Dump Primaries?

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, The Future Party, Uncategorized , , , ,

Some recent events point to our need to reflect on what our nation is about. Primaries in both parties produced candidates appealing to the extremes of the electorate. Longtime Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana lost their reelection bids due to a perceived lack of loyalty to Donald Trump. He endorsed their primary challengers, and his loyal base did his bidding. While these were the most prominent, the President also prompted other Republicans to retire amid primary challenges or the threat of one.

Democratic Socialists challenged more moderate Democrats with solid results in such Blue Strongholds as New York, Maine, and the District of Columbia. In one-party areas, the primary is the election.

No one believes either the Trump-backed or the Democratic Socialists’ nominees are stronger general-election contenders. In fact, in the Texas Senate race, Trump backed Ken Paxton in what is a safe seat with Cornyn, now in jeopardy.

If the actions of Donald Trump and the Democratic Socialists result in weaker general election candidates, why would you back the less electable? Power! If you’re contemplating a career in elective politics, you must win a place on the general election ballot by winning a primary. If you fail to tow the extreme line, you may have little or no chance of advancing.  

Primaries attract far fewer voters than general elections. Even the contested House seats in New York State failed to draw many people. These small turnouts allow the dedicated minorities to determine winners. For instance, Public employees and their Unions are directly affected by who employs them and have every reason to turn out. The average voter, not so much.

If you don’t bow towards Trump on the right or bend your message towards Marxists on the left, you’ll likely face a competitor who does. Even if you manage to win the nomination, you’ve expended so much and are so bruised that you’re weakened in the general election.

In my series, The Future Party,” I predicted the homelessness of prospective candidates espousing policies similar to those of Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. I pointed to primaries as a major culprit.

Continue reading →

Demand Answers

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, The Middle East, Uncategorized , , , ,

You see an accident about to happen, but no matter how loud you yell, no one hears. Or maybe no one was listening. Even before the US and Israel started their attack on Iran, some foresaw the need for friends on the ground in that nation. Some suggested the Kurds as a good bet for establishing a safe area in Iran to organize, train, and equip the resistance. If others had a better idea for the armed overthrow of the ruling Regime, that’s fine, but without this basic strategy, just bombing would fail.

Once the attack unfolded, we had nothing-zilch on the ground. Worse, we were unprepared to counter the likely Iranian response—no adequate defense against the Regime’s large stock of rockets, and especially drones. When Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, likely with mines, we had no minesweepers. To top things off, we went through so much of our very expensive ordinance that we may run out.

The next thing we knew, we had a ceasefire that left us short of all our objectives. We needed real regime change to have an Iranian government we could trust not to develop nuclear weapons, and the rockets to deliver them. No more pawns such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis terrorize our area friends, especially Israel.

Now we have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that has opened the Strait but also removes our counter-blockade. This situation puts us back to before the attack, but illuminates our failure to achieve any of our objectives. We’ll talk about Iran’s nuclear program over the next two months. Trump has conceded any restraint on ballistic missiles. If Iran behaves, we’ll return the money we seized and set up a $300 billion “reconstruction fund ” paid for by our Gulf friends.

With the opening of the Strait, oil money flows to Iran without sanctions. These funds will feed its terrorist network to threaten Israel and its neighbors, while it strengthens the Regime—the MOU depends on the end of hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel. Not part of the negotiations, Israel is still under pressure to abide by it. Yet it needs a buffer in Lebanon to protect its northern areas from constant attack:

While the US and especially Israel have gained nothing so far, Iran shows its dominance over the Strait, its ability to hit not only its neighbors, but targets as far away as Europe, money will increasingly flow into its coffers to finance its pawns, and drive a visible wedge between the US and Israel, while doing nothing on Iran’s nuclear program. This situation goes a long way toward Iranian regional hegemony. Any reasonable person would conclude Iran is coming out on top.

Continue reading →

AI In The Crosshairs

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, The Long Journey to "More", Uncategorized , , , ,

While we await the umpteenth peace that Trump has promised since the Iran ceasefire, it might be a good time to address the rising calls to impose controls on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and to reduce the power and wealth of the leaders of the enterprises leading the technology. After all, bringing concentrated knowledge and computing power to the masses can overturn the social order and threaten humanity.

Leaders in both parties appear to be tripping over each other, demanding that the Government take control now before it’s too late. From GOP Senator Josh Hawley to Democratic socialists, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), there is pressure to go much further with government intervention.

None of this is new, as I’ve pointed out in my series, “The Long Journey to More.” At the start of the Industrial Age, the handicraftsmen known as  Luddites destroyed weaving machinery. Farm mechanization provoked a mass migration away from farm work. More recently, Computers connected to the internet caused an upheaval in how we do almost everything. The great economist Joseph Schumpeter called this process “Creative Destruction.”

Continue reading →

Choosing to Lose

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, The Middle East, Uncategorized , , , ,

Unless we’re willing to inflict enormous pain on those we were supposed to help, the Iranian people, or put boots on the ground, or some combination of the two, we have a lost war with the Iranian theocracy. Awishy-washy nuclear deal, akin to, but maybe not as good as the one Obama negotiated, will end our involvement.

This conclusion leaves our Gulf allies in a precarious situation. Iran illustrated how it can hit their infrastructure anytime with rockets and drones. Closing the Strait of Hormuz or changing tolls remains subject to Iran’s whims. Spending billions on this outcome, we expected much better. Faith in America’s ability to protect our friends and allies is now questionable.

