My 2017 Books in Review

Last year, a friend posted his top five book reviews (plus one). I like that idea, so I'm stealing it (though mine is top five plus short takes). For what it's worth.

The Road to Serfdom (F. A. Hayek)

Finally got around to reading this because I know this treatise, written during WWII as a warning against central planning, was pivotal in forming the free market doctrine that has become such a part of today's politics and policy. No doubt, the author opposes central planning, but this is far from the pure, free-market gospel it has been taken to be. While Hayek opposes central planning of production at the expense of competition, he fully supports regulation to protect workers, consumers and society, arguing that such regulation should be designed so business bears the full cost of production, passing it on to customers in the form of higher costs, rather than to the aforementioned parts of society in the form of pollution, defects and safety hazards. Hayek also argues in favor of a government role in things like health care, stating, “Where, in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are weakened by the provision of assistance, the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is quite strong.” Such thoughts are so at odds with how this book is portrayed that it begs the question, how'd we get it so wrong? Turns out, the version popularized in the U.S. was the Readers Digest condensed version, meaning we've been basing an entire school of thought on a half-assed rendering. Capitalism is great, but it is flawed. Hayek knew that, but we ignore the second part of that previous sentence at our own peril.

Hitler: The Ascent 1899-1939 (Volker Ullrich)

I chose to read this book because I wanted to know how an educated, advanced, culturally liberal and diverse nation could permit the rise of someone like Hitler - a political outsider scoffed at early on by intellectuals, the elite and much of mainstream society who did not take his political ambitions seriously. Nonetheless, he gained his nation's highest office despite not winning a majority of votes, thanks to the quirks of national electoral politics. He did so by exploiting peoples' fears, creating us versus them narratives that painted foreigners and members of non-Christian religion as threats to be stopped, banned or vanquished. He excoriated his opponents as unpatriotic and railed against the "lugenpresse" (lying press) as purveyors of lies and exaggerations. With the truth-tellers discredited, he garnered support from a not insignificant portion of his nation's religious leaders, and begrudgingly, the business and political classes who had believed at first that they could control him. Eventually, they began to ignore the worst of his tendencies and dismissed global criticism because he delivered much-desired economic growth. Even when his most extreme supporters rose in violence against minorities, he was able to quiet dissent by placing blame on the victims for bringing it on themselves. In many ways, the people were like the proverbial frog, not noticing what was transpiring around them. Unfortunately, the book ends in August of 1939. I'll have to wait for Vol. 2 to learn how this all plays out.

Atlas Shrugged (Ayn Rand)

When asked what made his books so readable, Elmore Leonard answered it was because he left out the boring parts. Ayn Rand is no Elmore Leonard. I revisited this book because I wanted to see if it would resonate today like it did when I first read it as an unattached, unencumbered 27 year-old. It did not. This book is one-dimensional in every way - characters, plot, theme. The heroes all strive with purpose, the villains all snivel and whine. Every action by the capitalist heroes makes mankind better, every action taken by those who would seek to ease the suffering of others simply makes that suffering worse. And the only thing that matters in life - this is the theme of not just this novel, but the entire life work of the author - is the almighty dollar (the $ sign is the branding mark of the book's magnificent cigarette). Worse, they prattle on about their virtue and their misery without end. One monologue by uber-capitalist John Galt stretches for more than 70 pages without interruption. I bought into this when I was younger, in part because I was younger, in part because times were different. The U.S. was just digging out from a decade of stagflation, Great Britain was still a largely socialist country with nationalized industries regularly shutdown by labor strife. It was a time when the pendulum had swung a bit too far to the left. Now, it seems clear the opposite is true. Sadly, this simplistic view has influenced policy makers like Speaker Paul Ryan and GOP benefactors like the Koch Brothers, explaining why that pendulum is swinging too far right. We need a return to sound, centrist approaches to our challenges. A first step would be to recognize this book for the simplistic tripe it is.

