Donald Trump tried to prevent the publication of Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House. The President has no case. The Constitution properly makes prior restraint of the press or of speech very difficult. Speech can also be punished after it is uttered, thereby preventing more speech. But, as Mr. Trump has noted, the libel laws protect most criticism of public figures including, of course, the President.
As the Wall Street Journal points out, Mr. Trump’s main rival in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton, supported amending the Constitution to overturn the Citizens United decision. The 2016 election thus offered the country two potential presidents, both hostile to free speech. That’s a sign of political decay, but perhaps also a potential lesson to be relearned.
Critics of President Trump should value the First Amendment. Those who would have been critics of President Hillary Clinton (including current supporters of the President) should do likewise. Mr. Trump’s supporters should also keep in mind that one day they too will want to criticize a public official without being punished for doing so.
Holding political power seems to induce a loss of memory. When they have power, everyone forgets how valuable the First Amendment is. When they don’t have power, everyone takes shelter under its broad protections. Let’s resolve early in this New Year to always remember that freedom of speech benefits everyone, sooner or later.
This small news bite from the Washington Post yesterday caught my eye:
Moving costs: Booz Allen Hamilton, the McLean, Va., consulting and government contracting giant, is receiving a $750,000 loan from a Maryland economic development fund and a grant of $250,000 from Montgomery County to relocate 750 Maryland workers from offices in Rockville to a new 65,000-square-foot workplace in Bethesda by the end of 2019.
This strikes me as absurd.
The economy is growing strongly, and yet one of the highest-income states is dishing out “economic development” subsidies to a big, profitable company in one of the nation’s wealthiest counties. The move is entirely in-county, so officials can’t even claim they are attracting new jobs to the area.
Booz Allen Hamilton lives high on the hog from government contracts, receiving about $4 billion a year. It is a true Beltway Bandit, ranking as one of the largest federal contractors, and gaining almost all of its growing revenues from governments. One of the great things about the government as a client is that you can make tens of millions of dollars even when projects fail.
Why would Maryland and Montgomery County want to fatten Booz Allen’s bottom line with subsidies to cover its routine expenses? Are they going to pay moving expenses for every local business, or is the idea to give this Beltway Behemoth an advantage over smaller firms with less lobbying power?
Shame on Maryland officials for wasting taxpayer money, and shame on Booz Allen for taking it.
In a December 28, 2017 column for the Washington Post entitled, “Opioid Abuse in the US Is So Bad It’s Lowering Life Expectancy. Why Hasn’t the Epidemic Hit Other Countries?,” Amanda Erickson succumbs to the false narrative that misdiagnoses the opioid overdose crisis as being primarily a manifestation of doctors over-prescribing opioids, goaded on by greedy, unethical pharmaceutical companies. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health revealed less than 25% of people using opioids for non-medical reasons get them through a prescription. A study reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association found just 13% of overdose victims had chronic pain conditions. Multiple Cochrane analyses show a true addiction (not just dependency) rate of roughly 1% in chronic pain patients on long-term opioids. Yet despite the 41% reduction in the prescription of high-dose opioids since 2010, the overdose rate continues to climb, and for the past few years heroin and fentanyl have been the major causes of death, as death from prescription opioids has stabilized or receded.
In actual fact, the rise in drug abuse and overdose is multifactorial, with socioeconomic and sociocultural components. This helps explain the Washington University study reporting 33% of heroin addicts entering rehab in 2015 started with heroin, as opposed to 8.7% in 2005.
It also helps explain why, contrary to Ms. Erickson’s reporting, opioid overdoses have reached crisis levels in Europe, despite a European medical culture that historically has been stingy with pain medicines, and has encouraged stoicism from patients. And the overdose crisis in Canada, ranked second in the world for per capita opioid use, has alarmed public health authorities there. But at least the Europeans and Canadians have the good sense to emphasize harm reduction measures to address the crisis, such as safe injection rooms and medication-assisted treatment, rather than focusing on inhibiting doctors from helping their patients in pain.
President Trump began 2018 by tweeting about Pakistan. He wrote that over the last 15 years, the United States has “foolishly” given $33 billion in aid to Pakistan for “nothing but lies & deceit” in return. He ended his tweet by saying, “They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!” The tweet was followed by UN Ambassador Nikki Haley’s announcement that the United States would be withholding $255 million in military assistance to Pakistan because of the “double game” they have been playing for years by harboring terrorists that attack U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Pakistan’s reaction was predictable: there was official outrage, with the Pakistani government summoning U.S. ambassador David Hale to the foreign office to explain the tweet. Foreign Minister Khawaja M. Asif tweeted that the world would soon find out the “difference between fact and fiction,” while the Ministry of Defense tweeted that Pakistan has been an ally to the United States, giving free access to “land & air communication, military bases & intel cooperation that decimated Al-Qaeda over last 16yrs.” Riots broke out in Karachi, with protestors shouting anti-American slogans and burning the U.S. flag. Finally, this morning, Foreign Minister Asif stated that Pakistan no longer sees the U.S. as an ally.
