Merloe provides strategic advice on elections and democracy in the United States and internationally. He worked with former President Jimmy Carter on elections and democratic transitions on four continents.
On Oct. 1, President Jimmy Carter turns 100 years old. According to reports, he is concerned about the dynamics surrounding the 2024 election and hopeful that the United States will turn the page. That is no surprise given his devotion to this country and his dedication to fostering genuine elections around the world.
He first observed a foreign election in 1989 as co-leader, with former President Gerald Ford, of the joint international election observation mission to Panama organized by the nonpartisan National Democratic Institute and what is now the International Republican Institute. His role in helping to expose Manuel Noriega’s attempted fraud in that election had profound effects in Panama and inspired Carter to do more. Often working with NDI, he guided The Carter Center into the forefront of international election observation in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.
In my role of almost three decades leading NDI’s international election programs, I had the honor of working closely with Carter in numerous elections. I witnessed him bring together for the first time in years the two antagonistic leaders of Bangladesh and negotiate their renouncing violence in an upcoming election. I saw him help Liberia’s contentious presidential candidates accept electoral results. He brought international attention to the credibility of Palestinian elections and promoted confidence in Peru’s post-Fujimori elections when public trust was fragile.
His successful bridge building in such hyper-polarized circumstances was aided by his reputation for listening, analyzing and offering recommendations based on ethical principles, rather than an advantage of the moment or some personal transactional consideration. In 2005, Carter joined NDI’s then board chair, Madeleine Albright, and other dignitaries at a commemoration led by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to launch the Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation, which is now endorsed by more than 50 international organizations in an ongoing implementation process that guides their work.
In keeping with that spirit, on the International Day of Democracy (Sept. 15.), five leading organizations — International IDEA, The Carter Center, NDI, the International Foundation for Election Systems and the Kofi Annan Foundation — launched the Model Commitments for Advancing Genuine and Credible Elections. The commitments, already supported by nine other key international organizations, provide a basis for dialogue around safeguarding and improving electoral processes in any country — including in the United States. While the urgent challenges of securing election administration, protecting the right to vote, addressing disinformation and potential disruptions, plus curtailing threats and potentials for political violence are of immediate concern to countries heading to elections, the commitments provide a wider context.
As one of the people involved in developing the declaration of principles and the model commitments, I can attest that they were inspired by the examples set by Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, Madeleine Albright and so many others who dedicated themselves to bringing about genuine elections and advancing democracy.
On the occasion of his 100th birthday it is fitting to shine a bright light on this aspect of President Carter’s rich legacy of accomplishments in this country and around the globe. Hopefully, we will amplify his legacy as we move ahead, both here and abroad.
Eric Trump, the newly appointed ALT5 board director of World Liberty Financial, walks outside of the NASDAQ in Times Square as they mark the $1.5- billion partnership between World Liberty Financial and ALT5 Sigma with the ringing of the NASDAQ opening bell, on Aug. 13, 2025, in New York City.
Why does the Trump family always get a pass?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the UAE’s national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.”
“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked.
“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.”
Blanche went on to boast about how the president is utterly transparent regarding his questionable business practices: “I don’t have a comment on it beyond Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.”
Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “OK, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, and indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”
Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.
Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge, “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”
This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.
Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy In America,” the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.
In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of Black people, women, Native Americans notwithstanding) no one has access to special carve-outs or exemptions as to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal against the whole idea of equality.
The problem in the modern era is that elites — of all ideological stripes — have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not against our own.
Pick an issue: violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.
Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Mr. Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor — or your client’s transparency — means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.