Dark Money (Jane Mayer)

My wife says talking about this book makes me sound crazy. With good reason, because the deliberate, coordinated financial manipulation of our democratic process, and the amount of cash involved, that is described in this book is insane. "Dark Money" details the network of conservative donors led by Charles and David Koch. What I learned is that what I once believed was a general devolution of conservative thought driven by a ratings-conscious right-wing media that understood an agitated audience was a loyal (and profitable) audience, was actually the result of a long, well-funded, deliberate effort to inculcate think tanks, universities, media outlets, the Republican Party and the public with free-market, anti-government mantras based upon the shallow, one-dimensional rantings of Ayn Rand in "Atlas Shrugged" and the largely mistaken lessons gleaned from misreading F.A. Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" (see above). All the usual suspects are here - Betsy Devos, the Mercers (Cambridge Analytica), the Scaifes, John Menard, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, George Mason University, The Club for Growth, Glenn Beck and on and on. "Dark Money" brings together in one place all the names one will come across when Googling who is behind the seemingly innocuous story on climate change or tax policy or charter schools or gun rights. Like bread crumbs, the trail inevitably leads from a university group to a think tank to a foundation to a person with ties to the Koch Brothers. The breadth and depth of their involvement makes cries of "George Soros!" seem quaint by comparison. It would be funny if it wasn't putting our system of government at risk. If we are a nation that believes in one person, one vote, and that dollars sway votes, then those who spend the most dollars have the most sway. These folks have the money, and thanks to the US Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, have the avenue to use that money to sway votes as best suits them.

The Undoing Project (Michael Lewis)

A book by one of my favorite authors about one of my favorite authors (Daniel Kahneman) and his partner, Amos Tversky. Kahneman and Tversky are Israeli psychologists who changed the world by identifying just how bad we humans are at making rational decisions. That inability to choose wisely has led to mistaken medical diagnoses, airline disasters and the financial meltdowns following the housing and dotcom bubbles. The best description of their work comes from Tversky himself, who, when asked if their work was the basis for artificial intelligence, answered, "Not really, we study natural stupidity instead of artificial intelligence." That natural stupidity gives us death, bankruptcy and, well, whatever else we've got. The amazing thing is how people I've shared this with will argue how true it is, except for themselves. Silly people - glad I'm not susceptible to the same delusions. Or am I?

Short takes:

John Adams (David McCullough)

As a young man, John Adams mused how the fall of Rome began with the fall of Carthage, their greatest enemy. Might the fall of the U.S.S.R. be the catalyst behind a similar fate for the U.S., as we turn our anger inward now that we have no common foreign threat?

Ben Franklin (Walter Isaacson)

The man who replaced "sacred and undeniable" with "self-evident," as in "We hold these truths to be self-evident." Jefferson may have gotten all the cred, but Franklin had the goods.

Hillbilly Elegy (J.D. Vance)

Writing about my old dry cleaning employees (the book is set 10 miles up the road from where I sit), JD makes a great point about how policies to encourage homeownership ended up trapping people who could not afford it in dying communities. An example of how our mantras can blind us.

The Better Angels of Our Nature (Steven Pinker)

This book deserves far more space, but any book that dives deep into everything from nursery rhymes to nuclear war to describe and explain that we are living in the least violent period in history, is sure to be thorough. This one is entertaining, to boot.

Born a Crime (Trevor Noah)

Trevor Noah's mom was black, his father white. He was born in South Africa, and thus, his mere birth was a crime. To know what he's achieved given the story he tells here makes one want to shout, "Toughen up!" to anyone who complains that life isn't fair.

Shoe Dog (Phil Knight)

So refreshing to hear such a humble billionaire's tale of success. Memorable line: "If products don't cross borders, soldiers will." Something to ponder in protectionist times.

On The Brink (former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson)

The third book I've read on the financial meltdown reads like a financial thriller, which it is, as told by the ultimate insider. More proof that everyone - bankers, borrowers, Wall Street, Republicans, Democrats - everyone was at fault. And without those bailouts, we'd still be digging out from Great Depression II.

