Tag: politics

Bosnia

In my last blog I condemned the US’s illegal attack on Venezuela and worried about what might follow given the apparent lack of a broadly considered and agreed plan. In this blog I will contrast it with the approach taken at the end of the vicious civil war between the Croat, Serb and Bosnian populations of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The fighting in Bosnia and Herzegovina ended with the signing of the Dayton accords. “Three decades ago, in November 1995, the U.S.-brokered Dayton accords ended the Bosnian war, a three-and-a-half-year ethnic conflict that killed roughly 100,000 people and displaced two million. The settlement imposed a complex power-sharing structure on a divided country, promising the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina a new start.” This quote is from an excellent assessment of that agreement and the new constitution for Bosnia and Herzegovina that it created by Elmira Bayrasli in Foreign Affairs: “Bosnia’s Unfinished Peace”

I drafted the monetary section of that constitution, which established a central bank bound by currency board rules (i.e. no monetary policy as the money supply is determined by the public’s demand for and willingness to purchase its currency). I also led the IMF teams that drafted the Central Bank Law that merged the existing three central banks (Croat, Serbian and Bosnian) into one national bank and currency. The negotiations with the three (obviously) future governors of the Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CBBH) lasted for over a year of heated discussions of the CBBH’s powers and the details of its currency notes. For details see my account in “One Currency for Bosnia”  Surprisingly to many the CBBH’s currency board rules were accepted instantly by all three with no debate. The reason was that the three didn’t trust one another and currency board rules eliminate an monetary policy discresion.

The Dayton accord was the product of intense negotiations between the Presidents of Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian provinces of B&H and diplomates from the US, UK, EU and Russia culminating with the agreement at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton Ohio—the Dayton Accord. To lay out the sharp contrast between these negations and the lack of them in the current “take over” of Venezuela, I will quote extensively from Wikipedia:

“During September and October 1995, world powers (especially the United States and Russia), gathered in the Contact Group, pressured the leaders of the three sides to attend settlement negotiations; Dayton, Ohio was eventually chosen as the venue.

“Talks began with an outline of key points presented by the US in a team led by National Security Adviser Anthony Lake in visits to London, Bonn, Paris and other European stops 10 – 14 August 1995. These included Sochi, to consult Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev. Lake’s team handed off to a separate US inter-agency group led by Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, who went on to negotiate with Balkan leaders in their capitals. The Holbrooke crew conducted five rounds of intense shuttle diplomacy from August to October, including short conferences in Geneva and New York that resulted in the parties’ adoption of principles for a settlement on 8 and 26 September respectively.

“The Dayton conference took place from 1–21 November 1995. The main participants from the region were the President of the Republic of Serbia Slobodan Milošević (whom the Bosnian Serbs had previously empowered to represent their interests), President of Croatia Franjo Tuđman, and President of Bosnia and Herzegovina Alija Izetbegović with his Foreign Minister Muhamed Šaćirbeg.

“The peace conference was led by US Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and negotiator Richard Holbrooke with two co-chairmen in the form of EU Special Representative Carl Bildt and the First Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia Igor Ivanov. A key participant in the US delegation was General Wesley Clark. The head of the UK’s team was Pauline Neville-Jones, political director of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The UK military representative was Col Arundell David Leakey. Paul Williams, through the Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG) served as legal counsel to the Bosnian Government delegation during the negotiations.”

The history and situation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was dramatically different than Venezuela. Ending its civil war required extensive negotiations and considerable international oversight of compliance to the agreed arrangements. As noted in the Foreign Affairs article sighted above, a serious mistake was holding national elections far too earlier. The intense hatreds of the three national groups were not given enough time to soften resulting in the election of hardliners and the continuation of the war by other means. The second mistake was the failure of international oversight (the UN High Representative) to fully exorcise its powers. None the less the three nation country has held together peaceably for three decades following its civil war.

While the political situation in Bosnia remains fragile (see the excellent article sited above in Foreign Affairs) the central bank itself has been a great success, widely trusted and respected by most citizens from the three provinces. I attribute this to its enlightened leadership and the central bank law with its currency board rules. Tragically the DOGE chain saw seems to have eliminated US capacity for effective diplomacy. “At the breaking point”

Venezuela

The only time I have been to Venezuela was in 1981 with Friedrick Hayek to speak at some conference. At that time it had the highest per capita income in south America ($4,951 in 2024 dollars). Today (i.e. 2024) it has dropped to 11th place with a per capita income of $4,218, while Uruguay has risen to $23,089. How and why did this happen?