A recent feel-good story in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) shows both a possible path to right the war’s trend and exposes the lack of proper action that put us in this situation in the first place. Going into the war, the different radars that alert troops to incoming drones and missiles, and the interceptors used to shoot them down, didn’t talk to one another. This situation required a large number of personnel to monitor many monitors. This lack of integration may have contributed to the loss of six soldiers in Kuwait.

On a trip to Europe. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll became aware of the incompatibility issue and how the Ukrainians resolved it using proper software. The secretary got the Dense Contractors and bureaucrats to waive objections, and the engineers got together and came up with a Google Maps-type single screen, allowing for the proper response to any threat. After demonstrating it worked, we are now achieving the needed integration.

While we have now solved a major battlefield problem, it raises the question: why wasn’t it done before we went to war? Didn’t we wargame before we committed? Drone warfare has been a key feature of the Ukraine war for years. We’re just now finding out how they handle them. We actually reverse-engineered the key Iranian drone for our use, so we should know all about them. Yet we lack drone dominance to control the area.

The Administration and Iran Hawks can loudly claim success in the war all they want, but the facts on the ground say otherwise. Giving statistics on how many ships we sunk, or bombs we dropped, sounds reminiscent of the Vietnam War body counts. If we sunk their Navy, why are we looking for mines in the Strait, and why are so few ships risking leaving? Hawks such as Condoleezza Rice can claim, “It has achieved enough to produce a far better Middle East.”

Our Gulf friends and allies turning to the Ukrainians for answers to Iran’s drone and rocket capabilities threatening them doesn’t sound like they feel the area is “more stable.” Can we assure them of safe passage of the Strait, now and into the future? The Strait was open before the war. How are they better off?

Continue reading →

A Multi-Party US?

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, The Future Party, Uncategorized , , , ,

A two-party system has long dominated politics in both the U.S.A. and the UK, but the UK has recently evolved into a multi-party system. Public disillusionment with the Conservatives and Labor opened the door for Reform UK and the Green Party. Could this political change cross the pond and expand US ballots?

Donald Trump’s longtime friend, Nigel Farage, heads Reform U.K. Both men share a dislike of immigration and the establishment, as well as a love of media attention. A major backer of the UK leaving the European Union, Farage left the Conservative Party over Prime Minister John Major’s signing the Maastricht Treaty, which he felt was too pro-European Union. He formed a new party in protest.

Reform UK now leads the polls at 24-27%, followed by the Conservatives at 17-20%, Labor at 17-20%, the Greens at 14-16%, and the Liberals at 12-14%. The Conservatives and Labor can no longer count on passing their programs whenever they win. Coalitions loom in the future as they are in other multi-party nations.

How did the dominant parties lose their hold? People didn’t know what they stood for. Margaret Thatcher undid much of the Labor Party’s failed socialist policies with great success. After privatizing entire industries, capitalism returned to the forefront.

Yet conservatives dumped her. One of the main reasons the old-guard conservatives acted was Thatcher’s wholehearted opposition to joining the European Union (EU). The born-to-rule class old-guard conservatives went on to join the EU. With Farage at the forefront, the Brexit vote later pulled the UK out of the EU. Conservatives failed to listen to the people.

When Liz Truss, as Prime Minister, tried to return to the classical Liberalism of Thatcher and her good friend, Ronald Reagan, the same old guard sabotaged her with a phony bond crisis. The Conservatives appeared to stand for nothing except their own power.

Like Bill Clinton in the US, Tony Blair, Labor’s leader around the turn of the century, accepted many of the Reagan-Thatcher reforms. As Clinton said, “‘The Era of Big Government is over.”

Not for long. After a time in the wilderness, Labor is back in control, but it seems lost. Going back to failed Socialist policies isn’t promising. An expensive transition to renewables has left the UK with an inadequate, costly energy sector. Yet a large part of the Party still wanted to return to socialism and continue heavy spending on renewables. Adding in a good deal of anti-semitism, this bunch broke off as the Green Party.

Today, Tony Blair offers Labor a way back, touting a radical center prescription. Boost productivity by treating business more kindly, adopting realistic energy policies, and enacting welfare reform.

Why is the proliferation of parties in the UK important to us? Many of the same problems that broke up the Tories and Labor are present in our two main parties. To many in our country, the parties aren’t even presenting a viable choice. The Republicans are devoid of ideals or a consistent policy. It has deteriorated into a cult of personality. The Republicans are for whatever Trump puts out in the middle of the night on Truth Social. If it conflicts with what he posted yesterday, no matter, everyone falls in line with the new direction.

Disagreeing with the President, especially in public, results in the end of your political career. Just ask Senator Bill Cassidy or Representative Thomas Massie. Because Trump has approximately a third of the electorate, and that’s enough to dominate the Republican primaries, Trump only has to endorse a challenger, and you’re on the outside looking in. If you’re in the executive branch, you’re out the door if you’re lucky as an ambassador to Lower Slobovia. In most cases, you’re just gone.

This situation reduces a Republican administration to a meeting of the US chapter of the Baghdad Bob Club:

While it’s entertaining to see all the major players in the Party dancing to Trump’s tune, and seeing how adept they are when he changes the beat, how is this sustainable? The President turns 80 soon, and in any case, he has about 2 years left in the term. From top to bottom, everyone in his administration and all his political allies have shown an amazing lack of character. Fealty to Trump is all they have to offer. How does this play in 2028 and beyond? Who’s thinking about the country?

Continue reading →