We Need to Talk (Celeste Headlee)

When good friends give you a book about becoming a better communicator, well, one best read it. Let's see - wandering mind? Check. Not listening to the other person because I'm trying to think of my response? Check? Relating every story back to me? Well, let's just say, thanks, I needed that.

Coming in 2018 - Born to Run, How the Right Lost it's Mind and more. Good reading, all.

Tax Bill Closes Door on Needed Solutions

In his book On the Brink detailing the inside story of the 2008 financial meltdown, former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson relates how, as the financial system was crumbling and in desperate need of immediate cash, GOP lawmakers argued for stimulatory tax cuts. In today's booming economy with little room for upside growth, GOP lawmakers argue for stimulatory tax cuts. As the old cliche goes, when your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. There could not be two economic scenarios more disparate than those described above, and yet, all the GOP can suggest is a shopworn, one-size-fits-all solution. Nothing could better demonstrate the vacuum that passes for intellectual conservative thought these days.

It is more than a shame, because given the disruptive nature of today's economy - from job-killing technologies to the rise of new global economic powers - the need for new ideas to address the challenges we face has never been greater. Unfortunately, such thought is in limited supply. Instead, stale thought is about to lock us into another decade (generation?) of record deficits at precisely the time we need fresh, disruptive thought to match the economic disruption of the times.

The challenges we face are myriad. We have entire communities whose livelihoods have disappeared, as trade and technology have reduced the value of the repetitive skills and reliable work habits of those folks, while simultaneously improving the profitability of those they once toiled for. That is both the elegance and the evil of capitalism's creative destruction, displacing the few for the greater good. However, unlike days gone by, when the displaced could rather quickly and easily find often better-paying work requiring similar skill sets (think manual laborer moving from farm to factory), today's disruption often leaves those displaced with options that offer neither the pay nor protection of their previous employment. Thus, the family breadwinner who had health insurance and a pension to go with his or her $25 or $30 an hour factory job frequently feels fortunate to find a job without benefits at half the pay.

And yet, our public response is not to address the pain and pathologies these forgotten people and communities suffer, but rather, to reward those benefiting from that misfortune by cutting taxes even further on the additional profits that accrue from the misery that offshoring and automation inflicts upon those left behind. Hoping those tax savings will be invested in ways that help those suffering ignores that it is the investment of past tax cuts that gave us the technology and lobbying power that helped eliminate these jobs in the first place. The argument that we've weathered such dynamics before as new businesses absorb those made obsolete ignores the fact that today's technology delivers a double-whammy in that technology is not seeking to make repetitive manual labor easier, but to eliminate such work altogether, thus requiring a new skill set that cannot be learned quickly - all while the pace of such change accelerates more each day, making it nearly impossible for the displaced to keep up.

This disruption will only get worse. As robotics and artificial intelligence make more roles obsolete, we'll see even those thought secure at risk of marginalization. The same technology that transformed the shop floor can now be seen in warehouse automation, order entry and checkout kiosks and more. Self-driving trucks threaten to eliminate some two million high-paying blue-collar jobs. And everyone from diagnostic radiologists to software coders are in the crosshairs of the automation revolution. As society becomes more and more automated, as more and more workers are marginalized, the benefits will accrue to those who remain, whose numbers will be ever fewer.

That seems only fair, but at what cost? We already see entire communities struggling under a wave of addiction. Families fret over how to pay for needed health care, let alone the education they know their children will need to survive in this changing world. The anger that has divided us and delivered today's dysfunctional leaders will only get more vocal, more desperate. We risk permanently cleaving into two separate societies - one plagued by crime, poverty, addiction and poor health, the other safely protected in gated communities. That is not freedom. Not for those unable to provide for their families and not for those living behind guarded gates.

