New in Civitas Outlook: "Eliminating Liberal International Asymmetries"

"The effect, if not purpose, of modern international law is to obstruct American conservative foreign policy."

In November, Civitas Outlook published my column titled "Eliminating Liberal Institutional Asymmetries." I explained that the single greatest opportunity of our current political moment is to eliminate entrenched institutional asymmetries permanently.

Today, Civitas Outlook published the sequel: "Eliminating Liberal International Asymmetries." Here, I focus on the entrenched liberal biases in international law.

Here is the introduction:

Over the course of the twentieth century, progressives captured many American institutions. Regardless of which way popular opinion shifted, there was a persistent left-wing tilt. During his second term, President Trump has taken steps to eliminate many of these liberal institutional asymmetries, including in the civil service, the judiciary, the academy, the legal profession, and more. However, these liberal imbalances do not exist only at home. Modern international law is structured around progressive idealism that will always oppose conservative principles. President Trump is now taking steps to eliminate liberal international asymmetries. He has announced that the United States will withdraw from scores of global progressive entities that embolden small countries to push back against American foreign policies. And Trump continues to negotiate peace deals for Gaza, Ukraine, and other hotspots with the important parties, without engaging international institutions. Trump's actions make plain the reality: the effect, if not purpose, of modern international law is to obstruct American conservative foreign policies. Once internationalism is viewed as merely another form of progressive politics, it can be treated accordingly.

And from the conclusion:

Thus, there is an asymmetry. A Democrat in the White House will find these international institutions to support his progressive agenda. If anything, international liberal groups are further to the left than their American counterparts in many regards. But a Republican in the White House will always be at odds with these international entities. Thankfully, President Trump is eliminating these liberal international asymmetries.

This essay, which I started working on before recent events, has become quite timely.

Comments

[Darwinnie]

Yes, the Geneva Convention protections against war crimes were created to thwart US conservatives.

[Reallynotbob]

Within any populace "P" holding majority viewpoint "M," define the subset of the populace holding minority dissenting viewpoint "m" as group "X."

X will always see P's efforts to codify M into law as "asymmetric" because X posits m to have the same or superior logical merit as M.

Put another way: The fact that Democrats believe things most of the world also believes is not cheating.

[Dr. Ed 2]

By the same token, the American principle that all persons are created equal and endowed with the right to their life, their liberty, and their property was very much a minority view in 1776.

If you would’ve put it to a UN referendum, with each country getting one vote, a referendum that women should be entitled to the same rights as men would be soundly defeated.

[Botaglove]

"And Trump continues to negotiate peace deals for ... Ukraine, and other hotspots with the important parties, without engaging international institutions:"

E.g. without really engaging NATO or the EU or Ukraine itself.

"...the effect, if not purpose, of modern international law is to obstruct American conservative foreign policies."

In his recent NYT interview Trump said that the only constraint on his action is not international law but his own morality , his own mind.

So do conservative foreign policies extend past anything more than What Trump Wants?

If Trump Wants Greenland, will Blackman say, sure, that's what "conservative foreign policies" has always called for?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ever hear of the “Concert of Europe” and what was done after the revolutions of 1848?

[SRG2]

do conservative foreign policies extend past anything more than What Trump Wants?

No.

[bernard11]

Here is something interesting from the linked article:

approximately 50 percent of career civil servants are Democrats, while only 26 percent are Republicans. There are many possible reasons why the bureaucracy leans to the left. Progressives may be more public-service minded. Or Democrats tend to have more educational credentials, which could support their elevation through the civil service ranks. Frankly, the rationale doesn’t matter. The outcome is unmistakable.

Oddly, Josh failed to list one obvious reason, even though he mentioned it later on:

Should we worry that a Democratic President will purge the civil service of conservative employees? Not really. Conservatives tend not to take these sorts of jobs in the first place.

[Rossami]

The reason why doesn't matter. When the ruling bureaucracy no longer represents or even understands the people over whom they assert power, you're setting the system up for failure.

[SRG2]

But this is akin to refusing to vote and then complaining that the elected officials aren't doing what you want.

If conservatives won't take personal responsibility, that's on them.

[bernard11]

Through DOGE, reductions in force, and other efforts, departments are removing civil servants who oppose the executive’s agenda.

Oh horseshit. DOGE accomplished nothing. The only thing it did was lie a lot, and it wasn't even good at that. There were no savings, just a disruption of government operations.

And apparently releasing an employment report that displeases Trump is considered opposing Trump's agenda.

Blackman sinks ever deeper into blind worship.

[Bob from Ohio]

"DOGE accomplished nothing."