Venezuela become an independent country in 1830 and a democracy since 1958. But with the election of the socialist Hugo Chávez in 1998 Venezuela’s economy turned South. He oversaw the adoption of a new constitution and the “socialization” of the economy.  Chávez was reelected three more times before dying in office of cancer. He was succeeded by Nicolás Maduro. Their governments were characterized by hyperinflation, famine, disease, and crime, which lead to massive emigration from the country (roughly 8 million).

Maduro’s reelection May 20, 2018 was disputed by his opposition. After being sworn in for a second term on January 10, 2010, the Organization of American States approved a resolution in which Maduro was declared illegitimate as President of Venezuela, urging that new elections be held. On January 19, 2019, the president of the National Assembly, Juan Gerardo Antonio Guaidó, was declared the interim president by that body. Guaidó was immediately recognized as the legitimate president by several nations, including the United States. President Trump threatened to remove Maduro.

President Trump falsely claimed that Maduro was responsible for large illegal drug shipments to the US (very little of which came from Venezuela) and prepared to remove him, offering him safety outside Venezuela. However, the Trump administration’s bombing of speed boats it claims were carrying drugs to the U.S. and its attack on Caracas and kidnapping of its President were illegal in the U.S. and internationally and bad for America. “war” “The military operation, undertaken without UN Security Council authorization, without congressional authorization, without a claim of self-defense, and without even a plausible legal rationale, represents the most harmful attack yet on the rules-based order.” Foreign Affairs: The World Without Rules”

In a recent interview about the U.S. operation to seize Nicolás Maduro and “run” Venezuela, Trump was asked if there were any limits on his power; he replied: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”  In the same exchange, he added that he does not “need international law,” signaling that he does not view international legal rules as binding limits on his use of military or coercive power abroad. If you love America, this much concern you.

The adherence to acceptable norms of behavior– the rule of law at home and abroad– is an incredibly important contributor to our well-being. Weakening or destroying it is bad for the U.S. and the world. Trump’s threats to expand the US invasions to Cuba, Panama, Mexico, Iran, and Greenland further damaged America’s image and cooperation of previously friendly countries. “A world in which the powerful no longer feel the need to justify themselves is not merely unjust. It is barbaric: operations to kill, steal, and destroy are severed from any claim of right. That world does not have a legal order at all. It has only force, guided by one man’s whims.”  Ibid. German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned us that we are in the midst of a “breakdown of values” that is turning the world “into a den of robbers, where the most unscrupulous take whatever they want” 

While Maduro’s kidnaping was impressively well planned and executed, it’s unclear what is planned for the day after.  U.S. experiences with the follow ups to our attacks on Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq were not good.

In Iraq, a hard to understand invasion based on lies, the ruling Coalition Provisional Authority, led by the U.S., removed not just Iraq’s leadership but a very large part of its bureaucracy including disbanding the Army (who were then going to do what??) with disastrous results. I describe my experiences there in: “Iraq-An American Tragedy-My Travels to Baghdad”  

In Venezuela the Trump Administration has left the Maduro government in place allowing Vice President Delcy Rodriguez to assume the Presidency, the opposite of our earlier approaches after our invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. This decision seems to have been based on consideration of the options: an evaluation that Ms. Rodriguez, while an important member of the Maduro government, is widely respected and pragmatic, and that the U.S. via its oil sanctions has considerable leverage without the need for boots on the ground. “Rajan Menon: here’s what Trump really wants”

At the White House press conference following the very well planned and execute attack on Caracos, Secretary of State Marco Rubio described America’s strategy for the period ahead: “Step one is the stabilization of the country. We don’t want it descending into chaos. Part of that stabilization, and the reason why we understand and believe that we have the strongest leverage possible is our quarantine. We are going to take between 30 and 50 million barrels of oil. That money will then be handled in such a way that benefits the Venezuelan people, not corruption, not the regime.