The irony in all this - and the great opportunity we are about to squander when this tax bill becomes law - is that what business craves most, what they consistently argue is the greatest need they have, are skilled, reliable, educated workers. Yet an intellectually bankrupt GOP is about to deliver more of what they don't need, and in the process severely cripple our ability to invest in what they do need. They'll argue this tax cut will spur growth that will cure our ills. But when it proves once more it won't, they'll then argue we haven't the resources to invest in people or education or infrastructure or addiction treatment. And so, they'll argue for another round of stimulatory tax cuts, while our roads deteriorate, our schools suffer and an ever larger portion of our population falls further behind. Lather, rinse, repeat.

There's another familiar cliche, one that says doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. Well, that describes the GOP's tax bill. We've been pursuing that path for a generation now, leaving a trail of forgotten Americans who are slowly losing the wherewithal to educate their children for a future that seems ever further out of reach. Is that really our best path forward? Are we not the nation of immigrants whose parents sacrificed their own creature comforts for the well-being of future generations? Did we not learn their lessons? If not, what have we become - and is this who we strive to be?

Nationalists Were Wrong in 1992, They are Wrong Today

In the days before the internet I would actually write down thoughts, not to be shared with the world, but to capture them for later consideration. Here is one of those journal entries from March 1992 that seems to have some meaning today:

"There are conservatives (such as Pat Buchanan) who have the attitude that it's 'us against them,' whether 'us' is the U.S., working people, WASPs, etc. They simply want to hold onto what 'we' have and screw the rest. On the other hand, there are conservatives who feel that all can benefit through conservative principles. This approach is promoted by people such as Jack Kemp through 'Empowerment.' I definitely subscribe to the latter."

I would argue that today's Republican Party has been taken over by the Pat Buchanan wing, as personified by Steve Bannon and Donald Trump. Thus, why I find myself so opposed to it and the president. I have never been a believer in the us vs. them, zero-sum narrative upon which they base their entire approach to governing.

========================================

Updates

September 8, 2022

This NY Times op-ed on September 8, 2022 makes the case that Pat Buchanan Didn’t Plan on It, but He Paved the Way for Trump. 

November 20, 2023

Yesterday, conservative evangelist David French wrote a column in the NY Times warning of the hateful anti-semitism unleashed by the right in the wake of Israel's response to the Hamas terror attacks last month. In it, he references Pat Buchanan's role in this shift in right wing ideology:

"Buchanan is no minor figure. As Nicole Hemmer wrote in 2022, his presidential campaigns in the 1990s forecast the present moment in Republican politics. The party “traded Reaganism for Buchananism,” she contended. The evidence that she was correct grows by the day.

"Everything about the New Right mind-set told us that this devolution was inevitable. It scorns character, decency and civility in the public square, often turning cruelty into a virtue. This was a necessary precondition for the entire enterprise. Decent people can be misguided, certainly, but they are not consumed with hate. Decent people do not indulge bigots.

"The New Right rejects the norms and values of what it calls the uniparty or the cathedral: the center-left and center-right American elite. And one of those values is a steadfast opposition to racism and prejudice. The rejection first manifests itself in the form of just asking questions, then it veers into direct challenge of conventional norms, followed by a descent into true darkness.

"Hostility unmoored from character quickly turns conspiratorial, and the world of conspiracy theories is where antisemites live and thrive."

We are on a dangerous path, where hate and intolerance not only become acceptable, they are presented as measures of virtue and patriotism. We've seen this story before and it rarely ends well. This is precisely why I wrote this in 2016, calling that year's presidential race a "right side of history election."

Tax Reform is a Dangerous, Irresponsible Gamble

Donald Trump ran on the promise to make America great again. Though hardly central to that promise, tax reform has been presented as part of the path back to such greatness, however that greatness may be defined. Unfortunately, perhaps due to the President's populist urges, perhaps due to pressure brought to bear on GOP legislators by wealthy donors, perhaps due to mere desperation to pass something, tax reform has morphed into little more than supply side-style tax cuts that once again make the dubious promise to pay for themselves through the enhanced economic growth they are expected to unleash. That is not a path to greatness. In fact, it is almost certain to hasten our decline as the promised growth turns out to be a mirage and budget deficits instead balloon to even more dangerous levels.

