Today, H.R. McMaster honors the sacrifices of recently fallen US troops and explains why, in his view, Congress should authorize additional funding for the Iran war; Michael Auslin recounts the civic contributions and legacy of the “Rabbi of the Revolution”; and Michael McFaul warns of the twin dangers of domestic polarization and US unilateralism on the world stage.
War with Iran
Senior Fellow H.R. McMaster spoke yesterday on CBS about the current state of the Iran war. He began by discussing the dignified transfer home of the US troops killed in recent Iranian strikes, and the importance of honoring their sacrifices. “Our nation should be grateful that [we] have young men and women who are willing to serve, who are willing to take risks and make sacrifices to defend our nation,” the former Army lieutenant general said. McMaster then discussed problems in the defense industrial base and munitions production that this conflict has made clear. He also explained why it is urgent that Congress pass legislation funding the Iran war and authorizing the acquisition of additional unmanned and other innovative capabilities, such as maritime, defensive, and offensive drones. McMaster reiterated his call for a clear strategy in the war, and his analysis that regional peace and stability for the Iranian people will not come without a “fundamental change” in the nature of the Iranian regime. Watch here.
US History
At Freedom Frequency, Research Fellow Michael Auslin tells the story of Gershom Mendes Seixas, leader of the oldest synagogue in the American colonies, who supported the Patriot cause during the American Revolution and went on to be a significant figure for religious pluralism in the new country. Seixas, explains Auslin, worked to bring American Jews into the mainstream, particularly in the public square, where they had been scarce. He led his congregation in a day of fasting and prayer when the war was going badly, Auslin writes, and fought for civic inclusion of Jews in Pennsylvania, where he helped establish the first national synagogue in the United States and opposed religious tests for public office. The rabbi continued to serve in civic affairs, modeling his view that Jews could, and should, assume the same civic responsibilities as their neighbors. Read more here.
US Institutions and Foreign Policy
“Our new era of great power competition between autocrats and democrats in the 21st century will be fierce, challenging, and enduring,” Senior Fellow Michael McFaul writes at his Substack. While noting that “the free world has more resources, superior institutions, and better ideas than the autocratic world,” McFaul says that a lack of American cooperation with allies and partners threatens to undermine this set of advantages. “In addition to radical unilateralism abroad, deepening polarization within the United States is a new feature of our current era of great power competition,” he writes. Warning of the danger that Trump will undermine confidence in the upcoming midterm elections, McFaul argues that the US can still dial down domestic polarization and return to a more multilateral approach abroad. “A more united America . . . would be better able to meet the challenges posed by the autocratic great powers that threaten our security, prosperity, and values,” McFaul says. Read more here.
Economics and American Institutions
The potential creation of an American sovereign-wealth fund, built upon AI equity transferred to government control, harks back to an old and dangerous problem: that policymakers given oversight of such funds will divert them to their own political purposes, argue Visiting Fellows Dora Costa and Mathew E. Kahn. The economists point out how a new proposal by Senator Bernie Sanders for an “AI Sovereign Wealth” fund evokes arguments from the dawn of Social Security about whether the federal government should become one of the nation’s biggest investors. In the 1930s, they write, there was worry among both major parties about politicians holding such power over American business. If such a fund were created today, Costa and Kahn maintain, that governance problem would recur—and one of the greatest dangers would be to firms’ ability to innovate in a rapidly evolving marketplace. Chaining AI to governmental regulation could discourage entrepreneurship, investment, and American leadership, the authors warn. Read more here.
Artificial Intelligence
At his Grumpy Economist Substack, Senior Fellow John H. Cochrane previews two of his upcoming “weekly rants” (published at Hoover’s Freedom Frequency) concerning AI regulation. “The first responds to the ‘we must act now’ open letter on AI spearheaded by Erik Brynjolfsson, who directs Stanford’s human-centered AI program,” Cochrane says. “The second responds to Governor Gavin Newsom’s executive order on AI.” Cochrane emphasizes the economic harms inherent in trying to regulate a technology far before its impacts are clear, noting that such an approach could suppress or even prevent helpful innovations. “Let ‘policy makers’ fix the dumpster fires of their social programs, building restrictions, appalling public infrastructure, broken tax code, and failing schools before they ‘steer’ some vague AI crusade,” Cochrane argues. Read more here.
Related Commentary