news

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 →

A Timely Address

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas delivered an important address at the University of Texas and, in light of Progressivism becoming the face of the Democratic Party, a needed contrast with the Declaration of Independence. Not only are there more progressives running as Democrats, but supposedly moderate Democrats such as Joe Biden and newly elected Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger run as moderates, yet once in office, govern as committed Progressives.

Even the Republicans exhibit progressive tendencies. Using tariffs to restructure not only the U.S. economy but the whole world’s trading system is classic top-down industrial policy. The government taking an interest in certain companies isn’t free enterprise.

Justice Thomas paints a picture of how the Declaration holds that we are endowed with rights by our maker rather than whatever elite government “experts” deem to grant us. To the Progressive, our founding documents pertain to a bygone era and are irrelevant in the modern world. The Declaration and Constitution are quaint, but ill-suited to tackle today’s problems, such as Climate Change. They only impede necessary progress.

Thomas shows us the facts point in the other direction. Limited government with protections of person and property, even if they conflict with a government seeking the “greater good,” hasn’t ushered in the great wars and famines killing millions that top-down governments have spawned. Instead, they have fostered free markets to allocate resources more effectively, spurring innovation and enabling far more people to live longer, better lives.

Our 250th birthday is a good time to compare the route offered by what Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Gordon S. Wood termed the “Most Radical Revolution in History” with the progressive, top-down path. Before the American Revolution, dictates flowed from the top downward, while obligations moved only upward almost everywhere in the world.

Continue reading →

Anatomy of a Failure

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

We’ve ceased our offense against Iran, while the same Regime controls the vital Strait of Hormuz. Our Gulf allies are increasingly at the mercy of this ruthless gang. Israel is off bombing Hezbollah in Lebanon, trying to salvage something from this fiasco. Our other allies in Europe and Asia wonder why they’re suffering from this mess when nobody asked them. Yet the Trump administration expects them to clean it up.

How did the most powerful nation on earth end up behind the eight-ball? By breaking every rule for success. Presumably, we had an objective. We had already bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities, putting that program back, maybe for years. We controlled the skies over that nation. Having already mowed their capabilities, there is no need to mow again now.

\What was present was an Iran in dire straits. Sanctions, mismanagement of water resources, and the economy had sparked mass protests. The vast majority of Iranians demanded change. Other than those directly benefiting from the Regime, support evaporated. The Mullahs had never been in a weaker position. What was here was the chance to free the people to form a government that didn’t threaten their neighbors.

The Trump administration took notice. The President told the Iranian protesters we had their back. No question what our goal was, toppling the Regime. We started sending our forces to the area. The head Mullah and many of the key players in his government were killed from the air.

In the meantime, the Iranian government slaughtered in excess of 40,000 protesters. The streets went quiet. This result shouldn’t surprise anyone. We’ve seen this movie many times before. Ruthless dictatorial governments use their monopoly of weapons to trounce unarmed protestors. No matter how bad the government is, it stays in power because nobody can shoot back. Cubans have lived at the subsistence level for decades. Does it even have an economy? Still, the communists persist.

Oil-rich Venezuela has followed the same path. When faced with losing power, there is no limit to the pain the absolute rulers will inflict on their defenseless citizenry. The picture of an unarmed Tiananmen Square protester standing in front of massive tanks illustrates the imbalance.

The only successful revolutions in history took place where armed people existed from the start, or military units refused to fire on the people, and changed sides. Imagine how poorly our forefathers would’ve fared if only the redcoats had arms. Instead, we turned them back at Lexington and Concord. To have a “shot heard round the world, ” you have to have a gun. The minutemen had guns and knew how to use them. The rest is history.

Other revolutions, such as the French and Russian, saw military units refuse to fire on the people and turn against their rulers. No matter how great the air superiority, only armed resistance on the ground can drive out the despots.

Continue reading →