The Future Party

Delusions

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

“If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, both of them,” President Donald Trump said at his midterm convention, “I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000.” As the New York Times (NYT) tells us, in 2020, Democrats in Georgia pointed to $2,000 coronavirus relief checks if their party took control of the Senate. Politicians always promise more cash or other monetary benefits if you’ll vote their way:

The Socialist Party of America (DSA), which exerts more and more influence on the Democratic Party, promises either lots of free stuff or more cash in your pocket through things like greatly expanding the minimum wage. All these promises come against the backdrop of “The Affordability Crisis.”

The crisis is just a way of saying prices are rising faster than our ability to pay them. Both parties point to putting more dollars in everyone’s pockets as the answer. But does this make sense? Say ten people are in line to buy one of the ten parcels of necessities needed to survive. Each has $100; the necessities, to no one’s surprise, cost $100. Now President Trump, or Mayor Mandami, comes along and gives each $50. Everyone has more money in their pockets, but now the price of necessities has risen to $150. Unless supply increases, this is the only outcome.

Donald’s or Zohan’s largesse runs aground because of the Law of Supply and Demand. It still rules, as it has through the ages. Simply put, if Demand exceeds supply, prices will rise. Increasing Demand without more supply keeps prices rising.

Increasing supply to meet or exceed Demand stops inflation. However, this solution requires capital investment. Planting more acreage, building a factory, drilling wells, ships to bring in imported goods, or opening a mine- whatever is needed to increase supply demands capital.

Capital is forgone consumption, or put another way, savings, and the positive returns on them. If you lend at interest or invest directly in assets that grow in value, you have more capital, but you also face the risk of loss. Not every well finds oil, gas, or even water.

Continue reading →

What’s Radical

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

When I talk with young people, I’m struck by how, whether they’re talking about Make America Great Again (MAGA) or Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) ideas, they’re sure they’re taking Radical, Revolutionary positions. Further, these ideas will pull a moribund America out of the morass.

They’re certain about tariffs, government control of or ownership of industry and commerce, severe restrictions on immigration or law enforcement, and that those in government know best. How we get our healthcare, or are educated, is best left to government determination.

Often, both extremes of the two dominant political parties are very close in their reasoning. They attack constitutional speed bumps or procedural impediments, such as courts or the Senate’s rules. Belittling or chastising judges at the highest levels is common to both. Even the makeup of the Supreme Court is on the table: change the number of Justices, or force some into retirement.

Get rid of the Senate’s filibuster rule, or the Senate altogether. Both say that when they’re the majority, nothing should stand in the way of their desires. Subsidies to those they favor seem never-ending—we see antisemitism in both.

People engaging in unfettered commerce can create wealth disparity or run counter to national aims. Government must regulate, or even own or control, the means of production, or any other part of the economy, for the public good. Markets are inherently unfair.

This coalescing of the parties has given rise to the horseshoe theory of politics; at the extremes, the parties are actually close together. Some people might see this as a good thing; the dynamic parts of each party are coming together in a new system that will improve humanity’s future. This idea seems to give some people a sense of purpose.

To those with more than a passing interest in history, this means a top-down government of rule by edict, avoiding imports in favor of domestic producers, the native over others, people are dealt primarily by their class, and acquiescence to government and its religious counterparts, as the font of knowledge; all this seems a throwback to another era. In fact, it could be any era before 1776. For thousands of years, agrarian-based societies worldwide were organized along these lines.

For all those years, human progress was glacial. Those in the lower classes rarely rose above subsistence, while those in the top educated class garnered most of the available goods. Those involved in commerce did so at the sufferance of the rulers.

As none of these younger people in the U.S. ever fully lived under such systems, it can’t be nostalgia, but they may long for some romanticized version. Somewhere in their education and their other sources of information, they formed conceptions at odds with reality. Unaware of their history, the bromides they espouse feel fresh and revolutionary, rather than reactionary to the modern world.

The most radical revolution able to complement and foster a rapidly changing world, breaking with the past’s near stagnation, is our own. I strongly suggest Gordon S. Wood’s Pulitzer Prize-winning “Radicalism of the American Revolution” to understand the radical break with the past our revolution wrought.

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 →

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 →

Gone With The Whigs

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

Watching both Bill Maher and Michael Smercondesh bemoaning the rise of Marxism in the Democratic Party this week caught my attention. The high visibility of Bernie Sanders and A.O.C., along with other “democratic socialists,” during our lengthy government shutdown, coupled with the likely election of one of their own as Mayor of our largest city, has caused a stir among those who consider themselves more moderate.

Their consternation reminded me of my dismay at Donald Trump’s 2016 success in the Republican Party. How could someone representing a minority of a minority suddenly become President? I thought of myself as a typical free-market, small-government, peace-through-strength Reagan Republican. Long-time Democrat Trump, with his anti-immigrant, pro-tariff positions, didn’t sound like Ronald Reagan. I voted for the libertarian ticket.

Running against one of the world’s most unpopular candidates, Hillary Clinton, Trump became President. Neither candidate had the support of even half of the American people. I sensed that a majority of the country was like me —deeply dissatisfied with the choices offered by our major parties. This lack of choice led me to begin my series on a “Future Party.”

The original idea was to establish a new party for independents and disaffected Democrats and Republicans to find a home. Independents could be comfortable not being subservient to any particular ideology. This vision led me to a brief and inconsequential association with Starbucks founder Howard Schultz’s short-lived third-party movement.

Instead of charting a course based on superior policies to those of either the Democrats or the Republicans, Schultz withdrew, fearing he would help Donald Trump by splitting the Democratic vote. We had just submitted ideas when he dropped out. Instead of staking out policies that appealed to everyone because they were better, he revealed where his heart truly resided.

Before the last election, former West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin failed to launch a third-party run on the same basis. Fear of aiding Trump dominated his thinking rather than a belief that he had a better path for America. That’s because he, like Schultz, didn’t have one.

In both instances, neither Schultz nor Manchin had anything more to offer than the promise to work across the aisle for workable compromises. In the “Future Party Series,” I concluded that for a third party to succeed, it must stand for something and make every effort to sell it.

The one successful third party, the Republicans, weren’t deterred by splitting the anti-Democratic vote in 1854. They knew what they stood for; they were against slavery. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected the 16th President of the United States. The Whig Party disappeared.

People on both sides will come together on what they agree on, regardless of their existing party. A case in point is the opposition to Trump’s expansive tariff policy. Twelve Democratic state attorneys general joined forces with the libertarian free-market Liberty Justice League to bring suit against the Administration’s tariffs. Briefs supporting their case have been filed from across the spectrum, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the Brennan Law Center.

Continue reading →