“The second phase will be a phase that we call recovery, and that is ensuring that American, Western, and other companies have access to the Venezuela market in a way that’s fair.  Also, at the same time, we begin to create the process of reconciliation nationally within Venezuela so that the opposition forces can be amnestied and released from prisons or brought back to the country and begin to rebuild civil society. And then the third phase, of course, will be one of transition.”

Friday Trump summonsed the main US oil producers’ leaders to seek their agreement to move back into Venezuela’s oil fields. When ExxonMobil’s chief executive Darren Woods said that Venezuela was currently uninvertible, Trump, in typical bully style, stated on Airforce One that: “I didn’t like Exxon’s response. I’ll probably be inclined to keep Exxon out. I didn’t like their response.”  “Trump threatens to block ExxonMobil in Venezuela”  He declared that he would make all the decisions. Putin couldn’t have said it better.

Rather than accepting Vice President Rodriguez becoming President and seeming to toss aside the legitimately elected President Juan Gerardo Antonio Guaidó, why didn’t we convene discussions with all of the relevant parties in Venezuela (Guaidó, Rodriguez, key generals, members of Parliament, etc.), and include in the dialog the relevant members of the US Congress and key allies—especially Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, EU and agree on a path back to democracy and prosperity.  Unfortunately, the DOGE chainsaw has eliminated many of the US DOS officials with knowledge and expertise on Venezuela as well as US experts capable of helping to implement the resulting plan (e.g., “USAID”).

The attack on Venezuela can’t be undone. Unfortunately, we already sold out the Venezuelan opposition, fired all our Venezuela experts and staff capable of negotiating and executing the day after, irretrievably alienated all the allies whose support we need (and even threatened them with attack as well!). The prospects for restoring a successful and peaceful democracy to Venezuela are challenging to say the least.  The U.S. is in a much weaker position that we were a year ago. “Fukuyama: The problem with America’s Venezuela policy”

How to be Safe

Much can be said about how and why almost everyone on earth has risen from poverty to affluence. Two of the most important are free markets that allow entrepreneurs to invent and build, and peace and security that allow our work to build consumer goods and services rather than weapons of war.

Taking the second of these, the safety of our persons and our property allows us to specialize and trade – an absolutely critical condition for flourishing. The more broadly we can trade the greater is the wealth producing potential of our efforts. So a key question and the focus of this blog is how we maximize our safety in order to maximize trade the production of consumer goods and services rather than weapons of war.

Since 9/11 almost one million people have been killed in wars and when including indirect deaths from wars the number rises to around 4.5 million. The U.S. alone has spent over $21 trillion dollars on defense since 9/11.  This is 5.25% of the U.S.’s cumulative GDP over that period of $400 trillion.

If we could trust every country in the world, we could get rid of our military complex and add that amount to our incomes. Obviously that would be unrealistic thus some defense spending will always be necessary. However, with the deployment of skillful diplomacy it can be greatly reduced and the losses from actual wars could potentially be eliminated.

We must live among other people. If we are good neighbors, we will be safer from attacks (verbal or worse) by those around us. Being a good neighbor requires being trustworthy (honest) and behaving in ways that take into account and respect the interests of our neighbors. What is true on the block and village is true globally as well. The adoption of mutually agreed rules/norms for our interactions with others is an important aspect of our safety and productivity.

Within each country, at least, agreement has been reached on which side of the road to drive, what frequency we can broadcast on, and what voltage our electricity will be. Across boarders we have agreed on setting dates and time (the calendar), airline overflight rules, and the orbits our satellites will occupy. After WWII, in addition to the UN and its many agencies, NATO, the World Bank, the IMF, and World Trade Organization, countries established the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Moreover, the US and most every other country have established embassies in each other’s countries in order to serve the needs of their own citizens abroad and to maintain dialog and informed relations with each other’s governments.

An important part of soft power diplomacy are the supportive relationships with “allies” who contribute to mutual defense, thus lowering its cost. But good (cooperative) relationships in general are an important contributor to our safety and commercial interaction with other countries. To a large extent formal rules of war and treatment of others have promoted peace in the world.

