‘Luxury beliefs’ in the time of war
Are defense stocks ESG, asked Financial Times columnist Merryn Somerset Webb shortly after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It’s a cheeky but clarifying question, exposing the moral complacency of that self-satisfied corner of finance flogging “ethical” investments to the socially conscious consumer. Most ESG funds boast about not investing in arms companies. But, as Somerset Webb points out, what could be more ethical than manufacturing anti-tank weapons to stymie Russia’s conquest of Ukraine?
The consequences of war in Europe for ESG investing is hardly the most important dimension of the present crisis. But it is a clear example of a chastening effect of world-altering war: the way in which it exposes delusions, punishes complacency and puts other matters into perspective.
The term “luxury beliefs” was coined by Rob Henderson, a doctoral candidate at Cambridge University, in 2019: “Luxury beliefs are ideas and opinions that confer status on the rich at very little cost, while taking a toll on the lower class.” The best example of a luxury belief in recent years is probably the Defund the Police vogue: a push by the woke and the affluent to dismantle the public service that poor Americans living in dangerous neighborhoods rely on for their safety.
One of the lessons of Putin’s invasion is that luxury beliefs are not confined to domestic politics. Entire countries can fall for geopolitical “luxury beliefs” too, at the expense of their poorer, less secure neighbors. See, for example, German pacifism and the associated chronic underinvestment in its own defense (more or less the geopolitical equivalent of defund the police). Or the insistence across the West that a rush to shut down domestic fossil-fuel energy production was a trade-off free win-win: a luxury belief acted on at the expense of Russia’s neighbors in Eastern Europe and millions of households across Europe who face the prospect of higher energy prices.
Then there’s the luxury belief in the existence of something called the international community: a globe-spanning system that binds actors by rules and norms. The crisis has exposed that as a damaging myth. It’s easy to put your faith in international law when you’re a long way from a murderous tyrant. Less so when they run the military superpower next door. Rules cannot trump power, and the condemnation of Russia’s actions has been far from universal. In the New York Times, Thomas Meaney notes that of the ten most populous countries in the world, only one — the United States — supports major sanctions against Moscow.
I will admit to moments where I have welcomed the energizing clarity that the last few weeks have offered, and even felt a sense of relief that enervating, over-hyped, phony rows over “firing Fauci” or “Jim Crow 2.0” have disappeared from the headlines. I was pleased to see the polling that showed Republicans and Democrats in lockstep on the question of Ukraine. But then these too resemble luxury beliefs: a focus on the silver lining of a horrible conflict only possible when you are a long, long way from the front line. And another piece of horrifying news out of Ukraine will quickly remind me that these are little more than distractions from the main point: that war is hell.
*** Sign up to receive the DC Diary in your inbox on weekdays ***
America and China talk Ukraine
National security advisor Jake Sullivan flies to Rome today to meet China’s top diplomat, Yang Jiechi. The talks come at a pivotal moment: yesterday US officials warned that Russia has asked China for military equipment and support for the war in Ukraine. As Ian Williams argues on the site today, this leak is best understood as part of an attempt by the Biden administration to force China’s hand.
(You may remember Jiechi’s angry, fifteen-minute anti-American sermon, delivered to Sullivan and secretary of state Antony Blinken at the first high-level meeting between the Biden administration and the Chinese regime in Alaska last March.)
So far Beijing has been stuck in an awkward dance over the war, neither wholeheartedly siding with Putin, nor denouncing his invasion. But how long can Xi Jinping maintain that ambiguity? Were he to side with Putin by sending military aid to Russia, the conflict in Ukraine would be the first proxy fight in a new cold war between America and China.
Harris’s helpful editor
“Everyone needs an editor.” That journalistic mantra is true enough, but some need more help than others. One public figure who could do with a bit more help from editors is the vice president, who served up yet another gaffe in a speech to the DNC winter meeting on Saturday. “I will say what I know we all say, and I will say over and over again: the United States stands firmly with the Ukrainian people in defense of the NATO alliance,” said Harris, her choice of words implying that she thinks Ukraine is part of NATO.
Politico’s Alex Thompson spotted a helping hand offered to the VP by whoever is in charge of publishing transcripts of her speech: “The United States stands firmly with the Ukrainian people [and] in defense of the NATO alliance,” it read. The addition of a single word made all the difference. Is that what Harris was meant to say, or just what Democratic colleagues wish she had said?
What you should be reading today
Harry J. Kazianis: Russia’s war is a global cancer
Tim Ogden: Peace and its consequences in Ukraine
J. Scott Turner: Biden’s science advisor falls to the woke
Ruby Kramer, Politico magazine: The new identity politics of Eric Adams
Nick Burns, New Statesman: What realists get wrong about Putin
David Remnick, New Yorker: The weakness of the despot
Poll watch
President Biden Job Approval
Approve: 42.9 percent
Disapprove: 51.7 percent
Net approval: -8.8 (RCP Average)
What actions do US voters favor to help Ukraine?
Sending more military aid: 55 percent
Placing more economic sanctions on Russia: 55 percent
Creating a no-fly zone over Ukraine: 29 percent
Sending more US troops to European countries other than Ukraine: 25 percent
Sending US troops to Ukraine: 10 percent
None: 8 percent (Wall Street Journal)
