Don’t count on things getting better. When we’ve gone through a rough patch, we wish the next election would result in greater competence, but that’s hope over experience. The last election saw a voter revolt against the worst inflation in 40 years, wide-open borders, and the Afghan fiasco, which encouraged bad actors to start two ugly wars. The relatively solid economy and the absence of major fighting during Donald Trump’s first term fostered nostalgia.

Trump promised peace, safety, and prosperity in 2024. A little over one year in, we still have rising prices, albeit at a somewhat lower rate, violence on the streets in cities like Minneapolis, and an ever-widening war in the Middle East. Maybe we didn’t want wide open borders, letting in bad people, but we want the good contributing to our nation, treated humanely, not terrified and abruptly deported.

Given where we are, how is that election working out? More importantly, will the future election bring improvement? Plagued by high prices, poorly conceived international actions that have led to more bloodshed and increased costs, civil unrest, lawfare, executive orders that ignore Congress, and corruption, a change in leadership surely will lead to a different direction.

But will it? Everything we’re complaining about today has its roots in the prior Democratic administration: high prices, almost double-digit inflation. Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Gaza weren’t examples of international stability. The Black Lives Matter riots weren’t peaceful. Forgiving billions in student loans by executive order, the courts were Trump’s second home during the 2024 campaign, and if you wanted Biden’s attention, his son had a painting for you.

Yes, you can argue that the current Trump administration is worse in all these areas, but that is just because Trump exceeded them, not because he initiated them. Just as Trump followed and expanded on the Democrats’ path, there is no reason to believe the Democrats won’t build on and exceed the present administration in these areas. A continuing game of ” Can you top this?”

Instead of a fresh approach to our myriad of problems, the Democratic leaders with the loudest voices promise more of the same. From California to New York City, Newsome to Mandani, and all Blue spots in between, we hear the same old, same old. The rich are getting richer at the expense of the rest of us, and not “paying their fair share.” Corporations, you name the place, are price-gouging, and inequality is growing by leaps and bounds.

Given these diagnoses of our problems, the solutions have a familiar ring to them. Increase taxes on those nasty billionaires and millionaires’ ill-gotten gains. In California, increasing income taxes on the “rich” isn’t enough; we have to tax their accumulated wealth. Investigate companies whose prices have moved up significantly. Stronger price controls on things like rent in New York City. Hike up the minimum wage to give everyone a raise. Close the growing gap between the haves and have-nots by increasing transfer payments.

Add more regulations on emerging technologies such as AI, and anything else progressives oppose, like anything not green. What do all these proposals have in common? They’ve all been tried before and failed.

No data support the claim that higher minimum wages improve overall labor income. Some gain, while others don’t have a job. Price controls mean less, rather than the increase needed to reduce prices. The more you tax the wealthy, the greater the incentive for them to move themselves and their business interests elsewhere, which can lead to lower future revenue.

The 1970s were the last time we faced a stack of problems similar to today’s: double-digit inflation, a failed foreign war in Vietnam, and a perception of weakness vis-à-vis the Soviet Union. Regulations, rather than enhancing our lives, did the opposite, often adding costs and leading to poor results.

Ronald Reagan’s policies went in a different direction. Reducing taxes on the rich and capital, and continuing and expanding deregulation to encourage investment and innovation. A healthy, expanding economy made it impossible for the Soviet Union’s command economy to keep up with the capitalist U.S.

The Soviet Empire collapsed, and we went on to enjoy the innovative ’90s. We even balanced the federal budget and reformed and decreased some transfer payments. These actions are the opposite of what the Democrats are talking up today.

So why refuse to do what worked in the past, in favor of failed policies? I can only volunteer some thoughts; it involves a closed progressive ecosystem. Progressivism got its start in the 19th Century, as an elite response to capitalism, which left the allocation of resources, therefore the economy, to the market, rather than top-down control by a group of “experts.” Their privileges and status challenged, the progressive elites used the new, unsettled world of rapidly expanding possibilities to claim that the government must rein in capitalist “excesses.”

The beauty of markets is that if left alone, they are basically self-regulating. Bad actors go out of business. A solid reputation enhances a business. Monopolies can’t continue to exist without government support. High prices and returns attract competitors.

If there is little or no reason for elite control of the economy, what function do they provide? To justify their existence, they’ve provided us with a mythology they must adhere to or admit; in most instances, they’re superfluous.

If these drawbacks weren’t enough, the Democrats reject the latest medical evidence from the U.K. and other nations, and the A.M.A., by supporting medical intervention for children with “gender identity issues” up to and including irreversible surgeries. Whatever happened to those in the party demanding that we follow the science?

If all of these positions weren’t enough, the democrats have adopted anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism to their catalog.

The bombing of an Iranian girls’ school evoked an avalanche of articles in the left-wing media. Greeting the death of 145 youngsters with absolute horror, it evoked memories of a similar feeding frenzy when the press reported the bombing of a hospital in Gaza. Of course, the horrible Israelis were held responsible. Ultimately, the truth came out. The missile only hit a parking lot; it may have been an errant Hamas rocket, and the hospital above a Hamas command post. These facts only came out later. You can still find plenty of the original articles blaming the Israelis online.

In this case, the school was adjacent to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard ( IRGC) base. In fact, it was part of a school system that educates children of the Guard. The same Guard responsible for mowing down over 30,000 protesting Iranians. As 60% of Iran’s population is under 30, it’s a good bet that thousands of young people were among the dead. Surely their parents suffered enormous pain. The same press that widely reported the school explosion hardly mentioned the mass murder of these other young people, just characterless totals. Maybe the school’s losses are karma.

In any case, why jump at the chance to portray your country and its allies in the worst possible light?

The Democrats continue to mirror the Republicans by refusing to have a plan to control our rapidly expanding National debt. Yet, every day that goes by brings a crisis closer.

None of these excuses the Trump administration’s failures, nor do they offer much hope for the alternative.