Donald Trump

Early on, President Joe Biden’s rhetoric promised a rejection of isolationism and a return to engagement. But his actions in Afghanistan speak volumes.

One adjective that should never be used to describe the US retreat from Afghanistan is “surprising.” In fact, what happened in Kabul in 2021 was the natural next step on the inward-turning path Americans began walking in 2009.

The photographs and reporting from Kabul, the besieged airport there, and from other places in the broken land of Afghanistan are surely most troubling. But they indicate in no way American defeat.

The North Korea travel ban is an unfortunate policy that has caused separated families much pain and has prevented humanitarian organizations from operating at their full capacities. However, if we want separated families to be reunited for good—not just for Korean Americans, but for South Koreans and others as well—and for the humanitarian crisis in North Korea to end, we must set our policies to resolve the main problem, not just the symptoms.

In The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good? Michael Sandel eloquently argues a sobering idea: America can pursue meritocracy or the common good, but not both.

As the twentieth anniversary of 9/11 looms, President Joe Biden has rushed to pull US troops out of Afghanistan. What are we to make of all of this?

History may not repeat itself, as Mark Twain is credited with saying, but it does indeed rhyme sometimes. Sadly, the American people and their leaders are not interested in the rhymes or lessons of history.

The fact that many in Congress, as well as large segments of the American electorate and commentariat, consider court-packing a morally legitimate political tactic reveals serious deficits in our society’s understanding of and respect for the rule of law, America’s founding principles, and justice itself. What is more, it shows disrespect for the very idea of truth.

By focusing on the obvious and immediate moral consequences of the JCPOA versus Trump’s “maximum pressure” approach, though hawkish, the latter of the two appears to have a distinct advantage when assessing overall regional well-being.