New York Times columnist David Leonhardt recently reported on GOPers who he alleges support Vladimir Putin. The piece is hard to take seriously because it includes the egregious insinuation that Charles Koch and Will Ruger, president of the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), support Russian tyranny, and in fact, are pro-Vladimir Putin.
There is so much wrong with this particular section of the Leonhardt piece that I can’t get to it all. So I will focus on the increasingly common habit of reporters and pundits recklessly inferring evil intent from what is often innocent and reasonable disagreement over policy.
For instance, according to Leonhardt, arguing against the imposition of broad sanctions on Russia — an honest argument that occurs each time sanctions are proposed as a means to change or punish some foreign government for its actions — makes someone a Putin supporter.
The reason to accuse Will Ruger of being a Putin supporter is as bad. Leaving aside the grotesque characterization of Ruger’s position for now (more on this later), it’s true that Ruger, in a podcast with Reason’s Nick Gillespie, argued against U.S. military intervention in Ukraine. It’s also true that Ruger said that because this conflict poses no real threat to America’s national security, the U.S. government would be unwise to risk sparking a potential World War III by putting boots on the ground or enforcing a no-fly zone or other such measures. Such positions, however, don’t make him pro-Putin. In fact, anyone who actually checks what Ruger’s position is will see how clearly he regards Putin’s actions as tragic and immoral.
I’m particularly sensitive to this form of attack because I’m frequently accused in the same manner. For example, my disapproval of federal subsidies to higher ed gets me labeled as “anti-education.” My opposition to any federal paid-leave program is portrayed as opposition to the benefit itself. The fact that I am against extended child tax credit or child tax credits in general is taken to mean that I’m against parents and children.
Such a manner of arguing is ridiculous and unhelpful. It avoids the relevant substance of the policy disagreements. And it wrongly implies that all reasonable people agree on which specific policies are best, including the issue of broad versus targeted sanctions (the latter of which is supported by Charles Koch’s Stand Together organization).
Leonhardt’s manner of arguing also suggests that all that’s necessary for America to have a strategic interest in the Ukraine war is moral revulsion against Putin’s invasion. But no sober person accepts this suggestion.
What is disappointing too is that this piece shows no signs of serious fact-gathering. It took me a grand total of two minutes to find multiple quotes from Stand Together revealing that this Koch organization endorses targeted sanctions against Russia. Also, it was easy to learn that Stand Together supports the Ukrainian people in their fight against the Russians and is repulsed by Putin’s invasion.
The same is true of Leonhardt’s totally misleading reporting of Ruger’s view. You can listen to Gillespie’s extensive interview of Ruger here. What you’ll hear is a policy argument about the national-security interest of the U.S. and a condemnation of Putin’s invasion. And so to read Leonhardt falsely describe Ruger’s position (or Stand Together’s, for that matter) as being that “a Ukraine victory is not in America’s interest” is shocking.
Ruger’s position, by the way, is consistent with the many policy positions taken by other well-respected defense analysts on both sides of the aisle who support a realistic and restrained U.S. foreign policy, defined as securing America’s vital national interests through a strong national defense but with prudence and caution about how we use force abroad, as well as about the commitments we make given the constraints of the world (such as the balance of power and interests, nationalism, and geography) and the relatively strong geostrategic position we find ourselves in.
Ruger is clear that his foreign-policy position is centered on advancing American national interests. And he has put his own skin — literally — in the game. Unlike many pundits who from the comfort of their couches bellow support for strong positions, Ruger volunteered to fight in Afghanistan.
Here’s the bottom line: David Leonhardt seems to have done no actual investigating whatsoever before accusing Charles Koch and Will Ruger of being pro-Putin. This is particularly sad in a piece that actually quotes some people praising Putin. It’s obvious that he has delegated to others (in this case a Democrat political operative writing for a subscription-based newsletter — funny for a guy who throws Koch-funded accusations around) whatever “investigation” is done for this section of the report. That alone is disappointing enough. But what is more disappointing is to equate disagreement over just what the U.S. should do regarding the Ukrainian invasion or disagreement about why we shouldn’t put boots on the ground in Ukraine (no national-security stakes, vs. Putin has the nuclear bomb) with support for Putin himself. These types of attacks, especially in the pages of the NYT, hinder debates and make us all stupider at a time when we need more debates and more ideas.
P.S. Also sloppy and laughable is calling AIER a Koch-funded organization. Can we please stop assuming that scholars on the right or on the left hold their policy positions because of who funds them? AIER received a small grant from the Koch Foundation in 2018 and 2019. If that makes them a Koch-funded organization, then the NYT should start referring to the ACLU as a Koch-funded organization, too.
Update: I saw this piece in Reason setting the record straight about the source for the NYT piece.