They’re Back!

Dave Davis Uncategorized, Policy, Commentary , ,

It’s as if we passed the graveyard of discarded ideas, and we heard murmurs. Ideas that failed to work in the modern world, or sounded great but failed horribly in practice. Thought dead and buried, they seemingly are rising from their graves, or are already at the graveyard’s gate:

Walking haltingly, Marxism, mercantilism, anti-semitism, and Ludism, nevertheless, are rising and walking among us. While some are horrified, many have no comprehension of the harm these zombies of the past did when they were ascendant on Earth and believe they present the way forward.

Most of the fans of these living dead are too young to remember the millions who paid with their lives at the hands of the believers. Even though many are college graduates, few seem aware of the thousands of years of slow human progress under elites controlling from the top down. organization. Everyone below owed the aristocracy, mandarins, or Brahmans, but little obligation moved downward to the bulk of the people.

Yet, what these young people advocate would reinstall systems incompatible with a modern, advancing nation. The Democratic Socialists of America’s (DSA) platform calls for eliminating the Senate and the Electoral College. Congress would appoint the President and control the judiciary. In effect, they would trash our Constitution.

Why dump a system that has made us the longest-surviving and most prosperous Republic ever? A New York State DSA spokesman, when asked this very question, replied, “to be more Democratic.” Sadly, the questioner failed to point out that our founders weren’t fans of direct democracy.

Charismatic leaders could rouse the populace to take momentarily popular actions that are detrimental in the longer term. Much of what the new populists on both the left and the right propose follows what William Graham Sumner saw when he talked about the “Forgotten Man” in 1881. In the present parlance, Politician A perceives that more numerous Bs want more, and conspires with them to take from the fewer but more prosperous Cs. Through B’s votes, A gains control of the Government.

At first, this situation may seem to work. The Cs get some more. Inevitably, as Margaret Thatcher pointed out, “You run out of other people’s money,” or the Cs leave. Then, A has to oppress the Bs to maintain the lifestyle of the ruling regime.

Today’s populists only have to look at countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. The people remaining in them live in the end stage of what began as mob rule, expressed through direct democracy. How many of these “idealists” will pack up and move to these “workers’ paradises?”

Continue reading →

As The World Turns

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Back in March of 2023, I questioned in the post “Out of the Jaws” whether Ukraine could ever win its war with the Russian invader without the ability to shoot back. Though the Ukrainians had halted the invasion, they could never win if they couldn’t hit back at the Russian war machine’s homeland infrastructure. While the Russians hammered every military or civilian target they could, the Biden administration allowed the use of U.S. weapons only close to the battlefield. Only in 2024, in response to Russia’s use of North Korean troops, did it slightly extend the range.

Russian territory was largely exempt. Biden reasoned it was best to limit the scope of the war. Fearing that hits on Moscow or St Petersburg like those on Kyiv, the Russians might use nuclear weapons or attack NATO nations. As unlikely as either of these Russian reactions is, the Biden Administration must have believed in them, as they slow-walked arms to Ukraine.

This policy led the Biden administration to push Ukraine into an ill-fated offensive without air superiority or the longer-range weapons Ukrainians had requested. Without the means to cut off supplies to the well-dug-in Russians, the attack was doomed before it even started.

The U.S. military doctrine says it must have air superiority before a major offensive, yet where were the F-16s the Ukrainians asked for?

Things didn’t improve under Trump. While keeping many of the range restrictions in place, his administration taunted Ukrainian President Zelensky, saying he had no cards and should give in to Russian demands. It never seemed to dawn on them that Ukraine might have cards, but the U.S. prevented them from playing them.

If Russians felt no pain at home, they had little reason to oppose the war. Yes, troops were maimed or dying, but drafted from rural areas, criminals, or recruited foreigners; the horror of war didn’t touch Russian elites. Life in Moscow or St. Petersburg went on as usual—some inflation, but nothing aimed at them.

Instead of folding, the brave Ukrainians fought on. The same imagination and ingenuity that stopped the initial massive Russian attack, the Ukrainians applied to the modern battlefield. High-tech is increasingly used to gain an edge, especially in the new drone warfare. Rapidly updating design, software, command, and tactics, allowing them to blunt the Russian manpower and equipment advantage.

If the U.S. wasn’t going to provide the longer-range weapons sorely needed to isolate the battlefield and attack Russia’s war infrastructure deep in that vast nation, Russia lacked any incentive to make peace. Yet, when asked, the U.S. turned down Ukraine’s request for Tomahawk long-range missiles.

It was left up to the Ukrainians to develop the weapons they needed. These freedom-loving people rose to the challenge, especially with long-range drones. Residents in Moscow and St. Petersburg find themselves treated to towering smoke plumes rising from their major oil facilities;

Continue reading →

Recalling a Similar Time

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Celebrating our 250th birthday over the weekend brought back memories of our Bicentennial in 1976 and the similarities between then and now. The fall of Saigon marked the humiliating end of the Vietnam War. We maintained something of a detante with what many thought was an ascendant Soviet Union, with us in decline. We were suffering from stagflation, a stagnant economy with ever-increasing prices. Many were pushed into higher tax brackets, while their income bought less.  

After Watergate and President Nixon’s resignation, we were looking forward to the less-than-thrilling choice between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter for President. I hoped that Ronald Reagan would somehow prevail at the Republican Convention the following month, but it wasn’t to be. It was the period that caused Jimmy Carter, as President, to give his “malaise ” speech.

President Ford’s “Whip Inflation Now” Campaign, with its WIN buttons and voluntary appeals to save rather than spend, plant gardens, turn down the thermostat, and carpool, summed up his policy. After the progressive McGovern fiasco, the Democrats turned to a Georgia peanut farmer about whom nobody knew much, especially what he’d do.

We celebrated our birthday, but we wished we could be more upbeat about the future. Maybe those prophecies of gloom and doom were right, and we were in decline.

I thought we had all this behind us, but Déjà vu, here we are at 250 with many of the same or similar problems. A war gone awry, with humiliation in the wings, inflation refusing to go away, and most people having little faith in the abilities and policies of our two major parties. Again, maybe we’re in decline, and the American dream is gone for good. Some share New York Mayor Mandani’s dark view of America, where the wealthy oppress working people.

Continue reading →

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 →