Dear Republican Congresspersons,

I have always considered myself a Republican, because the issues I care the most about are the “moral” issues of social conservatism—family values, keeping a child-centric society, preserving moral boundaries in matters of so-called self-expression, preserving the various means by which our society tells its best and truest story about itself to the next generation, fidelity to the Constitution, which I believe was divinely inspired in a significant degree, preserving those aspects of traditional morality that I believe to be right, conserving and developing a wholesome sense of American identity, conserving belonging and community in our neighborhoods, religious freedom, etc. I acknowledge many of the values underlying these issues are not unique to conservatives. But the Republican Party—the party of Abraham Lincoln—has always seemed to me the better servant of these values. Like many others of my ilk, I have never liked President Trump. 

I have, to a certain extent, rejoiced in my society’s recent cultural rebuke to what the Free Press is calling the “illiberal Left” (cancel culture, the Left’s identity politics, the casual use of terms like “bigot” when opinions about the Left’s pet moral issues diverge from a moral orthodoxy that cannot seem to stay put for a single year, much less a single decade, etc.). But Trump’s strong-arm way of going about his part in that rebuke has always seemed wrong-minded and polarizing to me.

Indeed, especially during Trump‘s second term, the phrase “strong arm tactics” seems to capture his overall political strategy even on the international stage. He has engaged in games of tariff-chicken, drug-boat bombings, the forcible removal of Maduro, and, most disturbingly for me, the threat (idle, I think and pray) to invade Greenland if full control of the country is not given to the United States. With respect to all except this last item, I am willing to entertain arguments that his actions are justified in the long-term interests of the United States. I have not yet been persuaded that this is the case, but I acknowledge my inadequate understanding of international politics. What I am pointing out is simply that he is flexing his muscles and making a point of doing so. His is a compulsive rather than a persuasive style of doing business.

I admit there is a place for compulsion in international politics, and dictators who have utterly trashed their countries and who are propped up by thugs and drug money are prime candidates for such treatment. But I would observe this about the capture of Maduro: even conservative commentators are noting the conspicuous absence of any moral rhetoric with regard to this rather drastic move by Trump. Elliot Abrams is a conservative who served in several Republican presidents’ administrations, advising about Latin American foreign policy. He was interviewed by Ross Douthat about the Maduro situation, and he opined that it was a terrible mistake for Trump to fail to employ the rhetoric of freedom, liberty, and democracy, since those principles do arguably justify intervention in Venezuela. Instead, Trump’s rhetoric has focused on naked American interests. This is, again, according to the conservative commentator. I also listened to Ezra Klein‘s podcast on this subject, and he and his guest have a much bleaker interpretation: they appear inclined to believe that Trump wants to flex his muscles on the international stage merely for the sake of leverage in future entanglements unrelated to Venezuela. Maduro was simply a comparatively low-cost target. Whether that cynical interpretation is right, I do not know, but it seems terrifyingly plausible, and everyone agrees that he is flexing on the world.

By the way, I would commend to everyone the podcasts of Ross Douthat and Ezra Klein. They are intelligent, responsible, and fair minded. The former is right leaning and the latter is left leaning, but they are both reasonable and relatively centrist. For a sane evaluation of the issues that are sending the more ideologically extreme outlets into histrionics, I am not sure you can do better than listening to both of their podcasts on a particular issue. I do not always agree with them, but when they take on issues I care about, I am always eager to find out what they have to say.

As indicated, I am far less inclined to consider any argument that the threatened invasion of Greenland is appropriate. As with Maduro’s capture, so far as I know, Trump has not even attempted to provide any moral justification for the prospective invasion. 

Let us assume the best possible interpretation. Here is my best attempt to supply the missing moral argument. Perhaps the Trump administration’s implicit moral claim, unstated for strategic reasons, is that American interests demand that we control Greenland, and we have the power to do it, so the moral imperative of pursuing American interests justifies us in threatening to break alliances and take what we need by force if necessary—perhaps because doing so is necessary to keep China in check or to preserve the comparatively benevolent supremacy of American power in global politics. That is the best moral justification I can imagine, and I find it to be extremely poor. What makes American supremacy “comparatively benevolent” if we are preserving our global dominion in such a militaristic, alliance-breaking manner? This argument, which so far as I know nobody in the administration is even making, attempts, but fails, to transcend the logic of “might makes right.” 

I don’t know which is worse, the total absence of any moral narrative justifying an invasion or the presence of a false moral narrative, such as Putin‘s nonsense about Ukrainian Naziism. But my moral compass is perfectly clear on this point: a military invasion of an ally for naked self-interest is morally abhorrent, and even threatening to do so is ugly. We are deservedly losing the trust of our allies by engaging in such behaviors, and we are forfeiting our moral authority to the extent we have any.

I have already admitted my inadequate knowledge of contemporary geopolitical politics. But as I read history, every regime that maintains power by domination sows the seeds of its own destruction. As Africa and India come into their own, and as China continues to consolidate geopolitical power, I believe the United States ability to protect its interests and its allies and play a benevolent role on the international stage will depend on the belief of the upcoming Third World that we are indeed comparatively benevolent. The battle for the 21st century will be, even more than for the 20th, a battle for hearts and minds. And we need to fight for them!

Our nation is founded upon the principle that a government “derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.” I believe that. Taking over a country that does not want to be governed by us is a direct and immediate betrayal of that principle, to say nothing of our treaties. It would not be the first such betrayal, but that is morally irrelevant to the situation.

I judge it to be the very extreme of shortsightedness to sacrifice our morals and our moral authority in this way, even if, as is very doubtful, it results in an eventual long-term tactical advantage. The future does not look pretty in a world where might makes right.

But let’s say I’m wrong. Let’s say that unless we out-ruthless China, we fall behind it. I am something of a stoic, as well as a Christian, so for me, the true battle that matters most is not the battle for political power but for virtue.  Whatever political power is inconsistent with virtue should be voluntarily surrendered by every good man and by every good county. As a stoic, I say it is better to die by serving what is right than to live by serving what is wrong. As a Christian, I worship the man who won history’s biggest battle for hearts and minds in part by submitting to execution. 

I am persuaded that our interests and our conscience are entirely united with respect to Greenland, but I urge that it should not be a difficult choice if we ever have to choose between the two. If that is naivety, I hope it is a naivety that I will take to my grave.

My current political slogan is “Make America Good Again.” 

If the Republican members of Congress are willing to endorse a fundamental betrayal of the principle of the consent of the governed as the basis for just power, even if no actual invasion happens, then it will be yet another strike against the party that I am no longer confident best serves my ultimate values.