Gun control: common good vs. individual rights

 

NOTE TO READERS. THIS COLUMN IS AVAILABLE FREE OF CHARGE ON SUBSTACK.  PLEASE SUBSCRIBE THERE.  IF YOU CANNOT SUBSCRIBE, PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT.

Gordon L. Weil

“What are we doing?”

Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, repeatedly and emotionally asked a nearly empty Senate chamber.

His impassioned speech expressed his sorrowful and angry reaction to the usual lack of government action on gun control after mass shootings like the one in Uvalde, Texas.

But the message of his speech asked questions that go far beyond gun control and reach the inability of the government to function.

The gun debate raises the broader question now dividing American politics. What is the proper role of government?

“The best government is that which governs least.” These words, written by political activist and editor John O’Sullivan, appeared in 1837.

O’Sullivan asserted: “A strong and active democratic government, in the common sense of the term, is an evil, differing only in degree and mode of operation, and not in nature, from a strong despotism.” However, he admitted that the despot and the democrat had far different goals.

Fighting measures from Social Security to Medicare to gun control is part of the GOP’s hallmark opposition to “big government” and its advocacy of the government which governs least.

To strike a contrast with their opponents, GOP leaders label Democrats as “socialists,” a word readily bringing to mind the Communists who call themselves Socialists.

The core issue is government’s role in meeting common needs that cannot be achieved through individual action, which is hardly socialism. Government by the people means that individuals cede some of their individual freedom to undertake joint action to meet agreed common purposes.

The Second Amendment has been interpreted to mean that individuals have the right to own and use guns. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that conditions could be placed on that right. Protecting the right to armed self-defense from government action could still allow the government to limit the use of that right.

But the decision did not settle the question, because some people accepted the affirmation of their right, while rejecting any conditions on it. Unlike any other right protected from government action, gun rights are unconditional, they maintain. Government should not merely “govern least,” but not govern at all.

Every crisis, whether it is the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the Uvalde shootings, grabs congressional attention. The question instantly arises if the American government should take any action to meet the crisis, perhaps by adopting policies to prevent or control similar situations. Congress considers how to respond to public concerns.

No matter the views of a majority of Americans, nothing happens on gun issues. Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, says that if he supported gun control, “most [voters] would probably throw me out of office.”

Cramer’s admission raises the second major question arising from the Uvalde shootings. Murphy asked his fellow senators, “Why are you here if not to solve a problem as existential as this?”

Congress is now populated by members like Cramer and what they are “there for” is less about public service than about political survival. They might quote the verse: “He who fights and runs away may live to fight another day; but he who is battle slain can never rise to fight again.” Murphy demands to know why this is not that day, when you stand and fight.

What’s missing is leadership. Elected public officials are unwilling to risk losing an election by leading instead of following public opinion, which is often shaped by interest groups or outdated prejudices.

Gun control has become one of the leading wedge issues. Republicans have found that supporting an unconditional reading of the Second Amendment gains them millions of voters and millions of dollars from the National Rifle Association.

Senators can dodge making tough choices without seeming to run away. The filibuster requires an unconstitutional supermajority vote to even proceed to the constitutional simple majority vote. It amplifies the ability of small states whose senators represent less than 20 percent of the population to control all decisions.

The Republicans like the filibuster because without it, they risk becoming a permanent minority unable to pursue the politics of “no.” The Democrats like the filibuster because they are fearful of becoming the minority and losing the power to prevent the unraveling of government.

Result? Nothing much happens except on rare occasions when cooperation serves the political advantage of both parties. Pouring money into a Covid-damaged economy made them both look like they were responsive. Pouring money into Ukraine testified to their historic opposition to Russia.

There are no good answers to Murphy’s questions. Maybe a token firearms bill will pass, because it would serve both parties’ interest to show concern in an election year.

But little will change. There will be more mass shootings and incumbents will hold onto their seats in Congress.

Ukraine support raises question of who’s really a RINO

Gordon L. Weil

It’s “a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing.” That was one man’s opinion years ago of a spark setting off the world’s greatest conflict.

Just before the Russian attack on Ukraine, a U.S. Senate candidate taunted people worried about war, saying, “I got to be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.” Sound similar?

The first statement came from British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938, referring to Nazi Germany’s taking over part of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain gave Germany Britain’s approval, a classic case of trying to stay out of war by surrendering first. The war came – the Second World War.

The second quote came from J.D. Vance, a well-known author who is the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Ohio. He has the support of former President Donald Trump.

