A Look On The Bright Side

As we approach the white house return of Donald Trump, there seem to be two distinct views of what it portends. On the left, it means a mass roundup of illegals and their placement in concentration camps awaiting export—the economy in shreds without adequate labor. Inflation is roaring upward, fed by tariffs and rising prices. Tax cuts add to the flames by producing huge deficits. The resulting high interest rates put homes and much else out of reach.

Inequity will rise, with Trump’s billionaire friends growing richer while the rest of us fall further behind. Efforts to make businesses and institutions more diverse and inclusive are stalled or reversed. According to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, instead of a progressive, forward-looking society, we’ll be in the hands of the backward-looking “regressivists.”

Ukraine turned over to Russia’s tender mercies while our former friends and allies abandoned us. Belittled by Trump and harmed by his high tariffs, they retaliate, plunging the world into a deeper recession and raising the danger of World War III. Trump claims dictator powers.

While Gaetz withdrew from consideration as Attorney General, others nominated, such as Pete Hegseth for Defense, Robert Kennedy Jr. at Health and Human Services, and Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, confirm the left’s fears that inexperienced extremists will run the government.

In fear of these horrible outcomes, blue states are checking their resistance options. The governor of California has even called for a special session of the state legislature to raise funds for legal action. Others are seeking ways not to cooperate with or impede the federal government.

For those looking at it from this progressive point of view, the future looks bleak. However, the landscape might be more favorable for success from a right-of-center perspective.

Continue reading

Mirror Mirror

We’ve seen this movie before, or at least something similar. Trump uses his gut feeling to pick those he would support in certain situations. Top of the list of qualifications is loyalty to him. Whether they are up to the job is quite secondary. Gazing at the fawning chosen is like looking in the mirror; the more they ape him, the more he sees himself. The reflection, of course, pleases him. A narcissist likes nothing better than himself.

I’ve pointed all this out before. Who can forget those Trump-backed candidates who used his blessing to edge out people who could win in the primaries only to flame out in the general elections? Herschel Walker, Dr. Oz, Blake Masters, Karri Lake, Doug Maestriano, etc.

Losing winnable contests had dire consequences. Trump put himself first, rather than his party and, if he thought about it, the country, resulting in legislation and actions that brought us inflation and an open border. Control of the Senate in the Biden administration could’ve blunted his leftward lurch.

Continue reading

And So It Begins

Like many others, I’m still in a quandary after the election. While the media gushed over how Kamala Harris is a great candidate, her history said the opposite. The election confirmed what most already knew: she was awful.  

Of the seven battleground states, six also had high-profile senate races. Democrats won five out of the six, even though Trump swept those states. This outcome shows people were willing to split their ticket to vote for a Senate Democrat. Maybe some didn’t vote for Harris or Trump. It shows it wasn’t Democrats per se that people didn’t like; it was Kamala Harris. The question remains: why trade the declining Biden for the dead weight of the vice president?

It may surprise some, but Trump plans to fulfill his campaign promises. All the people he has appointed are loyal to him and his agenda. This realization inspires fear and joy, depending on where you stand on the issues. I’m experiencing one and the other.

Continue reading

And So It Ends

I hope to live long enough to read the definitive book explaining how the powers in the Democratic Party brilliantly executed their plan to win the 2024 presidential election up to the end game. Faced with an administration with failing policies led by an increasingly physically failing President, the plan was to secure the weakest opponent. Once accomplished, replace Biden with a bright new face unattached to the administration to carry them to victory. A complaint media would partner in the endeavor.

The planners secured the Republican nomination for the weakest possible opponent, Donald Trump. They focused media attention on Trump by hitting the former president with several novel indictments. It is suitable to punish even political opponents if they break laws; we punish other citizens.

However, most of the cases were questionable rather than airtight. Republicans reacted as intended, with anger and sympathy for their former president. The planners also tried to keep him off the ballot in several places. The obvious unconstitutionality further enraged many in the G.O.P. All the focus on Trump’s court cases sucked all the air out of his primary opponents. Only Nikki Haley lasted through Super Tuesday.

Continue reading

It Gets Worse

It’s hard to believe, but both presidential campaigns keep getting worse. Have we learned anything? As I’ve pointed out in my series, “The Long Journey to More,” settled societies were run by the ruling elites for their benefit, while the masses were left to subsistence. Kings and emperors picked winners and losers. It was better to align with the ruling powers than rock the boat with innovation.

From the Pharaohs in ancient Egypt to Louis the Fourteenth in France, rulers dictated who got what. However, the fifteenth century ushered in changes undermining elite arbitrary authority, resulting in markets, not masters dictating actions. More people participated in making, trading, and benefitting from new goods used in innovative ways. A new system replaced the old great for the few but bare sustenance for most with “More” for those allowed to partake.

Moral philosophers began to take notice. The author of “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” proposed that markets, rather than potentates, making decisions on prices and what to produce and sell would bring widespread benefits. The “invisible Hand” of markets was the moral way to “The Wealth of Nations.” At the time, no one thought of this Scotsman as an “economist” because, in retrospect, he was the father of this “science.” He and his contemporaries thought of Adam Smith only as a philosopher.

Continue reading