Violating these rules (e.g. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and U.S. invasion of Venezuela) raises the cost of our security. It makes us less safe and less wealthy. https://wcoats.blog/2026/01/03/war-2/

President Trump has angered our friends and allies with his tariff and other threats and a generally bullying approach to our relations with other countries. He has created enemies where we didn’t have them before. After bombing Venezuela and kidnaping its President, he is now threatening the same for Cuba, Panama, Columbia, Iran, and Greenland. Denmark’s government, which controls Greenland’s foreign affairs and defense, has told the White House to “stop the threats.”

Protests of US lawlessness is growing. As but one example:

JOINT DECLARATION BY THE GOVENMENTS OF

BRAZIL, CHILE, COLOMBIA, MEXICO, SPAIN, AND URUGUAY

“The governments of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Spain, and Uruguay, in light of the gravity of the events that have occurred in Venezuela and reaffirming their commitment to the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter, make the following joint declaration:

“We are deeply concerned and reject the military actions unilaterally carried out on Venezuelan territory, which infringe fundamental principles of international law, in particular the prohibition of the use and threat of force, and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter. These actions set an extremely dangerous precedent for peace and security in the region and endanger civilian populations.”

Trump has isolated the U.S. by breaking the rules and angering our friends and alias. We are much less secure than in the past.  WP: “Venezuela-Trump-Global Law and Order”

Trade

Without trade each household/family would have to be self-sufficient, i.e., would only have to consume what they themselves could make, grow or do. No one would doubt the dire poverty the world would endure. Even trade limited to your neighborhood, with each household specializing in a few things to trade with other families specializing in other needs or wants would significantly increase everyone’s income. The wider the range of trade the greater the degree of specialization and increased income possible.

Expanding the potential for trade requires the ability to transport goods and serves over longer distances. The benefits of such connectedness extend well beyond higher incomes. Quoting from George Will’s wonderful book The Conservative Sensibility: Referring to the:

“Erie Canal. [Dewitt] Clinton [the sixth governor of New York] saw this project as a means of preventing states in the West from detaching themselves from the Union. The canal would “bind the union together by indissoluble ties” because the people would be “habituated to frequent intercourse and beneficial inter-communication,” and all Americans would be “bound together by the golden ties of commerce and the adamantine chains of interest.” The canal also, and inadvertently, helped to bring down the old order in Europe. By bringing cheap wheat from America’s Great Plains, the canal struck at the roots of Europe’s landed aristocracy.”

Implicit in the above is private ownership of one’s production. People work hard for their own benefit but to benefit from trade they must take account of the needs and wants of others. Trade must be win-win or it will not take place. I benefit from selling my production and you benefit from buying it. Communism—communal production—lacks the personal (selfish) incentive to work hard and has broadly failed as a system. Also from George Will: “In China, once collective farms were disbanded in 1978 under the leadership of the reformer Deng Xiaoping, agriculture output doubled in the space of just four years.”

The topic of trade keeps returning and I have written about it often. Rather than repeat myself, yet again, I will share some of those earlier blogs:

Econ 101—Trade in very simple terms
The politics of Trade
Econ 101: Tony Judt on Trade

Our President

When our government functions properly, each President is elected because the majority of voters trust his/her leadership and largely agree with his/her policy proposals. When he/she assumes office he/she appoints department and agency heads and senior management who agree with his/her policies and are committed to implementing them. However, the vast majority of government employees (the civil service) hold their jobs because of their nonpartisan competence to execute the regular functions of government. Though elected to implement his/her promised policies, the President heads the government for the benefit of all Americans, not just those who voted for him/her.

Our current President, Donald Trump, has adopted a very different approach. At Charlie Kirk’s memorial service in Arizona on September 21, 2025, President Donald Trump gave a eulogy that stated his approach clearly. Following a speech by Charlie’s widow— Erika Kirk– who said she forgave her husband’s alleged killer and urged love for one’s enemies—Trump said, “That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent, and I don’t want the best for them. I’m sorry, Erika. Maybe you and the group can convince me otherwise, but I can’t stand my opponent”. 

Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump has launched a sweeping campaign to use the federal government against those he perceives as political enemies, fulfilling his campaign promise of “retribution.” His actions have combined formal Justice Department prosecutions with broader administrative, financial, and regulatory retaliation against critics and opponents.​

Justice Department Prosecutions

Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ), led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, has indicted several high-profile critics including former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and former National Security Adviser John Bolton. Many of these cases were initiated shortly after Trump publicly urged prosecutions on Truth Social or in speeches.

Expansion of Presidential Control

Under a broad interpretation of the “unitary executive” theory, Trump has expanded direct presidential control over previously independent agencies. He dismissed thousands of career employees in agencies such as the IRS and DOJ, replacing them with loyalists, and ordered investigations into opponents across multiple sectors, including education, media, and civil society. His administration’s “Weaponization Working Group” reportedly monitors and investigates state and federal officials who previously investigated or criticized him.​ Most concerning he has fired all Inspector Generals who monitor the executive’s compliance with the law.

Use of Financial and Regulatory Power

Trump has also leveraged federal contracting and tax policy to punish critics. Liberal law firms, universities, and media outlets that opposed him have been subjected to audits, funding withdrawals, or bans on federal contracts. The IRS—restructured under his direction—has reportedly targeted nonprofit organizations and universities seen as left-leaning, threatening to revoke tax-exempt status for political reasons.​

Broader Campaign Against Civil Society

The administration’s actions have extended to immigration and education systems. Activists, international students, and visa-holders accused of criticizing Trump’s policies have faced deportation or visa revocations, according to multiple reports. Tourism and foreign students are important exports. Their reduction is adding to our trade deficit. Federal oversight of university curricula and media licensing has been tightened.​

Political and Legal Reactions

Democratic lawmakers like Senator Chris Murphy have called these measures an “authoritarian use of presidential power,” warning that Trump’s systematic punishment of dissenters marks “one of the most dangerous moments America has ever faced”. Foreign governments and legal scholars have echoed fears of democratic backsliding as independent institutions are subordinated to presidential control.​

In sum, Trump’s second administration has explicitly weaponized federal agencies to investigate, prosecute, and financially damage those viewed as enemies, blending legal action with bureaucratic pressure in what observers describe as an unprecedented campaign of political retribution.  Trump’s spread of hate is intensified by his frequently claimed authority “to do whatever I want as president” based, he claims, on Article II of the US constitution.

Trump’s bullying has not stopped at our borders. He has attacked our friends with tariffs and sanctions losing allies right and left. The American beacon on the hill has sunk to the bully in your face. America’s place in the world is sinking fast. Will the Republicans on the Hill wake up and stop him. The Supreme Court has been a mixed bag.

Econ 101: Government Budgets

Newspapers are full of articles about the deaths or other losses that will result from proposed budget cuts. Today’s Washington Post, for example, headlined a story on USAID cuts “USAID cuts may cause 14 million more deaths in next five years, study says”  “Washington post /2025/07/01/”

If the government’s spending on X is reduced (aside from any improvement in efficiency) the benefits of that spending will be lost. But our resources are limited. If we spend more on X we have less to spend on Y.  So when we lament the losses from reduced spending on X we should take account of the gain from the increased spending on other things.

To put a bit of flesh on this issue, consider the following: “The administration has cut more than a hundred contracts and grants from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the HIV and AIDS program credited with saving millions of lives in poor countries. President Donald Trump has shut down the agency that signed off on most PEPFAR spending and fired other staffers who supported it.”  “Rubio-pepfar-aids”

Evaluating whether this cut is “good or bad” is not easy because determining the likely alternative use of the money saved is not easy. If we stick to a fixed government budget total, the alternative use by the government of the money saved might save even more lives (or maybe not). But the saving could also be given to tax payers whose use of that money would reflect their own personal needs and priorities.  

The process used by Elon Musk’s DOGE to arrive at the spending and/or personnel cuts they proposed was not transparent thus is largely unknown to us. But I have serious doubts that it was appropriate. Semafor offers the following advice:

“A lot of US government work is highly inefficient, says the science reformer Stuart Buck. Federally funded scientists say they spend 44% of their research time on bureaucracy, federal procurement is “broken” and often results in the government buying products that don’t work, and “the Paperwork Reduction Act paradoxically results in endless paperwork.” “Many such cases,” says Buck. “We should have an official effort to address these issues… We could even call it a ‘Department of Government Efficiency.’” As you might be aware, there is one: It is “widely viewed as a failure,” but the basic idea is sound. How could we make it good?