The GOP is split between traditional Republicans and the Trump forces that have taken over the Party. Trump’s policies have become the Party’s policies, leading his supporters to charge that the long-time members are RINOs – Republicans in Name Only.

This transformation has seemed almost complete and effective. Congressional primaries this year are expected to provide a reading of just how well the Trump takeover has succeeded. Vance is part of that takeover.

But the congressional reaction to the Ukraine invasion changed the political picture. Since World War II, both parties have backed efforts to halt the expansion of the Soviet Union and then of Russia, its successor. That involvement in world affairs was a change for the Republicans.

“There’s always been isolationist voices in the Republican Party,” said Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell. In Chamberlain’s day, they provided the leadership for opposition to U.S. involvement in the coming world war.

The main opposition organization was called America First. Its leaders not only favored American isolation from events overseas, but some of them were openly sympathetic to Adolf Hitler’s authoritarian and anti-Semitic regime.

Republican leadership made a major course correction after the Second World War. They controlled Congress during Democratic President Harry Truman’s early years in office, at a time when he tried to take steps to stem the expansion of the Soviet Union.

GOP Sen. Arthur Vandenberg headed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He had isolationist credentials, having believed that the U.S. could make concessions to Japan that would avoid war. But he changed his views and led Republican support for Truman’s policies.

Vandenberg became famous for saying: "We must stop partisan politics at the water's edge." An opponent of the New Deal, he maintained that Congress could argue about domestic policy but should unite behind the president on foreign policy.

One outgrowth of a bipartisan foreign policy was NATO, founded in 1949 as a mutual defense organization meant to stop further Soviet expansion westward in Europe. Its key element is American assurance that the U.S. would back resistance to further Soviet moves. It worked.

If there are enough police to slash crime, some may believe that the police force can be cut because there’s now so little crime. Some NATO members and Trump seemed to adopt this view.

Trump revived America First as a slogan, and was openly sympathetic to authoritarian leaders. He disliked NATO and was favored in the 2016 election and his 2020 impeachment by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who would later launch the Russian attack on Ukraine.

The America First argument in 1941 and 2022 is essentially the same. “We have got to take care of things here at home first,” said Tennessee GOP Sen. Bill Hagerty. In other words, we should not spend money on the Ukraine war, when we have domestic and military needs.

Hagerty and his allies make such statements while ignoring the irony of their opposition to both health and welfare spending and Ukraine outlays. They prefer cutting taxes. It’s possible that their opposition is simply based on a desire to deny the federal government any more funds for any purpose.

Trump Republicans do not accept Vandenberg’s view. For them, isolationism may be good politics.

Eleven of the 50 Republican senators voted against major spending for Ukraine. All came from states without ocean access. Isolationism continued to find its home in mid-America. In the House, 57 of the 206 Republicans voted against this spending.

Does this alignment reveal the true extent of the GOP split? It clearly shows that the question of just who is a RINO remains to be determined.

Traditional Republicans have faced elimination by candidates who support Trump and follow his policies. But now most congressional Republicans have an active policy they can support, replacing their Party’s routine opposition to the Democrats.

Even to a limited degree, a dormant bipartisan policy has awakened, reviving traditional Republicanism. As with his effort to weaken NATO, Putin’s Ukraine gamble seems to have backfired.

Meet a person who isn’t there - absent American voters, workers

Gordon L. Weil



“Yesterday, upon the stair
I met a man who wasn’t there.
He wasn’t there again today,
Oh how I wish he’d go away!”

Some readers may recall these lines from an old children’s poem. It comes to mind, because today the U.S. includes many people who are not there, either in the political process or the workplace.

The absence of the people “who aren’t there” has a major effect on the course of the country, but they risk being overlooked.

In 2020, the turnout for the presidential election set new records for the number and the percentage of the eligible population that cast ballots. The high voter participation, as reported by the Census Bureau, was both a source of national pride and, because it was so high, a cause of disbelief for some of the loser’s partisans.

But that misses another major point. An impressive 155.5 million people voted for president, about 67 percent of all those who might have voted. That means about one-third of the total population that could have voted stayed away from the polls – about 76.6 million people.

Admittedly, no country has perfect voter participation, but several reach 80 percent. If the U.S. had reached that level, another 30 million people would have voted in a country that considers itself the world’s leading democracy. That’s more than the population of Australia and New Zealand combined.

In effect, the results of the U.S. presidential elections were Biden 81.3 million, Nobody 76.6 million and Trump 74.2 million.

