donald-trump

Trumpland

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

President Trump has loudly demanded ownership of Greenland as a matter of crucial national defence. Highlighting Greenland’s role in Arctic trade routes and national defense, he drew a dire picture.

Our U.N. ambassador, Mike Waltz, made the administration’s case on several TV shows by claiming that, in the event of problems in the Arctic, the Island doesn’t even have an icebreaker—no wonder they need us.

To understand the situation, we need to know why the Arctic is becoming so important. This map should help:

With warming temperatures, two significant new trade routes are emerging. The Northern Sea Route, which mainly runs through Russian waters, and the Northwest Passage, which runs by Greenland, Canada, and the U.S. (Alaska). As I pointed out in my post, “What’s Trump Thinking,” The Former is of the utmost importance to China. A shorter route to Europe, accessible to Russian resources, is the future. That’s why China isn’t about to allow Russia to change alliances without a painful response.

The search for a Northwest Passage dates back centuries, driven by obvious commercial advantages. Now it’s happening. As with any critical trade route, it needs protection. It’s still the Arctic, so commercial and military vessels will need icebreaker support. As NATO allies, Denmark, Canada, and the U.S. should have no problem establishing bases and patrols as required.

Of course, Ambassador Waltz is correct in highlighting the need for Icebreakers. Still, you can’t look to the U.S. We have two or three ancient icebreakers that may or may not be available in a time of need. We’ve ordered a couple from Finland, hopefully for delivery in 2028. Presently, the Northwest Passage depends on Canada’s 18 capable ships, with even more modern ones on the way. With the increasing importance of icebreakers, note that Denmark has more than the U.S.:

With the safety of the Northwest Passage more dependent on Canada than the U.S., let’s look at Trump’s other military arguments for U.S. ownership of Greenland. We need the Island for the Golden Dome defence system, but that’s just an upgrade to the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), which includes bases across the frozen north of the U.S., Canada, and Greenland.

Continue reading →

Trump: Inept Colonialist?

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Shades of the British in India, we depose a Leader favorable to our enemies, leaving the existing government compliant to our rule. Trump seized and deposed Venezuela’s leader and set up a colonial relationship with the remainder of his government.

Facing an overwhelming force, those in charge of the nation surrendered control of their primary asset, oil, to the U.S. We will take the oil and market it. Whatever amount we decide to share with Venezuela must be used to purchase U.S.-made goods.

These terms sound like our colonial relationship with King George’s Britain. Control of our trade lay with the mother country. We could only buy from British manufacturers. Our Declaration of Independence leaves no doubt about what we thought of the situation. Now, Trump has taken on George III’s mantle.

At least past colonial Empires went after places that produced stuff that didn’t compete with their home products. Tobacco, indigo, sugar, and tea didn’t grow in Britain or France. These mercantilist nations made money by selling colonial produce and by monopolizing the sale of manufactured goods to their colonies.

Isn’t someone in the present administration aware that the U.S. is the world’s top oil producer? It’s as if, when England was the largest wool exporter, it deposed a foreign leader to expand his nation’s wool production. One could see eliminating a competitor, but Trump only talks about rapidly expanding Venezuela’s output. Even crazy George III could see the flaws in this policy.

Continue reading →

Hopes Dashed in ’25

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

A year ago, I was still befuddled by the Democrats having secured the Republican Presidential nomination for the weakest candidate, Donald Trump, by burying him in bogus lawsuits. That made him a sympathetic figure to many and sucking all the media attention away from his competition. Democrats nominated the only person who could manage to lose big. While pondering this turn of events, I had to come to terms with the fact that Trump was back.

As I pointed out at the time, the outlook could be very positive. After all, Trump’s first term employed supply-side economics to cut taxes on capital and work to reduce onerous regulations. These actions have led to solid pre-COVID growth. Increasing supply is the best way to tackle the high inflation engendered by the Biden administration’s heavy spending. A government-directed economy was shoveling vast sums into the fight against “climate change.” Covid relief swallowed more billions.

Daming the river of wild spending to reduce demand growth, while pumping up supply, worked for Reagan in subduing double-digit inflation and promised to work for Trump. Sure, Trump had added some things to his campaign, such as no tax on tips, overtime, and Social Security, which are not supply-side, but on balance, things looked to be improving on the economic front.