Is Pakistan overreacting? What impact will all of this have on the war in Afghanistan and future U.S. troop withdrawal?
Despite the ostentatious barbs from both sides, it isn’t all that clear yet what kind of assistance, and how much of it, is actually being withheld. Pakistan has received aid through several programs, such as the coalition support fund (CSF), a reimbursement program in which the United States pays Pakistan for using its military bases, and foreign military financing (FMF), a loan or grant that allows countries to purchase U.S. defense equipment, services, and training. The Trump administration is currently withholding the FMF, not the CSF. Considering how lucrative the CSF has been for Pakistan, Islamabad’s response to Trump’s tweets is an overreaction, which also explains why Pakistan’s National Security Committee has decided not to take any retaliatory actions against the United States.
Like sanctions, cutting foreign aid rarely changes state behavior. With respect to Pakistan, in 2013 the Obama administration did cut the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund, which was established in 2009 to provide training and equipment to Pakistan’s military and paramilitary force for domestic counterinsurgency operations in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Yet, here we are again with a new administration, a new year, and the same discussion: the United States wants Pakistan to stop aiding and abetting the Haqqani Network and Afghan Taliban.
While U.S. military assistance to Pakistan needs to be evaluated, cutting the CSF outright will hurt U.S. troops in Afghanistan more than changing Pakistan’s militant sponsorship for one main reason: the most efficient supply routes to Afghanistan are through Pakistan. If the CSF is eliminated, Pakistan could simply shut down the routes as it has done in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014. In fact, Pakistan’s parliament discussed shutting down the supply routes again this past summer. Professor Christine Fair’s suggestion of using Iran’s Chabahar Port as an alternative route is interesting, but as she points out, highly unlikely given U.S.–Iran relations. Basically, the U.S. is stuck with Pakistan, especially so long as U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan.
Without Pakistan, the United States will have an even harder time achieving a feasible and practical political resolution in Afghanistan, which will involve both Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban. The CSF, therefore, still provides the United States with some leverage with the Pakistanis despite its problems.
I remain optimistic about diplomacy, and think it can work. Both the United States and Pakistan want the Afghanistan war to end and U.S. troops to withdraw. But today, that’s about all they can agree on. They have very different visions of what a post-conflict Afghani government will look like. Pakistan has always thought that the Taliban will be an active player and that they can’t be defeated so they want to make sure that when the Americans leave (regardless of when), they have a strategic ally in Kabul. The United States doesn’t want to reconcile/negotiate/talk (etc.) with the Taliban, which is a mistake—and something the U.S. is beginning to realize. Basically, for a successful U.S. withdrawal, it needs to be done hand-in-hand with diplomacy.
Therefore, if the president wants Pakistan to change its behavior, he has to learn about the kinds of military assistance Pakistan has been receiving over the years, and then use diplomacy to meet U.S. interests in Afghanistan. But first, he needs to stop tweeting.
Did we experience heavenly peace in public schools this December? No, but the month tends to be more peaceful than most. With schools typically out for about the latter third of the month, there’s just less time to fight. We also, though, observed something that was out-of-the-ordinary peaceful for the month: no conflicts over Christmas in schools hit our radar. The last time that happened was in 2010. Every other year going back to 2005 we catalogued at least one, and typically three or four, battles over Christmas displays, singing religious carols in concerts, or other Christmas-related flaps. (The Map, by the way, lists years going back to 2001, but we only started collecting in 2005, and any years before that are there because conflicts we found in 2005 or later originated in those years.) Is this absence of acrimony because President Trump ended the war on Christmas? It's just as likely that he sucked up so many headlines that less reporting was directed at Yuletide tiffs, but it could also be there just weren’t any significant Christmas battles in public schools this year.
Of course, there were some battles, including a couple of trends:
- Dress Codes: This was also a trend in November, and in December it included an Iowa district dress coding a cancer patient who wore a knit beanie after a round of chemotherapy, and a girl in Kentucky who was sent home for an exposed collarbone.
