A fundamental, but largely overlooked, aspect of the New Washington Consensus is the use of national security arguments to restrict speech and punish disfavored speakers. Although the United States has a longer history of using sanctions to restrict speech in the terrorism context, it has recently applied sanctions to restrict political speech, attack universities, and shut down social media platforms. By linking national security concerns and economic policy to favored and disfavored viewpoints, the United States is not only betraying its fundamental values but also undermining the credibility of its national security exceptionalism, creating uncertain conditions for investors, and weakening the position of the US dollar and financial system. As a result, US national security is ultimately weakened as well, because the sanctions so fundamental to US national security policy are only as strong as the US dollar and financial system. The erratic nature of US politics may finally spur a lasting displacement of the dollar as states and investors seek more reliable alternatives. In place of implausible national security claims and capricious ideological commitments, a new approach to global trade and finance will emerge, and do so in a way that is increasingly divorced from any consensus reached in Washington.
Policy implications
- The US government should recommit to upholding freedom of speech, particularly in contexts where the speech or speakers are critical of the US government, US government policy, or US allies. This is particularly relevant in the “national security context,” such as counterterrorism and immigration, where free speech protections have come under the greatest threat.
- The US government should restrict the invocation of “national security emergencies” to actual security emergencies, rather than using them as a general tool of domestic and foreign policy to buttress political or economic positions. To accomplish this, Congress needs to act, both to pass legislation and to check the Executive when it fails to act as required by law.
- US economic policy should be recommitted to growth and efficiency over ideology and implausible security claims. The United States' current approach is alienating allies and trade partners, while also weakening its own security.
- The United States should rescind its sanctions against the ICC. These sanctions are not only ill-founded, but place the United States at odds with its most important security and trade partners.
- The United States should rescind its viewpoint-based actions against universities and law firms. These actions are undermining the rule of law in the United States and ultimately weakening both its economic position and national security.
Photo by Chris F