Turkeys before Thanksgiving

As we approach the Holidays and the New Year, our leaders are in a full retreat from reality. This situation doesn’t bode well for our future. As I pointed out in my last post, Democrats only offer bromides featuring price controls and socialism that have proven to make matters even worse. However, they’re not in control of anything at the national level, and can only throw temper tantrums like the lengthy Government we just experienced. For all the problems it caused, it changed nothing.

Our Republican President is another story. With control of the executive branch, both houses of Congress, and a conservative Supreme Court majority, he sets the agenda. If the recent elections weren’t enough of a wakeup call, Trump’s continued decline in approval indicates that the public isn’t buying what he’s selling:

The 2024 Democratic election debacle, in part, was traced to taking too many 80-20 positions, such as biological boys playing women’s sports, with them holding the short end. Now, Trump takes minority positions, but doesn’t seem to realize it. Trump’s inability to see the big picture may not only leave him an impotent lame duck but also threaten the future of the Republican Party by alienating core supporters and moderates alike.

Failing to speak against some of his most ardent “New right” supporters, who claim there is nothing wrong with the likes of Tucker Carlson normalizing the anti-Semite Nick Fuentes on his podcast. I’ve denounced left-wing anti-semitism, and right-wing bigotry is no less odious. There is nothing inclusive about “white supremacy” and “Christian Nationalism.”

Trump’s inexplicable deference to Putin’s Russia took an even darker turn this week, with an ultimatum to Ukraine that they must accept his 28-point peace plan by Thanksgiving. A plan that asks nothing of Russia, but demands Ukraine give up strategic land and cap its military strength, while forgoing NATO membership forever. In other words, a rolling surrender.  

Continue reading

Gone With The Whigs

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

A Heads Up For Trump

The Washington Post reports that President Trump is considering attending the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in the tariff cases scheduled for November 5. It’s hard to see this threat as anything other than an attempt at intimidation. No president ever did this. Something about this executive branch’s effort to menace another branch made me think of another leader’s actions along these lines against another coequal branch of government.

At loggerheads with Parliament over its refusal to fund his endeavors, Charles I of the U.K. raised money through forced loans in defiance of that body and even threatened it. He entered Parliament with soldiers in an attempt to arrest some members. The idea was to wrest the Power of the purse — Parliament’s basic Power — from that body. The result was the English Civil War, where Parliament prevailed. Charles didn’t fare so well:

With the Power of the purse firmly embedded in the legislative branch, the principle migrated to the English colonies, where the Crown appointed the Governors. Still, the colonists elected the legislature that controlled funding. It’s no surprise that the legislative Power of the purse appears in the very first article of our Constitution.

Trump vs. V.O.S Selections —the official case name —is the most important separation-of-powers case since Truman seized the steel mills. To my mind, Trump’s tariffs are so expansive that they dwarf Truman’s action. Suppose a President can proclaim an emergency, which he can solely define, and usurp a revenue source expressly delegated to the legislative branch. In that case, the executive can neuter that branch and destroy our foundational system of checks and balances.

Continue reading

Getting Immigration Right

Immigration is a continuing flash point in America, but we rarely look at the facts and data. Emotions have led to deadlock on one of our most important policy questions. Let’s start with what we know:

The more we deport migrants, the sooner we will experience negative population growth. A glance at our social programs reveals the disastrous consequences of this path. Social Security will have to cut benefits by 2033 as things presently stand. With even fewer people supporting our retirees, the system collapses. We’ll need more people to fill jobs in an expanding economy.

Once we understand that our future depends on a growing population, the only question is how to achieve it. More births would be beneficial, but no one has yet found a way to increase births in advanced economies. That leaves immigration. However, this conclusion doesn’t mean throwing the borders open and taking in all comers. Done correctly, immigration can be a win-win proposition.

There are approximately 400,000 to 500,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs in the U.S. as of mid-2025. More than 1 million skilled trades jobs are unfilled, a figure expected to continue growing. The cybersecurity sector is projected to have 3.5 million unfilled positions in 2025. The nursing profession faces significant projected shortages, with approximately 1 million openings predicted for the decade of 2022-2032. These figures inform us that we need more skilled workers.  

Instead of the confusing and ineffective visa programs for skilled workers we have presently, I propose that anyone with skills worldwide can register for clearance. Once approved, authorized individuals can receive a visa at any time in the future.

Continue reading

A Tale Of Two Books

Elon Musk says our two major parties have turned him off; he’s starting the “American Party.” Musk isn’t the only person uncomfortable with the direction offered by the two parties. The Democrats seem to cling to small minority positions, the majority abhors, such as biological males in women’s sports, and open borders. A Republican president playing footsy with organized labor and imposing industrial policy through tariffs. These used to be Democratic policies.

It’s not surprising that long-term adherents to either party are dismayed. Recently, I began to understand what was going on, thanks to two books., “Abundance,” by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, and “The New Conservatives,” edited by Oren Cass. In a post last April, I noted, “Abundance” is weak tea, heavy on lamentations about how nothing ever gets built or finished. We’ve all seen this in action, or more realistically, inaction. What I found lacking is solutions.

The authors decry California’s high-speed rail boondoggle, but fail to mention that Florida already connects major cities with its non-government high-speed rail. It’s not profitable, but it’s running and rapidly growing. Completed green power projects are more abundant in red states. Houston has affordable housing, California doesn’t.

While the U.S. as a whole suffers from excessive regulation, some individuals have found ways to accomplish their goals. Instead of merely pointing out the overregulation, the authors needed to demonstrate how to mitigate the problem, providing examples of success, even if they’re in Red States.

I was surprised to read E.J. Dionne’s critique of the book in The Washington Post. Long featured on the left of the center media, such as MSNBC, he’s a longtime window into the progressive intelligentsia’s thinking. In his words, this mild book” has “the potential to divide the party.” What, a book that ends in the aspiration for “a liberalism that builds.” What a shocking idea.

Continue reading