Many of the people who don’t vote stay away for a reason. When asked anecdotally, they may say that there’s not much difference between the candidates or their votes don’t matter or they simply don’t pay attention. Of course, some are unable to vote because of personal circumstances or the effects of political voter suppression efforts.

In the end, they are ignored. Take a look at the political polls. They try to tell us what “likely voters” would do if the election were held today. If you haven’t yet decided to vote or don’t want to respond to the conventional choices offered by the pollsters, you are excluded as if you don’t exist.

By offering scripted choices only to people who say they plan to vote, the pollsters and the media may produce a seriously distorted view of the temper of the country. We routinely miss the opinions and sentiments of tens of millions of Americans.

The effect of those who are not included can produce surprises from time to time. Angry and sometimes violent rallies may include people who do not often vote and are dismissed by pollsters. If “unlikely voters” are interviewed, are they asked what’s on their minds or only given structured either-or choices that are easier to tabulate?

In short, we might know more about our own country during the current crisis of divisiveness and change if more people were taken more fully into account.

Then, there’s the Great Resignation. Millions of people have been quitting their jobs after undergoing forced unemployment caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Their absence is evident as help wanted signs sprout and consumers struggle to obtain basic services.

As the country began to adjust to the pandemic’s effects, it was reasonable to hope and expect that the economy would return to its former condition. But the Covid experience caused deeper changes than anticipated and the country is still adjusting to them. We have come commonly to speak of a “new normal.”

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, known for its objectivity, reports that in March, the number of job openings (11.5 million) and the number of what BLS calls “quits” (4.5 million) were both at record highs.

Many quits can find better paying jobs elsewhere. However, contrary to a New York Times article, the BLS does not report that virtually all have returned to the workforce. A top executive told the Times, “We’re living in this amazing transformation of the workplace, and we don’t even know it....”

The person who isn’t there knows it. They may have chosen to work one job, not two, and accept less income or to become “gig workers,” seeking work when and for as long as they want. Some who chose to retire during the pandemic are not coming back. Others may have been dropped from the labor force, because they decided simply to stay at home.

Whether all the quits will return to work may depend on employers providing better wages and working conditions. Their return may also require greater acceptance of remote work and a reduction in work hours. Pay has been improving as employers come to realize the effect of the Great Resignation.

The influence of the invisible citizen and the disappearing worker should not be ignored. Wishing won’t make them “go away.”

Court ready to make historic decision, adopting broad GOP policies

 

Gordon L. Weil

Just below the surface of the leaked draft Supreme Court abortion decision, much else was happening.

The decision would not only be a victory for pro-life activists and many Republicans, but it would take the Court well beyond the abortion issue.

Justice Samuel Alito took advantage of his drafting assignment to adopt conservative ideology on originalism and state powers plus reversing what some thought was “settled law.”

Alito wrote that states did not allow abortion when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, so the Court cannot rule that the Amendment protects the right to abortion.  In short, each part of the Constitution should be interpreted according to the conditions prevailing at the time it was adopted.

That’s constitutional originalism.  That logic could raise the question of whether the Second Amendment right to own a gun, adopted in 1791, should be limited to protecting only muzzle-loader ownership.

If the only rights the federal government can protect are limited to those expressly listed in the Constitution and then only as they applied when the document was adopted, the U.S. would plunge headlong back to the late 1700s. 

There’s no abortion right in the Constitution, Alito says.  But it recognizes individual rights beyond those in the Bill of Rights. While states have full power to regulate them, they have gradually ceded many of their powers to the federal government. This draft reflects the GOP intention to restore state authority.   

Alito correctly shows that the Court moves into lawmaking when Congress is unable to do so.  He accepts that once the Court enacted Roe v. Wade, it could repeal the law it created because the filibuster had blocked any congressional action.

At Senate confirmation hearings, prospective justices usually promise they will limit themselves to applying the law as it is written.  If that were possible, we would not need judges.  In fact, justices rely on their interpretation of what laws mean when applied to specific cases.  Different justices have different interpretations, and when a majority agrees, the Court can make law.

One part of Alito’s interpretation is consistent with the Court’s historic view. The Court follows a rule prescribing respect for its previous decisions, providing the people reliable consistency. But there is no “settled law” that cannot be reversed.  Court rulings on long-standing precedents, like those on segregation or labor rights, have been reversed

So Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh could reassure Senator Susan Collins that he respected settled law, just as the Court does.  Either Collins chose to ignore legal history or followed bad advice in accepting his assurance that implied that he would not vote to overrule Roe v. Wade. Kavanaugh, an experienced lawyer and judge, must have known just what he was promising.