- Teacher Language: In New York City, a teacher who is also a comedian, and whose act is about her experiences as an educator, came under fire because part of her show involved her quoting an unidentified child saying, “Yo, n---a. What's poppin'?" Meanwhile, a Colorado teacher was placed on administrative leave for writing on the classroom whiteboard, “I want to kill children but I am a loving Christian man who never would hurt a flee (sic) so please sit down and read." Some parents believed it was a joke and supported the teacher.
Perhaps the biggest headline-grabbing incident of the month was the firing of a teacher in Utah for, he says accidentally, allowing grade school children to see some famous nude paintings, setting off a dispute over where art ends and indecency—or age inappropriateness—begins. This does not constitute a trend—there are no similar fights over nude paintings in the Battle Map database—which is perhaps a bit of a surprise. It could be, like teaching rigorous evolution, that most art teachers skip nudes to avoid controversy. Or perhaps most art taught in schools simply never reaches that level of sophistication. Or maybe people just aren’t that uncomfortable with nude paintings.
No matter what the reason for the dearth of art vs. decency battles, our newest (unscientific) poll on the Battle Map Facebook page asks whether schools should show nude paintings or sculptures in class. (By the way, you’ll love Venus’s shirt.) Vote now! Earlier December polls found 79 percent of respondents opposing corporal punishment in schools and 21 percent supporting it; 65 percent saying public schools should “formally recognize Christmas with displays, songs, or parties” and 35 percent opposing; and 74 percent believing that 2018 will be even more contentious in public schools than was 2017.
Will that 74 percent be correct? Stay tuned!
Today, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Department of Justice rescinded the “Cole Memo” and other internal enforcement guidelines from the Obama Administration that de-prioritized enforcement of federal marijuana prohibition against individuals and businesses complying with state laws regarding recreational marijuana. This move endangers state-legal businesses and violates the principle of federalism that has been central to the Republican Party for decades.
This was made possible, in part, by the failure of the judiciary to rein in the power of an overzealous federal government. The Supreme Court has twice approved of this type of overreach. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942) and Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Court ruled that individuals growing crops exclusively for personal consumption—wheat and marijuana, respectively—could be regulated by the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution despite the crops never entering a market of any kind, let alone across state lines.
While the average marijuana consumer is not going to be targeted or arrested by the federal government, business owners directly and indirectly involved in state-legal recreational marijuana distribution may see their freedoms and livelihoods threatened by this action. Put simply, the DOJ is using the criminal law to trample on state prerogatives and individual rights.
My colleague Jeffrey Miron has also commented on this unfortunate development. For more on how Republicans could more responsibly handle federal marijuana policy, see here and here.
From President Donald Trump to the rise of new nationalist political parties in Europe to a general resurgence of the term in recent years, nationalism seems to be on the march. Nationalism is a political movement that has made major inroads in recent years while preaching a message of immigration restrictionism, trade protectionism, and a stronger government devoted to defending citizens from (mostly) imaginary harms. But besides some policy positions and a style of governance, there is not a good working definition of nationalism widely used in popular discourse and there is almost no attempt to distinguish it from patriotism. My base assumption was that nationalism must be something more than crude jingoistic tribalism, but few ventured beyond that. Those reasons prompted me to read several thousand pages on the topic – and I learned quite a bit. Below are some lessons I learned and a useful taxonomy of different types of nationalism.
The first thing I learned is that most research on nationalism is terrible. Most writers on this subject poorly define their terms or define them so broadly that they are meaningless. I wish I could go back in time and tell an earlier version of myself to skip lots of papers and books. Even worse, many scholars of nationalism are either critics or supporters of the concept, which forces them to make absurd statements like claiming that the National Socialist German Workers Party wasn’t a nationalist political party. This makes it difficult for lay outsiders like myself to figure out what nationalism is.
The second thing I learned is that there is no simple division between patriotism and nationalism, but George Orwell’s division probably comes closest when he wrote:
Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.
In other words, patriotism is love of country while nationalism is love of country combined with dislike of other countries, their peoples, or their cultures. Nationalism also extends to dislike of fellow citizens who are different, which is why nationalists frequently support nation-building campaigns of government schooling to assimilate citizens to a state-determined norm, national languages, and other means of creating ethnic, religious, or other forms of uniformity.
The third thing I learned is that there are at least five types of nationalism. Obviously, the nationalism of Edmund Burke or George Washington is different from the blood-worshipping nationalism of Adolf Hitler, but only the late American historian Carlton J.H. Hayes divides these types of nationalism into a useful five-part taxonomy:
- Humanitarian Nationalism: An outgrowth of Enlightenment philosophy influenced by Henry Bolingbroke, Jean-Jacque Rousseau, and Johann Gottfried Herder, who all emphasized local self-rule through democratic forms of government based on the peculiar characteristics of each nation (body of people), as opposed to the large multi-ethnic empires that then dominated Europe.
