There Is A Great Deal of Ruin In A Nation

Adam Smith argued, “There is a Great Deal of Ruin in a Nation,” acknowledging that our political leaders must do a lot of bungling to bring down a powerful and prosperous country. Given the administrations we’ve had since the turn of the century, I wonder if we are about to find out just how much ruin we can take before the fall.

Rather than following his father’s example, George W. Bush invaded and conquered Iraq. After crushing Iraq’s military in Kuwait, George H.W. Bush refused to invade that nation to get rid of Saddam Hussain. The elder Bush realized this would upset the balance of power in the Mideast. Getting rid of one bloodthirsty leader would only empower the murderous mullahs in Iran at a significant cost to us. The younger Bush went ahead anyway with dire results.

Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, so why focus our efforts on him? Afghanistan harbored the organization carrying out the attacks, which needed our attention so it wouldn’t happen again.

On the domestic front, the younger Bush administration was asleep at the switch while the housing crisis brought us the “Great Recession.” Others warned that the combination of cheap money and sub-par lending is combustible, but the powers ignored the signs.

Continue reading

These Bubbles Need to Be Popped

Prompted by my belief that radical elements in each increasingly control the two established parties, I posted the series on the “Future Party.” (It is Available on this site.) I worried this situation would lead to wild policy swings whenever we change presidents. Unfortunately, this has been the case from Obama to Trump. Bolstered by initial control of both houses of Congress, each president pursued policies opposite their immediate predecessor.

One only has to look at our border migrant policies. Trump tightened Obama’s, only to find Biden reversed course on his first day. Trump’s return reversed Biden on his first day. This whiplash is also evident in foreign, domestic, and economic policies.

In the past, people could count on continuity. Businesses could commit to multi-year plans. Friends and allies knew they could count on us instead of watching their backs. If there were problems, we could hash things out before radical change.

That’s all in the past. Where the far ends of each party differ, they are often direct opposites. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party backs its climate change convictions with billions of dollars for windmills, solar, and electric vehicles (EVs), which are anathema to the Republican right. They look to oil and gas to continue to power the world. To that end, they’ve encouraged vast liquefied Gas Terminals. This situation leaves anyone with significant power needs with a damned if you do, damned if you don’t headache.

Now, Donald Trump has escalated this uncertainty. He has reversed Biden’s energy policies and added supply chain anxiety with constantly changing tariff policies.

Continue reading

Almost Over

We’re approaching the end of the strangest election season of my lifetime, and I’ve been around a long time. The majority of Americans would never pick either of the presidential candidates. One of which they never even had a chance to express themselves. One bad debate and the powers in the Democratic Party dumped a sitting president and appointed a new candidate. Why spend all that money and time on primaries, when you can just anoint someone who never won a single primary vote?

The other candidate won the nomination because the Democrats kept him in the limelight with constant lawfare. The cases were so bad they made Trump an object of Republisn sympathy, while preventing others having any space. As I have pointed out, the Democrats picked their opposition.

Instead of a thorough discussion of all our pressing problems, we get superficial jabs about the border, the economy, and abortion. Wars abroad continue to expand, a budgetary meltdown gets closer, and our kids fall further behind without any plans offered by the candidates.

Continue reading

Some Thoughts Two Weeks Out

Other than a chance to blame Donald Trump for anything negative in the past decade, Kamala Harris’ appearance on Fox News with Brett Baier brought home how difficult it is to be a former Republican endorsing her. She has always been on the far left of her party. One has only to look at her stands running in 2019 for verification. Harris is right at home because the Biden administration is the most progressive in recent history. Given several chances to distance herself from Biden in several venues, including Brett Baier, she hasn’t found anything substantial where she differed from her boss.

You may detest Donald Trump, the person, or feel he is not your type of conservative, and I can see where you are coming from. I, too, have been critical of Trump, as readers are well aware. If you find the former president abhorrent, don’t vote for him.

What I don’t understand is why you crossed over to the Progressive side. You can’t be much of a Reagan conservative if you support one of the most progressive, if not the most progressive major party presidential candidate ever.

Continue reading

Three Story Lines Revisited

It was a busy week with significant developments. Three of them fall in areas I’ve commented on in the past. It’s crucial to compare where we are with what I wrote on the third parties, the Gaza war, and abortion, as these past commentaries hold significant relevance to our current situation.

In my series, ‘The Future Party” (On this Site), I stressed the pressing need for a more competitive political landscape. We must enhance our choices at all levels. Recent presidential elections have presented us with candidates most Americans didn’t want to vote for. The current election, featuring two widely unpopular candidates, is a stark reminder of this issue. The ‘No Labels Party,’ which pledged to offer more options, should’ve thrived in this climate. While it has made progress in securing spots on state ballots, they’re facing a lot of work getting candidates. 

In my series, ‘The Future Party,” I concluded that you can’t defeat someone without one and must stand for something. I based my brief involvement with the emerging Howard Shultz third-party campaign on crafting a platform for the Starbucks founder to champion. However, no such platform materialized, and Shultz withdrew when it appeared he could potentially harm the Democrats, thereby inadvertently supporting the re-election of the Republican incumbent. This excuse is a stark reminder that new voices must have substance and conviction to make a lasting impact.

Continue reading