news

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 →

Demand Answers

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, The Middle East, Uncategorized , , , ,

You see an accident about to happen, but no matter how loud you yell, no one hears. Or maybe no one was listening. Even before the US and Israel started their attack on Iran, some foresaw the need for friends on the ground in that nation. Some suggested the Kurds as a good bet for establishing a safe area in Iran to organize, train, and equip the resistance. If others had a better idea for the armed overthrow of the ruling Regime, that’s fine, but without this basic strategy, just bombing would fail.

Once the attack unfolded, we had nothing-zilch on the ground. Worse, we were unprepared to counter the likely Iranian response—no adequate defense against the Regime’s large stock of rockets, and especially drones. When Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, likely with mines, we had no minesweepers. To top things off, we went through so much of our very expensive ordinance that we may run out.

The next thing we knew, we had a ceasefire that left us short of all our objectives. We needed real regime change to have an Iranian government we could trust not to develop nuclear weapons, and the rockets to deliver them. No more pawns such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis terrorize our area friends, especially Israel.

Now we have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that has opened the Strait but also removes our counter-blockade. This situation puts us back to before the attack, but illuminates our failure to achieve any of our objectives. We’ll talk about Iran’s nuclear program over the next two months. Trump has conceded any restraint on ballistic missiles. If Iran behaves, we’ll return the money we seized and set up a $300 billion “reconstruction fund ” paid for by our Gulf friends.

With the opening of the Strait, oil money flows to Iran without sanctions. These funds will feed its terrorist network to threaten Israel and its neighbors, while it strengthens the Regime—the MOU depends on the end of hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel. Not part of the negotiations, Israel is still under pressure to abide by it. Yet it needs a buffer in Lebanon to protect its northern areas from constant attack:

While the US and especially Israel have gained nothing so far, Iran shows its dominance over the Strait, its ability to hit not only its neighbors, but targets as far away as Europe, money will increasingly flow into its coffers to finance its pawns, and drive a visible wedge between the US and Israel, while doing nothing on Iran’s nuclear program. This situation goes a long way toward Iranian regional hegemony. Any reasonable person would conclude Iran is coming out on top.

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 →

Making Things Worse

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Maybe you might feel the same way. It’s as if the Trump administration looks at things and asks, ‘ How can I make things worse? Take our problem with Iran. Israel had hammered Hamas, Hezbollah, and most importantly, Iran, to a point where they could offer little resistance from air strikes. The U.S. joined in by bombing and burying Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Mismanagement by the ruling regime led to water shortages and galloping inflation.

The Iranian people had it. All we needed to do was to find a way to create some space in Iran where they could arm, train, and organize. Once established, the regime is on the horns of a dilemma. Put their most loyal troops out where airpower can disseminate them, or hold back, allowing the revolution to grow.

With restive minorities and an army overshadowed by the Revolutionary Guard, coupled with Israeli contacts on the ground in Iran, with some planning, the regime is ripe for overthrow. Done right, we control the timing of the regime’s demise. Involved in an existential civil war, the last thing they’d want to do is use their limited military resources to attack other nations or international shipping.

What we got is a massive bombing attack on Iran’s military and nuclear facilities by a vast armada, Israel’s air force, and other resources, combined with decapitating the regime’s leadership.

Rather than surrendering, Iran struck back at our military installations and our allies’ infrastructure, mainly by massing drones. These were followed by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, destabilizing the world’s economy.

Our response has been a “ceasefire” and a blockade of Iran, further restricting the movement of oil, gas, fertilizer, and other goods, worsening the world’s problems.

The Iranian people, the ones we should be helping, are far worse off. With less of everything, runaway inflation is making people poorer than ever. The regime continues to hang the opposition. We never gave them anything needed to fight back, and they’re paying a steep price that only looks to get worse.

Somehow, we’ve managed to make everything much worse.

The American people elected Donald Trump to another term in hopes of returning to the strong economy of his first term, based on growth-friendly tax policies and reduced regulation. Increasing supply to defeat Biden’s high inflation.

Continue reading →

Watershed Week

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

A watershed moment for Donald Trump’s second term, that’s what we may say in retrospect of this past week. Donald Trump’s two significant undertakings this time around, the Iran war and massive tariffs, are floundering. The war stalemate appears to only lead to pain for those we supposedly set out to help. The non-regime people of Iran, Israel, and our Gulf allies would benefit from the removal of the religious fanatics making existential threats far and wide. Instead, we’re dealing with a regime apparently more fanatical than the one featuring those we killed.

So long as both sides greatly restrict shipping through the Straits of Hormuz, neither the Gulf States nor Iran can export Oil, natural gas, or fertilizer, or receive needed imports. The pain is spreading to energy and fertilizer importers worldwide. U.S. farmers are already complaining about the lack of affordable fertilizer. Airlines from Europe to Australia are warning about an impending jet fuel shortage.

This situation couldn’t be what the Trump administration foresaw when they, along with Israel, undertook the latest attack on Iran. Their goals are still unclear. As I’ve pointed out, without a clear objective and a strategy to gain it, an unfocused, poorly planned effort, even if backed by massive forces, can fail.

Putin’s Ukraine invasion should’ve been a cautionary tale. In both wars, the attackers failed to appreciate their opponents’ ability to resist and anticipate possible reactions. The nimble and imaginative Ukrainians smashed the ponderous Russian columns. Years later, the stalemate continues. Of course, Donald Trump has called Putin a “Genius.”

It boggles the mind to think our leaders were unaware of the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz and the ability of Iranian drones, anti-ship rockets, mines, and small, swift boats to close it. Yet, here we are.

Both sides claim the stalemate favors them. Only one can be right. The U.S. believes its blockade will severely cripple Iran’s economy. No oil going out or goods coming in will cause oil fields to shut down and shortages of everything.

Continue reading →