The reasons the proposed cuts are so ill-advised are twofold. First, growth expected as a result of tax cuts is premised on the belief that lack of capital is the cause of our anemic and uneven economic performance. It is not. Quite simply, the U.S. economy has unprecedented cash at its disposal for investment purposes. The challenge is not finding investment capital, it is finding worthwhile places to invest it. As it is, as of last year, U.S. companies held over $1.9 trillion in cash domestically, in addition to the $2.5 trillion they hold overseas. Furthermore, investors hold another $2.66 trillion in essentially interest-free money market accounts, while banks have another $2.15 in excess capital residing at the Federal Reserve. In all, this amounts to more than $9.2 trillion, $6.71 trillion of which sits within our shores, available to fund economic growth. That this cash is sitting in accounts that essentially pay zero interest should suffice as proof that businesses cannot find better uses for it. A recent show of hands at a gathering of CEOs proved as much when only a smattering of hands went up when asked who expected to increase capital investment if tax cuts became law, perplexing White House Chief Economic Advisor Gary Cohn.

This is borne out elsewhere in any discussion one has with corporations, venture capitalists or private equity investors, who uniformly report that the most difficult task they have is finding worthwhile uses for their cash. The corollary to this story comes from startups and businesses who repeatedly state that finding cash is the least of their challenges. In fact, nearly any viable small to medium-sized business will speak of the steady stream of investors offering to acquire them or take them private. All of which exposes the fallacy behind any of the current tax proposals. Far from fueling growth, they are likely to simply fuel inflation, asset bubbles and eventually, higher interest rates that will choke, rather than fuel, economic growth.

Worse yet, any such strangling of our financial position could not come at a more dangerous time for the U.S. economy, which, already facing record levels of public debt and the Social Security and Medicare obligations for a wave of retiring baby boomers, finds itself competing with an ascendant China that will control much of the debt we owe. That our greatest economic rival will not only hold an increasingly strong global economic position, but also great sway over our ability to finance our debt, is likely to bring back the specter of 1970's style stagflation, where growth is impeded as prices rise.

Now is not the time to reduce taxes in the misbegotten belief that it will fuel future growth.  Go ahead and encourage the return of overseas cash by offering a temporary tax amnesty, but we should not risk the financial future of the United States by pursuing tax policies that are questionable at best and dangerous at worst. We have been lulled into a false sense of security by artificially low interest rates resulting from the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing. However, the day draws nearer when such schemes will no longer be able to keep market forces at bay and interest rates will once again accurately reflect faith in our willingness and ability to meet our debt obligations. Given our record of fiscal irresponsibility the past few decades, we can expect that faith to be severely tested. As of this writing, the U.S. is still seen as the world's safest haven for investment, but once that faith teeters, we are likely to find ourselves no longer in control of our economic destiny as those who hold our debt will determine how much we'll be allowed to borrow and at what rates.

A world where Russia manipulates our elections while China holds the strings to our finances hardly sounds like the recipe for greatness, because it is not. It is a recipe for disaster that threatens our sovereignty as no foreign invader ever could. We should not - must not - give in to desires to deliver a political victory that ignores the long-term economic, political and human cost such poorly conceived tax policy would deliver, lest we want this era to be central in historians’ search for the inflection point that signaled the decline of the United States. It is that serious. The time to act is now and it is time to say enough. Let this be the moment that fiscal responsibility returns to the U.S. economy.

Millennials: Love ‘Em or Hate ‘Em, I Love Them

There are two kinds of people in this world – those who believe there are two kinds of people, and those who don’t. I am among the former, and so, I believe there are two kinds of people when it comes to Millennials – those who love them, and those who don’t. Again, I am among the former.

Not sure what it is about this particular generation that generates such angst, but it does. Conversations about them are like old Vaudeville comedy routines – “and how about those Millennials?” The challenge is in guessing which direction that conversation will lead. One person will complain about the work hours they keep, the next will laud them for their work ethic. How’s one to know what to think?