After Trump’s peaceful first term, the war in Ukraine and in the Middle East raged under Biden after his disastrous Afghan withdrawal. In the campaign, Trump promised to bring peace quickly to both areas.

Millions of illegal aliens streamed across our southern border, with the Biden administration just throwing up its hands. Americans know they need immigrants, but not in this way. Trump promised to get control of the border.

The Trump Administration has taken action in all three areas, but it’s unpopular:

The question is why? While other essential problem areas, such as education and healthcare, exist, these three are most directly under the president’s control. The states dominate education, and neither party has a handle on reasonably priced healthcare.

While Trump, in his first term, imposed tariffs on a few products, such as steel and aluminum, and forced a revision of the NAFTA trade treaty with Canada and Mexico, the administration granted many tariff exemptions, and the new treaty had only minor changes. This time around, Trump has wielded tariffs like a club, hitting everyone in the room.

One thing we know about tariffs is that they don’t lower prices—quite the opposite. Claiming crisis conditions and national security, Trump last spring imposed the highest tariffs on imports since the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariffs—coffee from Brazil and chocolates from Switzerland were deemed existential threats.

Continue reading →

A Tale Of Two Assessments

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

On foreign policy and national security, we were recently treated to two assessments that provide guidance on the underlying foundations of the administration’s policy and American attitudes in these areas. The National Security Strategy(NSS) was issued in November 2025 by the Trump administration. At the recent gathering of many of the country’s best minds on foreign policy at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, the Reagan National Defense Survey was widely discussed.

Karl Rove, in the Wall Street Journal, points out that many of the government’s positions are in stark opposition to the attitudes of the American Public.  For instance, our policy towards Europe. In Ukraine, the Reagans Survey found, “A strong majority (62%) want Ukraine to prevail in its war with Russia, and 64% support sending U.S. weapons, up  9 points from last year, with bipartisan gains (59% of Republicans, 75% of Democrats).”  “Favorability toward NATO has reached its highest level ever at 68%, with strong bipartisan support for Article V commitments.”

The NSS says, “as a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine, European relations with Russia are now deeply attenuated, and many Europeans regard Russia as an existential threat.” The American public agrees that Russia is a threat. We want Ukraine to prevail.

Reading both, you get a sense that Americans still want to stand by our friends, especially those who share our values. On the other hand, the administration’s NSS takes a harder line with our longtime friends and allies than with Russia and China. One can’t help but wonder if down the road we might find ourselves without any friends.

We’ve seen Japan and South Korea hammered and forced to make U.S. investment commitments while facing higher tariffs. Our friendly neighbor, Canada, has incurred Trump’s ire, even though he updated the NAFTA trade treaty with Mexico and Canada in his first term.

Continue reading →

A Discussion Starter

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Gathering in Atlanta for Thanksgiving, no one ventured anything along political lines until our son’s 86-year-old mother-in-law asked everyone what they thought of Majorie Taylor Green (MTG), the controversial Georgia Republican representative. Everyone chimed in. She is everyone’s hero for standing up to President Trump, including the family Democrats. She’s even on the left-wing “The Week” magazine, contesting Trump:

This reaction shows far-out positions race across media at the speed of light, while we shun actual policy discussions. Name the first twenty politicians you think of. Sure, you’ll include Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the Clintons and Obamas.

Still, beyond them, you’re likely to name the likes of Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, A.O.C., Zohran Mamdani, Jasmine Crockett, Pete Hegseth, Sean Duffy, and J.D. Vance. What do they all have in common? They’re all media savvy. It may not be too strong to say that the media brought them to their present prominence.

While we are well aware of these people, none of us associates them with any deep, well-reasoned policy positions. To be sure, they have policies, free buses, little or no immigration, high tariffs, and price controls, but none of them provides a well-reasoned defense of their positions, leaving the tasks to others. Think tanks and media outlets are left to make their positions seem coherent.

Contrast that with Reagan’s radio talks, spelling out and selling his policies. Clinton and Carter were policy wonks.

Continue reading →