- Jacobin Nationalism: A state ideology adopted by the revolutionary French government to solidify its hold on power. Its four characteristics were suspicion and intolerance of internal dissent, heavy reliance on force and militarism to attain government goals, fanatical support for the state, and a missionary zeal to spread their nation.
- Traditional Nationalism: A brief nationalist reaction to the Jacobins in favor of the status quo ante bellum. This is the most conservative type of nationalism. Edmund Burke, Friedrich von Schlegel, and Klemens von Metternich were the most well-known supporters of this brief style of nationalism. This form of nationalism did not survive long, as the cultural changes begun by the Industrial Revolution undermined it.
- Liberal Nationalism: This style of nationalism is midway between the Jacobin and Traditional varieties. It emphasizes the absolute sovereignty of the national state but, in seeming contradiction, also seeks to limit the power of the government to interfere with individual liberty by proclaiming the goal of the state to be to protect individual liberty and provide public goods. If you have ever taken an economics class, the ideal of liberal nationalism comes closest to what economists think of as the proper role of the state. If you also see the tensions between absolute sovereignty and the protection of individual liberties, then the next phase of nationalism should be unsurprising.
- Integral Nationalism: This stage of nationalism centers the nation and its state in the life of all citizens. Instead of a state being committed to supplying public goods to citizens, this form of nationalism emphasizes individual sacrifice for the benefit of the nation and its government. It also frequently embraces blood-worship (the Latin root of nationalism is natio, meaning tribe, ethnic group, or division by birth) and seeks to expand the state to include all co-ethnics living in other territories. Hayes summarized this form of nationalism as intensely “anti-individualistic and anti-democratic”, where all other loyalties are absorbed into loyalty to the national state and a right-makes-right ideology.
The fourth thing I learned is that imperialism is the highest stage of nationalism (not capitalism as Lenin thought), and is inseparable from Jacobin Nationalism, Integral Nationalism, Traditional Nationalism, and probably from the other varieties as well. Nationalists seek to expand their nations, and imperialism was one way to accomplish that goal. Many of the liberal nationalists of the 19th century expanded their colonial empires, while the integral nationalists went even further.
The fifth thing I learned is how linked the French Revolution is to the rise of nationalism. Most writers, especially conservatives, write off the French Revolution as a mad left-wing Jacobin craze that swept away institutions and traditions in favor of worshipping reason. Those things were part of the French Revolution and its chaotic aftermath, but it was also a deeply nationalistic revolution and movement, honed by the Ancien Regime’s creation of a “cult of the nation” in an attempt to lower the cost of military conscription in the 17th and 18th centuries. It is entertaining to see modern conservatives criticize the French Revolution on one hand while embracing an eerily similar form of Jacobin Nationalism on the other in their recent flirtations with populism.
The sixth thing I learned is that nationalism is the second deadliest political ideology of the 20th century after communism. The late political scientist RJ Rummel estimated the number of people killed by different governments over time. Communist governments killed about 150 million people in his estimation. Nationalists killed about 92 million. Those 92 million include those killed by the Chinese Nationalists, Japanese Nationalists, Turkish Nationalists, and by the European Nationalists in the colonial era. I excluded slaughters committed by pre-communist Russians, Mexicans, and Pakistanis, as they were less outwardly nationalistic than the other regimes. American conservatives and libertarians frequently, loudly, and rightly criticize Communists for their ideology’s legacy of slaughter. It’s time we all start criticizing nationalists for their ideology’s not-as-bad-but-still-evil legacy of brutality.
Some nationalists, like Thierry Baudet, are seeking to redefine nationalism in nonsensical ways such as claiming that nationalists can’t be imperialists which, if true, would mean that the age of European nationalism could not have begun until about 1997, when decolonization was largely complete. Regardless, the brutal humanitarian legacy of nationalist governments is something that serious nationalist thinkers must grapple with, rather than attempting to change definitions as communists do when they claim that the Soviet Union wasn’t really communist in an attempt to excuse its crimes.
Nationalism is a simple and relativist political ideology that holds tremendous sway with millions of voters and many governments. Nationalism’s adaptability to most local conditions allows it to thrive, especially when supported by a government intent on expanding its own power domestically and internationally. It’s an attractive ideology for political leaders, as it provides a ready-made and widely-believed justification for increased political power in order to Make the Nation Great Again.