The Supreme Court process for writing a decision has been the stage for this current controversy.  It helps explain both Alito’s strident tone and his opportunity to make a far-reaching decision.

The justices take a preliminary vote on each case. The senior judge in the majority selects the drafter of the Court’s opinion.  In this case, Justice Clarence Thomas made the choice, and could have picked himself.  But he is facing complaints about his partisanship on the Court, and maybe that’s why he chose Alito, the next most senior member of the majority.

Alito, perhaps the most conservative justice, produced an aggressive first draft on which other members of the majority can suggest revisions. Because they are not yet bound to their vote, their influence counts.  The draft also allows dissenters to begin their own drafts.

Alito’s draft decision leaked, and nobody recalls the last time that happened. There are at least three possible reasons for the leak, made by either a justice’s aide or a Court staffer or, most unlikely, a justice.

A dissenter might have thought the draft would raise an outcry leading the majority to back off.  An Alito ally might have wanted to lock in the majority, so justices could not retreat to a compromise that Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to favor.  Or a draft supporter might have thought the public reaction would induce Alito to moderate his language and legislative ambition.

In exploiting this opportunity, Alito probably goes well beyond where he must to end a federal abortion right.  He could push the Court to reveal just how far to the right it has moved.

Alito’s draft is a full-scale proclamation that the conservatives control the Court and potentially the federal government.  Undoubtedly, Roberts could see it as undermining his efforts to restore waning public belief that the Court is independent and nonpartisan.

The confrontational and strident draft proclaims a federal retreat in favor of state jurisdiction and extreme originalism, while implying that more major precedents could fall. This decision could be historically significant well beyond the abortion issue.

News reports reflect bias, lack context; miss major questions in its quest for “breaking news”

Gordon L. Weil

“All the news that’s fit to print.”

That’s the historic motto of the New York Times. But the media often misses “all the news” and is selective because of limited resources or its own biases. Maybe the press hurries too much to beat competition; not everything is “breaking news.”

Here are some questions the media might have answered.

Last week’s Maine GOP convention featured former Gov. Paul LePage, seeking to recover his old office just as might former President Donald Trump, his political ally. Will Trump follow LePage’s lead? Does he now endorse LePage? Did anybody ask him?

In summing up the Legislature’s work, the media reported that Gov. Janet Mills’ utility accountability bill had passed. Democratic opposition was noted, but the substance of intra-party differences was not explained.

Was Mills’ proposal meant to immunize her from criticism of her veto of a referendum on consumer-owned power? Did Democrats finally accept her bill, because they fear weakening her in her race against LePage?

A U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion has been leaked that would reverse its earlier Roe v. Wade ruling that abortion is a constitutionally guaranteed right. The media reported that a slim Court majority would oppose the views of about two-thirds of Americans, who favor the right.

Reports of political opposition to the draft implied that the decision could lead to added backing in November for the Democrats, who support the right. But did the pollsters ask how many people on either side will let abortion rights bring them to the polls or determine their vote above all other issues?

The U.S. has pulled out all the stops to help embattled Ukraine. Both political parties support massive spending to provide weapons that President Volodymyr Zelensky has requested. American tolerant policy toward Russia has shifted, and the U.S. has reasserted its role as leader of the West.

Does Washington quietly believe there’s a good chance that Russia can be finally toppled as a world power as it depletes its economy and its military?

To cut the world’s use of Russian fuels, the West wants to ramp up oil and natural gas production. That means more drilling and fracking, not less. At the same time, experts are beginning to say that the world may be chasing unrealistic climate change goals, which undermines chances of success.

Are we backing off ambitious climate change targets to deal with a war that has disrupted the world? Do our electric cars and other individual efforts to protect the environment matter when China boosts its coal use?

Inflation may be the biggest news, mainly because it affects almost everyone. With voters aware of the problem, the media reports on Republican efforts to blame President Joe Biden.

How did the GOP vote on big spending bills, including aid to Ukraine? Is inflation party due to Covid-19 and the Ukraine war’s disruptive effect on trade? How much did Federal Reserve policy cause the problem? The pundits may speculate, but attacks on Biden are easier to report.

We hear a lot about “fake news,” but this failure to ask the right questions is really “half news.” Reports are not inaccurate, but they are incomplete. When news lacks context allowing us to understand its background and complexity, it can confuse.

Of course, there are the serious problems of reports based on false assumptions and fake news.

