Why Shouldn’t Foreign Regimes Try to Influence U.S. Elections?
Reminder: Our online Zoom conference on open borders continues this Monday evening, November 4, with Don Boudreaux, former president of The Foundation for Economic Education and current professor economics at George Mason University. 7 p.m.-8 p.m. Eastern Time. Register here.
Reminder: I’ll be speaking at the JFK Lancer conference and also at the CAPA conference, which are being held on November 22-24 in Dallas. There is also an excellent third JFK conference on the same weekend sponsored by the JFK Historical Group. All three of them are fantastic JFK-assassination-related conferences. I highly recommend registering for all three and then picking and choosing which sessions you would like to attend at all three conferences. The registration prices are moderate and it’s a great way to support three great conferences. I will have some of my JFK books at my presentations to autograph and sell at a discounted price. I hope to see you all there!
*****
Just like clockwork, U.S. officials are extremely concerned over foreign regimes that are supposedly trying to influence the 2024 U.S. presidential election. “Stay out of our political system,” U.S. officials exclaim, even while they embroil themselves in the political systems of practically ever country in the world.
But my question is a simple one: Why shouldn’t foreign regimes try to influence U.S. presidential elections? After all, some of them arguably have a bigger stake in the outcome of the presidential race than individual Americans.
Consider Russia, for example. That country has lost tens of thousands of Russian soldiers in its war with Ukraine. But it was the U.S. government, operating through its old Cold War dinosaur NATO, that successfully provoked Russia into invading Ukraine. If Ukraine were to abandon its U.S.-supported dream of joining NATO, Russia would no longer have reason to continue waging its war against Ukraine.
Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
So, given that Russia has lost so many soldiers in that war, all of whom undoubtedly left grieving family members, relatives, and friends back home, why wouldn’t Russian officials want to see Donald Trump elected president, given that Trump would probably be more likely to forswear any intention of making Ukraine a NATO member?
On the other hand, Kamala Harris is likely to follow the direction that her boss, President Biden, has pursued. Like Biden, she would continue deferring to the U.S. national-security establishment by insisting that Ukraine become a member of NATO.
Given that the U.S. government has caused so much death and suffering among Russians, the Russian regime obviously has a huge stake in the outcome
Article from The Future of Freedom Foundation
The Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF) is a leading voice in libertarian thought, tirelessly advocating for individual liberty, free markets, and limited government. Established in 1989, the FFF is more than just a think tank; it’s a hub for intellectual exploration and policy advocacy that draws on the classical liberal tradition and Austrian economics. Through insightful articles, videos, and events featuring top libertarian minds, the organization provides a robust critique of mainstream politics and policies, championing instead the principles that underlie a truly free society. For anyone seeking a principled stand for freedom and limited government, the Future of Freedom Foundation serves as an invaluable resource and an inspiring beacon.
