their enterprises and investments will be immune from arbitrary enforcement. However, in a world of wide-ranging regulations—covering everything from cryptocurrency markets to healthcare to environmental standards—the promise of legal predictability often goes unfulfilled. Many agencies, instead of clearly stating the rules in advance, prefer to announce them during an enforcement action. This approach, known as “regulation by enforcement,” stifles innovation, chokes off economic growth, and undermines the rule of law.
Regulation by enforcement has become a flashpoint. Last month, Judge Stephano Bibas of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals noted: “Nearly a century ago, Congress created the SEC to serve as a watchdog for securities markets, including by developing rules. The SEC insists that its old rules apply to the novel crypto market but refuses to spell out how.”
…..
We prosper when entrepreneurs can engage in a dynamic marketplace governed by sensible, consistent rules. Yet we need regulations to prevent companies from wrongly imposing costs and dangers on our citizens. One overlooked but important mechanism permits bold enterprise and necessary regulation to flourish together. That mechanism lies in the original understanding of the APA, in a provision enacted by Congress to afford private actors the ability to force answers from agencies. Mandating the broader use of declaratory orders would not only implement faithfully Congress’s directive but would also restore confidence and creativity in our commercial republic.