Not true

Federal work force is down 9%.

[bernard11]

But they didn't save any money, and many of their personnel cuts will backfire.

[David Nieporent]

Ironically, Josh is doing Critical Legal Studies here: law is about power rather than right and wrong.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don’t know if there was a serious point, but I will answer it under the presumption it was.

The problem is a difference in the concept of liberty, and particularly the difference between the American and French revolutions. The American revolution went with John Locke’s INDIVIDUAL right of ones own life, liberty, and property. The French Revolution went with the COLLECTIVE rights of liberty, fraternity, and equity.

Today this plays out in the American concept of an individual litigant’s rights versus the European concept of class or group rights. Perhaps the best example of this would be two wolves and a lamb voting on the dinner menu — there would be two votes to eat the lamb and one vote not to. In Europe, the lamb would be eaten, while in the United States, minorities have rights. Including the right not to be eaten!

And when you get to Africa — well Africa is the most racist place imaginable, they just make distinctions on things other than skin color. For example, in Rwanda, it was shape of lips and ears that defined those to be exterminated in Somalia. It’s what clan you belong to, what tribe, into a lesser extent, that’s true and most of Africa. But Somalia, which really has no working government is all based on tribal affiliations and that’s what causes problems when they come over here.

American institutions may have lean to the left, never forget that Woodrow Wilson was the president of Princeton, but the mess we have today is largely Reagan‘s fault. When it became apparent, circa 1983-4, that Bill Bennett was not gonna be able to shut down the education department, Team Reagan essentially abandoned education.

Team Reagan abandoned the conservatives that were in the American institutions and particularly those attempting to enter them. The left attitude at the time (and I was there) was “they will die” — that the existing conservatives will eventually retire or die, and if not replaced, these institutions would become the bastions of left-wing thought that they have become

I very much blame this on Team Reagan and all the people in the 80s who considered our institutions to be irrelevant. We’ve now learned that they aren’t. Most of our professions, e.g. law, medicine, psychology, and teaching, have become places where Vladimir Lennon will be considered a right wing conservative.

[David Nieporent]

This is certainly a random stream of consciousness rant that has nothing to do with the topic and relies on not knowing anything about the topic.

[Randal]

You're not getting an appointment, Josh, no matter how many of these cover letters you write.

[SimonP]

A more perceptive commentator may have realized that Trump's gambits on the world stage have been successful (to the extent they have been) only because of the international, rules-based order he now claims he can do better without. All of the tariffs, the unilateral strikes, the funding withdrawals - they have been effective in achieving geopolitical results precisely because the US had previously done so much work to establish global free trade, to constrain military adventurism, to fund NGO work overseas.

But what happens, once the world has concluded that the US is no longer a reliable partner? It will no longer be an indispensible partner. The countries that we once could call "allies" will form different structures, around and without us. The same will happen domestically, as states realize that the federal government cannot be counted on for funding or effective regulation.

Trump is kicking the legs out from under the US as a "superpower." I don't expect that he will live long enough to regret it. But there are surely younger and healthier members of his administration who will be reaching for "international law" when they find themselves imprisoned overseas for the crimes they helped the US commit.

In the meantime, Josh is a stain on the profession. Cut this hack loose, Eugene.

[Bob from Ohio]

"reaching for "international law" when they find themselves imprisoned overseas for the crimes they helped the US commit."

More likely they will be reaching for the Marine grunt's hand to thank him for freeing him.

Not that anyone alive will witness your fantasy of US officials being arrested.

[SimonP]

Trump is doing absolutely everything in his power to bring an end to the invincible America whose reign you think will last forever.

Again. The idea that we would be able to extract an imprisoned former Trump official takes for granted, in your hypothetical scenario, the cooperation and assistance of foreign governments. We won't have their cooperation any more, if Trump continues to antagonize them to the point that they deem fit to seize members of our criminal administration. He only has their cooperation right now because they all assume this period will come to an end in a one-three years.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Simon do not forget what happened to the lawyers 250 years ago, the committees for public safety of the rest. Look up the concept of Lynch Law and it’s origins with two men named Lynch.

The legal profession today is as out of touch and prejudiced as a British royalty was 250 years ago, and don’t forget what happened then. Oh what George Santana said about history.

[SimonP]

Oh, shut the fuck up Ed.

[David Nieporent]

Oh what George Santana said about history.

He said, "My brother is a great guitarist." And the sad thing is, I remember making a substantially similar joke the last time you illiterately tried to reference George Santayana based on some dimly remembered conversation you overheard.

[StephenM]

Replace US with Germany and Trump with Hitler and you would have a Goebbel speech from the early thirties