Molineaux is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and president/CEO of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
I grew up during the Cold War, when we hid under our desks for safety. As a child, I believed that I was doing my part by ducking under my desk and knowing how to respond when the air raid sirens went off. Crouching under a desk seems laughable today. But it gave me a sense of agency that I could survive and eased my anxiety about a world where the adults made decisions that seemed nonsensical.
For me, preparing and having tasks to do was calming. As an adult, this has translated into practical clarity of defining what is needed during moments (or periods) of crisis. Perhaps that is why I’ve spent time reflecting this past couple of weeks on what I would do if I were in Ukraine right now. And I imagine it’s what the people of Ukraine are doing. Or the people in other countries, helping refugees. They are finding shelter, food and supplies. They are banding together to help others to safety. They are taking up arms when necessary. As their everyday lives are at risk, survival is the priority. This is practical clarity.
President Volodymyr Zelensky is meeting his moment with resolve. With love for his countrymen. With truth. He won the presidential election on the wave of The Revolution of Dignity as a counterforce to corruption and oligarchy. His leadership skills were sharpened when he led his people as the former president fled to Russia. He withstood bullying by Donald Trump. He is now in the crucible of transformation, under attack from a desperate man with an old desire for empire building. And Zelensky is asking for our help. Our government is balancing the needs of the United States, Europe and Ukraine. We don’t want to escalate into World War III. It may not be our choice.
The people of the world want to help our brothers and sisters under threat. We’ve opened our hearts, our homes, and our wallets to do our individual tasks. As we witness the attack on Ukraine, we empathize, seeing ourselves under the thumb of an oppressor.
We also see the possibility of ending the modern patriarchy, featuring the authoritarians of our age — Putin, Xi, Kim, Orban, Trump — who want to restore an old world order of strong men. The world has changed despite their desire to control, and has done so without their permission. They will not go quietly into the night.
And so we must face these men and their followers. This style of autocracy has been around for about 5,000 years, beginning with the emergence of tribal communities around the world. They promise security to their supporters. Acolytes of this belief system seek a privileged place in a perverted hierarchy, where denigration, subjugation and oppression are part of everyday life for those not chosen.
Liberal democracy, as defined about 250 years ago, was the enlightened form of governance to mitigate the threat of authoritarians. Our belief in liberal democracy is in the crucible with Zelensky. How will we strengthen our resolve, with love, and avoid becoming the next oppressor?
The world has changed, and we need to meet the populist rhetoric and actions of autocracy to move forward with liberal democracy; where we value the embodiment of democratic processes over all else. When we honor the dignity of others, especially those who have been denigrated and marginalized, that is embodiment. Our shared belief in, and love for, our fellow humans is embodiment. Justice is embodiment. And while effusive and intangible in many ways, when we assume good intentions of our political opponent, that is embodiment.
The war is here. We are in it today. In most of the world, it’s an information war. In Ukraine, it’s a war for survival as an independent nation.
Let’s meet the moment with resolve, and love. The age of authoritarianism is over.
Long live liberal democracy.
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.