Back in the 1980s, I would get very agitated when folks made excuses for brutal communist regimes by asserting that the United States also did bad things. This “moral equivalence” argument is now being recycled by Donald Trump, who basically excuses Putin’s brutality because America supposedly isn’t in any position to throw stones.
Here’s the interview, set to start at the point where Trump discusses Putin.
This is wrong. Absurdly wrong.
Though let’s start by acknowledging that the United States is far from perfect. Our history includes black eyes such as slavery, mistreatment of native populations, incomplete legal rights for women, internment of Japanese-Americans, Jim Crow laws, persecution of gays, and other sins.
Even today, we have plenty of bad policies that restrict human liberty, often exacerbated by examples of thuggish actions by government.
But, at the risk of sounding jingoistic and patriotic, the United States began with a wonderful set of ideals and our history largely reflects a struggle to extend those ideals to the entire population.
Now let’s look at Putin.
When I tweeted my column about Russia’s flat tax two days ago, I screwed up by making a joke about the Trump-Putin “bro-mance.” I got savaged on Twitter by people who accused me of somehow endorsing (or at least accepting) the many repressive policies that exist in Russia.
The silver lining to Trump’s disturbing interview is that it gives me an opportunity to make clear my disapproval of both Putin and the silly doctrine of moral equivalence.
With regards to Russia’s president, do we have any reason to believe that he is motivated by the principles of classical liberalism? Does anyone think he wants to make Russia a free society? That he respects human rights and the rule of law?
Heck, even Trump didn’t dispute the premise that he’s a killer.
Moreover, how can anyone believe in moral equivalence when there’s a huge gap between the United States and Russia on measures of liberty.
Consider, for instance, the Human Freedom Index. As you can see, the United States is far from perfect. We’re ranked #23 for overall freedom, #28 for personal freedom, and #16 for economic freedom.
But we look good compared to Russia, which is #115 for overall freedom, #110 for personal freedom, and #102 for economic freedom.
And the Freedom House rankings show an equally dramatic difference.
The United States has a score of 90 on a 0-100 scale, with the highest rating for political rights and civil liberties.
Russia, by contrast, only has a score of 22 and gets the next-to-last rating for political rights and civil liberties.
To conclude, some folks sometimes say the continuing imperfections in the United States mean that there’s only a “difference in degree” between us and Russia.
My response is that if the “difference in degree” is large, then you also have a “difference in kind.”
There is no moral equivalence.
P.S. On a separate topic, you won’t be surprised by this report from the Washington Times.
More than half of IRS employees found to have intentionally cheated on their taxes last year were allowed to keep their jobs, according to numbers released by the inspector general that suggest the agency is still reluctant to punish its own staffers for breaking tax laws.
Yet another example of hypocrisy in government. I’ve noted the IRS has thieving employees, incompetent employees, thuggish employees, brainless employees, protectionist employees, wasteful employees, and victimizing employees. Now it has slapped-on-the-hand employees.
In general I attempt to ignore your ramblings about politics mostly because of your impeccable insight on all things tax and financial. Lately however it is becoming much harder as your seeming hatred of President Trump is making me reconsider if your take on economic fundamentals is worth the effort. You openly state that [you] “got savaged on Twitter by people who accused me of somehow endorsing (or at least accepting) the many repressive policies that exist in Russia.” and accept that this is the understanding of those reading your words rather than understanding your meaning. At the same time you do not allow this same misunderstanding of the presidents words. The people that are accusing him of a bromance with Putin are looking for anything good that is said and applying that as an acceptance (or endorsement) of everything that Mr. Putin stands for. When the last president (and truth be told the last 20 years) have been very brutal to people worldwide with death squads and drones. I find it very disingenuous that these same liberals that had nothing to say then are suddenly up in arms about President Trump attempting to find common ground and lessen the stresses of the current situation in Europe regarding Russia. You are continuously berating the new president as not being as small government as you would like (and with reason). He is not as small government as any of the conservative movement would like. However, given that in the last 20 years our choices have been one after the other worse than the last. This time we were tasked with choosing between several BIG government stooges on one side -v- an avowed socialist or a pathological liar on the other. The best shot of getting smaller government from that mess was to elect the politically unknown yet astute business personality that was and is in all appearances at least an unashamedly patriotic American. Do we expect perfection from him? No, but we do expect better than we had and I’m proud and feel blessed that we are getting an initial spate of what appears promising to me. I hope that you will not reject the good because he wasn’t the perfect and perhaps help to direct him in the best policy decisions.
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
Regardless of what the President says, there is no moral equivalence between the US and Putin’s Russia.
how many people did Stalin kill? 30-60 million? and yet FDR and Churchill enlisted his cooperation in defeating the Nazis… it seems the key question is “do the ends… justify the means?”
one of the main challenges facing western governments is threat identification… in many cases government actions and policies have obscured bad actors and evil intent… jihadists hide in plain sight… it seems we need a global initiative to counter the violence ahead… If Mr Putin is willing to commit the resources of his nation to the fight… it might well be to our advantage to accept his offer…
this article might be of interest:
“OUR WORLD: THE EVOLVING THREAT OF JIHAD IN THE WEST”
BY CAROLINE B. GLICK
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Our-World-The-evolving-threat-of-jihad-in-the-West-480760
Trump’s so-called “equivalence” had nothing to do with “freedom”, it was about KILLING and the US government is one of the most prolific killers in the world, if not THE most prolific. Just ask the people in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen.
there is no moral equivalency… the brutality of Isis is alien to western religious and cultural values… Isis is training children to murder enemies… and kill infidels… it will only be a short time until these indoctrinated young people make their way into Europe and North American… they will enter as unaccompanied children or orphans… and the authorities will of of course be eager to provide them with services and shelter… Isis is counting on it………….
meanwhile leftist governments are setting up so-called “war rooms” to monitor and react to Mr.Trump’s escapades……….. it’s insane… but we own it… you have to wonder what the Russians will be doing…….
—————-WARNING–the photograph on this site is disturbing———————-
“Islamic State amputates hands of 2 children for refusing to execute civilians”
by Loaa Adel
http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/islamic-state-amputates-hands-2-children-refusing-execute-civilians/
Trump seems to be a pragmatist! Putin seems to be a pragmatist! Perhaps they can work together to do something, anything, pragmatic; rather than some fantasy idealism!
[…] None of this should be interpreted to mean that western societies are perfect. Heck, I spend most of my time criticizing bad policy in the United States and other western nations. But there’s no moral equivalence. […]