Well, here’s what I think: On whole, Millennials work harder at everything than we (Boomers) worked at anything.

Think about it. When we were twelve, baseball meant fifteen Little League games at local schoolyards spread over 6-8 weeks, with maybe a practice thrown in on Saturday. The season began when it stopped snowing and ended before it interfered with Memorial Day picnics. Today, baseball means 50-60 games (more if one’s in their teens) that begin in March and run well into the summer. Vacations revolve around where the tournaments are. Team workouts begin in winter and players often work with private instructors to hone their craft. The story is similar for basketball, volleyball, soccer, golf or any manner of athletic endeavor.

And that’s just sports. Today’s young adults also spent more time taking high school courses that many of us Boomers passed up in college. To paraphrase an old U.S. Army slogan, thanks to everything from Advanced Placement courses in calculus, chemistry, physics and writing to traveling debate and robotics teams, Millennials have done more by age twenty than most people do their whole lives.

Yes, they were brought up with participation trophies and they resist set work hours, but as a Millennial recently stated to an audience of job-seeking Boomers, perhaps that’s because those are the things we longed for.  That’s another thing to think about – do we not all prefer flexibility in our work lives in order to attend to life’s needs? Part of that is due to the workplace catching up to the reality of dual-income families who require time to take kids to the doctor, stop by a school or deal with life’s everyday challenges. Millennials were not only the drivers behind that evolution, but were witnesses to its implementation. Should we be surprised they see workplace flexibility as a necessity, if not a birthright? Yes, Millennials may not be at their desks from 8 to 5, but they are the ones working on their laptops Saturdays at Starbucks and are never out-of-touch. The schedule may be lax, the effort is not.

Even as the participation trophy generation, Millennials may have a thing or two to teach us. Aren’t we learning that positive workplace environments that offer reinforcement rather than retribution are more effective in furthering organizational objectives? We have recognized the type of work environment we wish for and have simply adapted it to our child-rearing. Far from creating monsters, we have prepared them for a lifetime of effective leadership.

And none of this even takes into account that, by and large, Millennials have been fighting our war on terror. From Iraq and Afghanistan to Libya and Niger, this generation has proven itself in ways those of us who came of age after Vietnam can never claim. Yes, they may be soft when it comes to uncomfortable opinions on college campuses, but on whole these are not soft people.

So, count me among those who love ‘em. Lord knows, I'd love to have been one.

There's Nothing Manly About Immature Retorts

Last week, the Cincinnati Bengals' AJ Green justified punching Jacksonville Jaguars defensive back Jalen Ramsey on grounds that he had to set an example for his young son. That sentiment was backed up by an ESPN anchor, who agreed that anyone disrespected as AJ was needs to defend his honor. Today, we have White House spokesperson Kellyanne Conway justifying the President's childish tweet directed at North Korea's Kim Jong Un, asking why he'd call the President "old" when the President wouldn't call him "short and fat," by claiming, "That was just the president responding the way that he does when someone insulted him first."

Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me "old," when I would NEVER call him "short and fat?" Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 12, 2017

We've seen similar defenses before. In 2004, another batch of ESPN commentators defended Indiana Pacer Ron Artest's charge into the stands to deliver retribution for a tossed beverage, saying that any "man" was not only justified, but required under some unwritten code, to defend his honor.

Let's be clear. These men and their defenders have it completely wrong. Strong, secure adults do not feel the need to respond to insults. In fact, the sign of strength and maturity is to do just the opposite and turn away. Unfortunately, this macho mindset has plagued us for too long and has been responsible for everything from gang wars to world wars. And if such thinking is irresponsible when the projectile in question is a carbonated beverage, it is clearly far more serious when the potential projectile could be nuclear-tipped.