We are often told, perhaps in good faith, that something is true and then “logical” conclusions are drawn from that supposed truth. We accept the assumptions and often readily accept the logic.

The media errs almost daily in its assumptions about Russia’s moves in Ukraine. Can it really draw instant political conclusions from a draft Supreme Court decision?

Questionable assumptions, stated as though they were self-evident, exist in both the liberal and conservative media. When conservative and liberal outlets differ even on their assumptions, the political divide is understandable.

Even worse is “fake news,” a statement that the writer or speaker knows to be untrue. The New York Times has been covering Fox commentator Tucker Carlson, who broadcasts from his home in Maine. He has stated that “Gypsy” refugees left Pennsylvania “streets covered — pardon us now, but it’s true — with human feces.” He offered no evidence of that, and it is not true.

Scientific American recently commented that fake news is believed and shared more by certain conservatives than by other viewers. But we all like news that confirms our opinions.

The print media sometimes fact checks its own reports, though not often enough right in the news item itself. Who checks news clips on the electronic media? Both need to do more.

We cannot expect perfection from the media. We, too, need to do more to find the facts in our complex world.

Ukraine's advantage over Russia

 

Gordon L. Weil

What’s the link between a Maine Civil War general and the surprising Ukraine survival in its war with Russia?

In 1864, the Union’s Army of the Tennessee, previously led by Generals U.S. Grant and W.T. Sherman, needed a new leader. Sherman, who had become commander of the entire Union Army in the West, controversially jumped over the expected choice and named General Oliver Otis Howard, originally from Leeds, Maine.

Howard, a graduate of Bowdoin College and West Point, understood military strategy and tactics. But equally important, he knew how to supply an army of tens of thousands moving constantly with everything from rations to gunpowder. He became Sherman’s chief deputy in probably the longest march of any major Civil War command.

Though the word did not yet exist, Howard was a master of what came to be called “logistics.” Sherman understood logistics, revealed by his destruction in Atlanta of the railroads supplying Confederate troops.

His emphasis on logistics was evident in the Grand Review Parade in Washington at the end of the war. At the head of the line, riding a step behind Sherman came Howard. Trailing Sherman’s troops of the West past the reviewing stand was a herd of cattle, a sort of mobile supply chain.

Few supply wizards are rated as war heroes. The work may seem boring, but it is vital and armies are mostly composed of support troops. It has been estimated that as little as one solder in ten actually faces the enemy in combat.

A Defense Department official decades later would state: “Logistics isn’t rocket science...it’s much harder.” Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky got it.

According to the New York Times: “In the first days of the war Mr. Zelensky set three priorities for his government’s ministries ...: weapons procurement, shipments of food and other goods, and maintaining supplies of gasoline and diesel. The ministries were told to rewrite regulations to ensure swift delivery on all three tracks.”

For weapons procurement, Zelensky got strong help from the U.S. and other NATO countries. Weapons were transported by them right to the border of a nation at war. The initial defensive armaments could be transported from the Poland-Ukraine border on trains.

Zelensky seemed intuitively to know that Ukraine could benefit from its situation. He did not need to deploy his soldiers over long supply lines. Russia’s vast size might be a cause of weakness, because of long supply lines and poor logistics.

President Vladimir Putin, having no military experience, thought his troops would win in days and obviously gave little thought to logistics. His forces stalled on the road to Kyiv, making his tanks and armored vehicles easy targets for the hand-held rockets supplied to Ukrainian soldiers who could focus on combat not logistics.

Good supply beat poor supply. Putin failed to take Kyiv, because Ukraine’s resistance halted Russia’s advance and could pick off Russia’s mechanized convoy, strung out over 40 miles. Even when Putin later shifted his troops to the East, they had to wait days for supplies before they could attack.

Much has been said about how the Russian Army greatly outnumbers Ukraine’s forces. On the strength of those numbers, the conventional wisdom was that Russia could easily crush Ukraine. But it’s likely that gross numbers have been misleading when logistics was taken into account.

Although we cannot know for sure, here’s some possible math in round numbers. If Russia had 200,000 troops poised for invasion, possibly only one-in-five or 40,000 could be committed to combat. On the Ukraine side, perhaps one soldier in three, as many as 60,000, could serve on the front lines. And Ukraine’s troops have proved to be far better trained.

The difference is in weapons, which might explain Zelensky’s repeated requests for more and better arms. Also, Russia freely attacks Ukraine, which can do little to destroy the Russian supply lines across the border.

