Featuring Alex Kozinski, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; moderated by Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute.
So many Americans are concerned with how “Washington isn’t listening to them,” and candidates like Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and Ben Carson are stoking that outrage. But maybe Washington isn’t listening because it is so big that only mobilized special interests have the resources and incentives to pay attention. Maybe big government will never really pay attention to the people. If this is so, then maybe people should stop trying to control each other so much.
American leaders have cooperated with regimes around the world that are, to varying degrees, repressive or corrupt. Such cooperation is said to serve the national interest. But these partnerships also contravene the nation’s commitments to democratic governance, civil liberties, and free markets. In Perilous Partners, authors Ted Galen Carpenter and Malou Innocent provide a strategy for resolving the ethical dilemmas between interests and values faced by Washington.
The Cato Institute has released its 2014 Annual Report, which documents a dynamic year of growth and productivity. “Libertarianism is the philosophy of freedom,” Cato’s David Boaz writes in his book, The Libertarian Mind. “It is the indispensable framework for the future.” And as the new report demonstrates, the Cato Institute, thanks largely to the generosity of our Sponsors, is leading the charge to apply this framework across the policy spectrum.
The Implications of the U.S.-India Nuclear Agreement
Featuring Ted Galen Carpenter, Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies, Cato Institute; Henry D. Sokolski, Executive Director, Nonproliferation Policy Education Center; and Stephen P. Cohen, Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution.
On October 1, 2008, Congress approved an agreement facilitating civilian nuclear cooperation between the United States and India. Proponents of the agreement underscored its strategic benefits, hinting that an alliance of the world’s largest democracies would effectively check a rising China. Nonproliferation specialists, however, criticized the deal. They argued that accommodating India’s nuclear expansion would undermine other countries’ willingness to strengthen and enforce nonproliferation rules, send an ambiguous signal to other would-be proliferators, and weaken international institutions and rules that underpin global security. Will the extension of America and India’s partnership into the nuclear arena advance both countries’ long-term strategic goals, and was the agreement worth the subordination of nonproliferation and other objectives? Is it likely to give rise to two contending great power blocs in Asia — the United States and India on one side, China and Pakistan on the other? Join us for a discussion of these important issues.