“The first step, says Buck, would be taking a long time to deeply understand how each government agency works, so you don’t mistake routine human error or some statistical artifact for fraud. Second, it should focus on high-value reforms, like outdated data systems or software. Third, it should learn from previous attempts to cut red tape — because there have been many, not all of which worked. And importantly, a good DOGE would not mistake things we don’t use for “waste” — like an insurance policy, we hope pandemic preparedness infrastructure and fire departments are never used, but they’re in place in case we need them. The real-world DOGE is a failure, says Buck, because it ignored all of these strictures.”  “Semafor.com/newsletter/06/30/2025/”

I think some, if not many, government programs or activities should be reformed or eliminated. But those the public really want must be paid for by the public paying additional taxes or lending to the government (buying US bonds). U.S. debt is dangerously high (123% of US GDP) and continuing to grow.  So to the extend spending is not reduced, taxes should be raised.   

Looking for win-win

The essence of trade is that both the seller and buyer benefit (win-win). Without that feature the trade would not take place. The expansion of trade locally and then globally increased the output and thus incomes of the average person dramatically.

In 1820, about 80% of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty (defined as living on less than $2.15 per day in today’s terms). By 2019, this figure had fallen to roughly 10%. This decline is especially notable given that the global population increased more than sevenfold during this period.


The pace of poverty reduction accelerated in recent decades. From 1990 to 2019, the global extreme poverty rate dropped from 43% to below 10%, with the fastest declines occurring since the 1990s. This progress was driven largely by rapid economic growth in Asia, particularly in China and India.

The increase in win-win gains in income from trade have been promoted by broad agreement on rules and norms for “fair trade” to maximize the increase in incomes that results. These have been developed over time through what is now called the World Trade Organization (WTO). Tragically, rather than further improving its rules, the U.S. has undermined the WTO by refusing to appoint new members to its dispute resolution body.

The benefits of such collaborative cooperation have been sought and gained in other areas as well. To take one, the climate benefits of nuclear energy also carries the risks of destruction from nuclear bombs. Agreements among the countries with such capacity to contain and minimize the associated risks are reflected in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) of 1968 (extended in 1995). The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT, 1996), several bilateral agreements with the USSR/Russia and others have further reduced the risks.

The dramatic development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) programs promises incredible increases in our incomes but also carries risks. As with nuclear energy, all would benefit from agreements that limit these risks. Cooperating in developing such guard rails is in everyone interest. The US is making a big mistake in attempting to stifle  China’s AI development rather than a win-win cooperation with them to maximize its promise while minimizing its risk.

The case for such cooperation with China is powerfully made by Alvin Graylin in a recent presentation to the Committee for the Republic (on whose board I serve) the other day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg6brPvFJGw.

DEI—a nuanced assessment

DEI — “diversity, equity and inclusion” programs or policies are efforts to promote fairness and full participation of people who have been historically underrepresented or subjected to discrimination. The normal standard of fairness when employing workers is that they are hired (or admitted to college) on the basis of merit—who best satisfied to the requirements for the job. This is what taxpayers who want the best results from their tax dollars, want as well.

Many universities set aside the admission of the best qualified students to reflect the fact that may blacks who might have greater potential than their past performance test score indicated because of racial discrimination should be given preferential treatment. But these “affirmative action” programs where struct down by the Supreme Courts 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and its companion case against the University of North Carolina, which effectively ended race-based affirmative action in college admissions.

To make room for more blacks, Harvard had raised the bar and thus discriminated against Asian applicants with higher scores. It is appropriate that the standards of equal treatment and merit should be observed for government jobs and public universities.

But private firms and colleges should be able to hire or admit whoever they want. Both firms and colleges may well want the social benefits from greater diversity. Not only can it make the workplace more interesting but the broadened understanding of different racial and religious groups generates greater social harmony as well.

I don’t know what DEI programs generally did or aimed for and am quite willing to believe that they wasted human resources. However, that is quite different from the desirability of properly educating our children about different races and cultures and the history of slavery and harms of racial discrimination. Along with civics, such instruction belongs in elementary school curriculums. Just as the enlightened treatment of gays, blacks, Muslims and other groups in movies and TV shows has led the way toward better understanding, exposure and education are important for building a better and more accepting society.

