news

Justice Delayed

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Continuing the discussion of how the government can provide the structure for the beneficial interactions of its citizens. One of the significant differences between the government and the private sector is the sense of time. The latter values it, and it’s primary to any planning. The incentives in the public sector are often the reverse. The more time it takes, the more secure their jobs and funding. We need to pinpoint where this attitude impedes commerce and people’s lives, and find ways to get the government on board, whether it likes it or not.

In my last post, I showed how vital a fair legal system is to capitalism and a properly functioning economy. It’s alarming, then, that our court system is a major culprit in preventing us from reaching our potential. Operating at a glacial pace, our courts seem little changed from the 16th-century British courts, except we don’t don wigs.

William E. Gladstone popularized the truism, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” A widely accepted principle, but often ignored in practice, it’s also costly. The current lawsuit, V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, illustrates just how expensive the Administration’s tariffs are. Filed shortly after Trump announced “Liberation Day” tariffs on April 2, 2025, the Court of International Trade blocked their implementation on May 28 on grounds that the President exceeded his powers—a timely decision based on seemingly strong grounds, rendered before significant harm.

Given the extent of the damage that improperly levied tariffs would do if left in place, it would seem to a layperson that blocking their implementation until finally adjudicated is sensible.

Continue reading →

Third Party Message For Elon Musk

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Stopping Inflation, Uncategorized , , , ,

Here we go again. A billionaire suddenly discovers our two-party system is dysfunctional. Instead of serving the desires of most Americans, each party reflects its extremes. This time it’s Elon Musk. It brought back memories of my association with Starbucks founder Howard Schultz’s brief Third-Party campaign. That campaign asked for people with fresh ideas to submit them.

At the time, I was creating my Future Party series. I concluded that any new party has to stand for something or a set of things. Just being against the other guys won’t work. Rather than dealing with personalities, people unhappy with the current two parties need to unite around common goals. The Republicans opposed the spread of slavery when the Democrats and Whigs equivocated.

I communicated this conclusion, along with a link to Dave’s Healthcare Plan, on this site. After all, it isn’t right to pontificate without contributing to a solution. To my surprise, the campaign asked me to join an “outside the box”ideas group. Someone there liked the Plan, and I will hear the details shortly.

What I heard next was that Howard Shultz was dropping his third-party crusade. I received an email stating that the idea group wanted to continue, but there was no further correspondence.  

I often wondered what would’ve happened if, instead of the “Third Way” pablum Schultz spouted, he had put forth bold ideas to solve real problems, rather than being perceived as just a spoiler. Dave’s Plan offers completely portable, universal healthcare and retirement benefits. It utilizes the money and structures we already have in place. It might’ve provoked discussion and attention. It’s not Democrat or Republican, just a comprehensive answer to big problems.

Continue reading →

A Tale Of Two Books

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

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 →

Minority Positions Won’t Win

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

We finally bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities. Without opposition, the Israelis and then the U.S. hit the major sites. At this point, we don’t know the extent of the damage. An earlier leaked assessment said it might have only set the program back for a few months, while others have said it had done such damage that Iran will need years to get back on track. Without people on the ground, a definitive answer is impossible, but if and when Israel goes in again, it will tell us what the nation at existential risk has determined.

A decade ago, I proposed bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. If they revive the program, we should strike back. Living in a real version of the Myth of Sisyphus, the Mullahs would eventually tire of pushing the boulder up the mountain, only to start again. So long as Israel controls the skies over Iran, follow-up attacks will take place as needed. It was a good plan then, and it remains so now.

Stopping religious fanatics from possessing weapons of mass destruction removes a grave threat not only to Israel but also from Iran’s long-range missile development to everyone else on Earth. If we denied North Korea and Pakistan nuclear weapons, we’d all sleep better. Iran is much scarier—every day, it’s death to America and death to Israel, and they mean it.

One might think we’d have a national sigh of relief, knowing Iran isn’t about to have nuclear warheads topping Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) aimed at us, but some aren’t cheering. Some Democratic leaders alluded to the leaked study.

The information is preliminary and labeled as having low confidence. Yet, the left-leaning legacy media pounced on it and spread it far and wide. Instead of lauding our military for its work, publicizing a possible Trump failure took precedence. Democratic politicians joined in.

This response seems to reinforce the perception of an anti-Israel bias by the left in its conflict with Iran. Support for pro-Hamas, an Iranian ally, and protesters who harassed Jews by the progressive wing of the Democratic Party indicates the left is anti-Semitic.

Continue reading →

Only The Next Rung Is Important

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, The Future Party, Uncategorized , , , ,

Successful politicians are those with an ear for what people are thinking. Recognize what’s bothering most people and let them know you hear them; if possible, offer a solution. At least, I thought I understood how it works, but I was wrong. How else can you explain why so many politicians are staking out positions with only minority support?

On the left, politicians have taken positions supporting biological men competing in women’s sports. Blue State leaders stand in the way of banning this unfair competition. Criminals here illegally get support from the same group when the federal government tries to remove them.

On the right, we have an administration levying tariffs willy-nilly against both friends and foes. The same administration berates Ukraine while asking nothing of Russia in their conflict. Neither position has majority support.

What do these positions have in common? They are highly unpopular. Sizable majorities deplore these positions, so why do supposedly intelligent politicians stand foursquare for them? The realization is that in today’s politics, you climb one rung at a time. If you don’t grab the lower rung, you have no upside.

In most cases, that lower rung is your party’s nomination. This situation means winning primaries. In my series on “The Future Party,” I noted that while primaries appear to be the democratic expression of the people’s will, the results often fall short of this ideal.

It isn’t hard to see why primaries fail to reflect the mood and concerns of the general electorate. It has to do with turnout. Primaries typically draw less than half the participation of a general election. For instance, according to the last statistics I could find, the 2022 Utah primary drew 19% of eligible voters. The General Election drew 44%. Most primaries draw less than a quarter of voters, while the General election draws 40 to 50%. Presidential elections draw over sixty percent.

Continue reading →