history

Crisis-Real or Not

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

In my last post, I noted that the Democrats offered the same false diagnoses, leading them to propose policies that have failed in the past. Shortly after publishing, I learned of Paul Ehrlich’s passing. The Stanford biologist’s life encapsulates how misinformation underlies progressivism. Worse, these mostly highly educated people are aware of these falsehoods, but they work very hard to avoid the truth.

Paul Ehrlich may not be well known among today’s youth, but they may be contending with his effect. His book, “The Population Bomb,” written with his wife and published in 1968, sold millions of copies. The Author was a fixture on The Late Show.” Exposed to his frightening predictions of mass famine and the collapse of overpopulated societies, people worldwide changed their behavior, and some nations even adopted policies to restrict population growth.

Some found the idea of parenthood selfish and a threat to the planet. Many skipped the adventure of parenthood. As a result, many never became grandparents, and we have fewer cousins. Beyond individual decisions, some nations took stringent measures to curb population growth.

On the surface, his thesis seems plausible. If humans were allowed to breed like rabbits, they would soon outrun the planet’s ability to provide food and resources. The only possible outcome is a massive die-off.

This theory isn’t new. In 1798, Thomas Malthus observed that humans reproduced geometrically, while food resources grew only arithmetically, setting up a trap that could only lead to dire circumstances—his outwardly logical theory occurred during the Age of Reason and the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution.

Continue reading →

Twins In The Twin Cities

Dave Davis Uncategorized , , , ,

Donald Trump won the 2024 election on his promise to stop the mass migration across our southern Border. High-profile crimes highlighted that many bad people were among those entering the country. Stopping the flood and removing the bad actors from our country is a big part of Trump’s mandate. The Administration secured the Southern Border and then began rounding up bad actors.

In most places, especially in red states, local authorities worked with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to remove those they apprehended. So far, so good. However, the scope of the deportations expanded significantly. A presidential advisor was said to demand 3,000 deportations a day. The short-order cook, or the dry-waller, who had been here for years without problems, suddenly became a target.

Not prepared for this wide net, we didn’t want to see our neighbors, employees, and people we depend on taken away. Fear spread. We wanted the bad people out, but not our neighbors with clean records.

Many places claimed Sanctuary City status and refused to work with federal authorities, even to get rid of criminals. Letting them back out on the street, rather than deporting them, is a questionable stance, but the deporting of law-abiding, but illegal migrants, changed perceptions. A Trump underwater issue, the expansion appalled most Americans.

At a time when the U.S. is facing declining population growth, this is terrible timing to kick out millions of working taxpayers. Regardless of the initial costs, most who have been here for years are now positive additions. We’ve educated many dreamers who were brought here as children by their parents. Why kick them out when they’re now paying off? Why adopt such an unpopular position? Whatever the initial costs, the security net, and education expenses are in the past, and the payoff is now and into the future. This action is bad. policy. Americans favor immigration:

So why has the Administration taken this tactic? It’s playing to its anti-immigration base. Presidential advisor Steven Miller is the voice of this base, with media support from the likes of Tucker Carlson, Laura Loomer, and Steve Bannon. Crossing the base can doom a political career. The committed turnout in primaries puts anyone who disagrees with them in a challenging position, allowing this faction to punch well above its weight. The result is a political Party saddled with a bad, unpopular policy.

Continue reading →

The Pursuit Of Happiness

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

While waiting for the long-overdue Supreme Court Tariff ruling, I’ve had time to reflect on why so many Americans have either a dim view or little knowledge of our capitalist economic system. How can a simple, common-sense system be misunderstood by so many?

I’ve been reading Zhang Weiying’s “The Logic of the Market: An Insider’s View of Chinese Economic Reform” to better understand how the Chinese economy compares to our own. Most economists talk in jargon, but the Author explains capitalism in terms of happiness rather than marginal returns and GDP.

In capitalism, people engage in consensual exchange. Consumers and suppliers freely exchange a wide range of goods. As each gets what they asked for, both are happy. You go to the supermarket, you get what you want, and the store gets paid. Both of you win.

However, if goods or cash change hands with only one party happy and the other sad, it’s robbery. Think about that. Someone points a gun at you, demanding your stuff. The thief is happy, but you’re really sad. The point of human interaction is shared satisfaction, rather than gloom.

The gauging of happiness and sadness in society to determine whether an action is successful or just a thief. can be applied to both governance and economics. Most commercial transactions in free-market economies result in happiness for all the participants. You go to Costco, get a hot dog, and fill your cart with goods you value. At checkout, both you and Costco are happy.

Continue reading →

Getting It Right At 250

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

We always get to see numerous replays of the New Year’s Eve Times Square Ball drop, but this year was different. Instead of the Ball staying grounded, it went right back up, proclaiming the U.S.’s impending 250th birthday, to drop again on July 3. This coming event can’t help but shine a bright light on one of history’s most extraordinary groups-our founding fathers.

Sadly, the people with the loudest megaphones on both the right and the left have chosen to present a distorted view of these remarkable people. The New York Times’ much-debunked 1619 Project portrayed the Founding Fathers as pro-slavery and the Revolution fought to preserve it. While historians and economists pointed out the project’s numerous errors, it lives on in progressive circles along with the nonsensical idea “Slavery is America’s original sin.”

The only thing original about slavery in colonial America was the Quakers, along with their co-religionists in England, calling for the abolition of the eons-old practice. Before Quakers, no religion, not the Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or any other religion considered slavery a sin. From the Quakers’ shared spaces with other congregationalist Protestants, the idea that slavery is an abomination spread. Slavery was hardly original here, but the abolitionist cause was.

In a world of hereditary caste systems, with people as chattels at the bottom, whether we called them slaves, serfs, coolies, or untouchables, their lives were controlled by those above them. Challenging this system was genuinely original.

It is telling that for all his achievements, Ben Franklin could never sit in the House of Lords. No wonder self-made Americans weren’t keen on the British class system.

It is, therefore, discouraging to see what many consider the beginning of the impending birthday celebration: Ken Burns’ six-part PBS series “The American Revolution” repeats the popular messaging in progressive circles that the founding fathers were pro-slavery.

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 →