The government should not interfere in the choices of private firms and university about the composition of their work forces and student bodies.

Facebook

Our wise founding fathers established a government to protect the rights and property of a free people, who made their own decisions about how to live. They wisely did not create a government to tell us how to live—nor what to believe.

A society whose members don’t know what to believe, with people who spread lies for whatever nefarious reasons, has a serious problem. Living in communities as we all do requires a degree of trust in a common understanding of the facts. But who is to determine what is true and on what basis? In a free society the responsibility of evaluating what to believe rests with each of us individually.

“The American Founders told everyone who would listen (and some who wouldn’t) that the republic could not endure without a virtuous citizenry. They warned that the Constitution was necessary but not sufficient.”[1]  The quality of our lives and of the functioning of our communities depends on the choices and behavior of each of us. Our freedom to behave as we choose will only produce a successful community if its members behave virtuously. The maximization of each individual’s utility (happiness) as we economists might put it, depends, in part, on how well our individual preferences fit into the community’s norms and expectations. No man is an Island.

Our specific values might come from our religious and/or philosophical beliefs. These can differ but must include respect for the rights of our neighbors to live by their own lights. But decisions based on incorrect information will be suboptimal or worse. The government might require that firms transparently disclose relevant information about their products (such as content) but should not impose its own judgment about the truth—governments themselves lie too often to be the final orbiters of truth.

Meta CEO Mark “Zuckerberg announced earlier this week that his platforms would part ways with the third-party fact-checking organizations he had employed to police speech on Facebook and Instagram.

“‘The fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created, especially in the U.S.,’ he said.”  “An urgent meeting of the fact check legion-of-doom—Reason”  FaceBook posts will continue to allow comments by its users challenging alleged facts.  Zuckerberg, who met with President-elect Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago on Friday, said his company is “going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms.”

It is up to us to evaluate what to believe and what to pass on. This is not a trivial responsibility, but the market works hard to help. Just as we learn how to successfully do anything else (Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic), we need to learn how to evaluate information we are given and to carefully choose sources that we trust. There are private fact checking organizations we are free to consult or ignore. We are free to choose news sources that we believe adhere to the standards of objective journalism. But if we do not exorcise our judgement wisely, our society will be less “successful” than otherwise.[2] But it would violate the wisdom of our founders and the best interests of a free society to give that responsibility to the government.

[1] Jonathan Rauch, “Cross Purposes, Christianity’s Broken Bargain with Democracy” January 2025

[2] Jonathan Rauch. The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2021. 280 pp.

Trump

President Reagan pointed to our beacon on the hill as the foundation of our relationship and leadership with the rest of the world. Soon to be President Trump’s approach is to threaten and bully the rest of the world.

“US President-elect Donald Trump’s trade policy challenges the post-war global trading system. By rejecting the World Trade Organization’s principles of non-discrimination and reciprocity, Trump proposes a power-based approach that would fundamentally alter international economic relations, risking the predictability and fairness that have underpinned global trade for seven decades.”  “How Trump threatens the world trading system”

But he hasn’t stopped there.  Though promising to end our “forever wars” and restraint in our international relations, Trump is coming on as the most aggressive President in memory:

“Many people have been understandably astonished by Donald Trump’s recently proclaimed desires to “take back” the Panama Canal “in full, quickly and without question” and to take over the self-governing Danish territory of Greenland.

“While Trump has written that “For purposes of National Security and Freedom around the world, the United States feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity,” he would at least appear to be willing to pay Denmark for Greenland, as the U.S. paid Denmark for the Danish West Indies, renamed the U.S. Virgin Islands, in 1917.” “A thought on the Panama Canal and Greenland”

A bully, who forces rules on others that he disregards himself, will not serve America’s nor the worlds interests. We all want America to be safe, prosperous, and free. Thus, we must hope for and where possible promote a successful term for this and any other President. An important role can be, and hopefully will be played by the Republicans in Congress, starting with careful vetting of Trumps cabinet nominations. “Trump-bully-world-America-foreign-policy”