While Ukraine did not seek war, it is providing an immense service in revealing Russia’s weakness, showing that its great power status relies on its nuclear arsenal. U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III has said that the American objective is “to see Russia weakened to the degree it cannot do the kind of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.”

Zelensky knew what Sherman, who also fought almost surrounded by hostile territory, knew. Perhaps we will never know the names of Ukrainian logistics generals, just as few remember Howard.

The man who Sherman passed over was John A. Logan, who ran for vice president with Maine’s James G. Blaine in his losing run for president in 1884.

Recognition for Howard came from a university in Washington, D.C. named for him, recognizing his historic fight for racial equality. Vice President Kamala Harris is a graduate of Howard University.

West’s new-found unity should extend to immigration, trade

Gordon L. Weil

What do Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson have in common?

They both have come up with extreme solutions to deal with illegal immigrants coming across their borders. And they both have met with strong opposition even from their friends.

Abbott tried to seize control of immigration policy by having Texas inspect every truck coming from Mexico until that country would slow the cascade of immigrants.  Business and trade groups strongly opposed his policy as supply chain problems multiplied while trucks backed up for miles.

Eventually, he retreated after receiving assurances from neighboring Mexican states that they would slow the flow.  His success may turn out to be more political than real. He faces reelection this year, so at least he may benefit.

Johnson’s government reached an agreement with Rwanda, a distant African country, to send there by charter flights the illegal immigrants picked up on British beaches.  His own officials were stunned by the cost and the Archbishop of Canterbury, at the top of the Church of England, flatly condemned the move.

The British arrivals come across the English Channel after passing through France.  Brexit took the U.K. out of the EU, so it lacks any special influence with the French.

Unlike the U.K., the U.S. has a special relationship with Mexico through the three-way trade pact linking the two countries and Canada.  But it provides little more cooperation than Johnson gets from France.  About 1.7 million immigrants have been turned away under anti-Covid rules.

Economic hardship and political repression have caused waves of immigration into both Europe and America.  Britain and the U.S. are among countries seen as providing a free society and economic opportunity, and they have become the goal of migrant populations.

The advocates of low barriers to immigration believe that a nation benefits from the addition of new cultures, and immigrants can expand the economy.  Those defending borders worry about threats to their national culture and traditional politics and possibly heavy new demands for public assistance.

The result has been political paralysis.  Faced with a crisis demanding resolution, governments have been unable to resolve immigration issues, allowing the situation to deteriorate.

Trade has seemed to provide the kind of openness that is disputed when it comes to migration.  The World Trade Organization lowers barriers and allows a relatively free flow of goods.  In theory, trade brings prosperity and wealthier nations are likely to prefer commerce to conflict. Prosperity should remove a major cause of migration.

This faith in the political power of trade has not worked.  The close trade relationship between Britain and Europe brought benefit to both sides, but not enough to overcome British objections to unlimited immigration from fellow EU members.  Those objections were a major reason for Brexit.

Beyond that, the WTO was meant to be open only to free market countries who could not game the system.  China and Russia were admitted to encourage them to move toward open markets more rapidly.  The resulting prosperity was expected to make them less of a threat to peace.

But both have stifled markets. China under Xi Jinping has returned the Communist Party to economic control.  And Russia is letting its lust for Ukraine destroy its trade ties with much of the world.

In short, failing world trade cooperation and the unregulated flow of millions of people are linked and are growing more troublesome.  They make the world less stable, less safe.  Together, they may be the most pressing international issues.

Politicians in the U.S. and elsewhere accept inaction, apparently believing that the current chaos is politically more appealing than compromise.  Yet China’s expansionism, Russia’s attack on Ukraine, America’s and Britain’s problems at their southern borders are all evidence that matters are growing worse.

In recent months, Western countries have drawn closer in the face of increasing challenges from China and Russia.  A stronger and larger alliance has emerged. Each nation has its own policies, but Ukraine now shows that each has a better chance of success through common action.

The West should deny Russia and China favorable trade arrangements and, if possible, expel them from the WTO.  Right now, free trade yields those countries the cash to finance their expansion. They can no longer make the case that they deserve continued trade preferences to promote their development.

Countries are learning that immigration cannot be controlled at the border but must be slowed at the source.  Having failed to deal successfully with refugees on their own, the countries of the newly revived Western alliance might now try to develop a common and, if possible, coordinated immigration policy. 

The new shared sense of purpose of an alliance extending from Estonia to Australia could increasingly counter Chinese and Russian ambitions.  It could start with immigration and trade.