It doesn’t have to be this way. In "The Better Angels of Our Nature," about the decline in violence over the course of human history, author Steven Pinker compares the outcomes of the 1914 killing of Archduke Ferdinand, setting off a chain of events that led to WWI and millions of unnecessary deaths, with the Cuban Missile Crisis, which ended without a single casualty. One factor in the different outcomes was that John F. Kennedy had recently read a history of WWI entitled "The Guns of August," with its lesson on how "personal complexes of inferiority and grandeur" led to an escalating game of one upsmanship that resulted in calamity. Thus, against the advice of every advisor and general in the room, he sought to provide Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschev a way to save face by trading removal of obsolete U.S. missiles in Turkey in exchange for complete removal of Soviet missiles in Cuba.

Such is how studying history can avoid fatal reruns. Unfortunately, from our playing fields to our highest office, our society is brimming with emotionally-stunted macho men who refuse to study history, let alone learn its lessons. Instead, they seek to risk the safety of all those around in the name of personal “honor.” On a street corner, the risk is to innocent passersby. On a nuclear-armed world stage, the risk is to humanity itself.

Perhaps we’d be well-served to recall the childhood lesson about sticks and stones and how words can never hurt us – unless we let them.  If a child can learn that lesson, then perhaps so can grown men.

In Anthem Controversy, Kneelers are the Real Patriots

The controversy surrounding the national anthem has been framed as one between showing respect for country, flag and military personnel on one side, and the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment on the other. But there is a much more profound issue at play here, one that can be illuminated by considering the words of Abraham Lincoln.

In his Gettysburg Address, dedicating the national cemetery there, Lincoln noted that it was right and proper that we honor the dead through such ceremony. But he went on to note that such ceremony was meaningless if the cause for which they died, died with them. He thus proclaimed the only way to truly honor those who fell at Gettysburg – and all who fall in defense of liberty – is to dedicate ourselves to their cause. That cause is to ensure that a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, not perish from the earth.

We've heeded his call. In the 150-plus years since that plea was made, we have fought steadily, if unevenly, to fulfill that vow made at Gettysburg. For some, that fight meant taking a seat in a school once prohibited because of skin color. For others, it meant taking a seat at a “Whites Only” lunch counter. And at least once, it meant taking a seat at the front of the bus. Today, for some who believe we have stalled in pursuit of that dream, that fight means taking a knee.

And just as those who integrated our schools, lunch counters and city buses faced the wrath of a public that felt such brazen acts of disregard for societal norms were out of place and disrespectful, so it is with those who take a knee. Likewise, those calls to stand up and show respect are reminiscent of those calls to get up from the counter, go to the back of the bus and stick with one’s own kind. It should surprise no one that such demands only stiffen the resolve, especially when they come from the highest office in the land. Where one would hope to find support in the fight for justice and equality, one finds only opposition and disdain.

When asked what kind of government the framers of the Constitution had devised, Benjamin Franklin famously replied, “A republic – if you can keep it.” One virtue of a republic, compared to direct democracy, is that it provides for majority rule while guaranteeing minority rights. We can debate how deep the racial attitudes underlying today’s concerns regarding those minority rights truly run, but we should not – cannot – deny that those concerns rightfully exist. This nation fought a deadly civil war to begin delivering those rights to an entire race. But as Lincoln noted, bowing our heads in reverence to those who died in battles past, or standing to honor the flag under which they fought, dishonors their sacrifice if we do so at the expense of fighting for their cause today. By that measure, those taking a knee are paying those who’ve fallen the highest honor.

Floyd Protests Revive NFL Kneeling Controversy (AP photo)

Guns, The Constitution and Tyranny of the Strong

Comments by Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, claiming that militia members “had better equipment than our State Police”—and that their weapons prevented law enforcement from imposing order and protecting peaceful protesters, go to the heart of why Second Amendment proponents arguing gun rights in the name of liberty miss the danger of their argument. 

It's been said countless times that total freedom leads to anarchy, and anarchy leads to tyranny of the strong. We saw that principle at work in Charlottesville last week, where there was no law, only anger and emotion, rendered unstoppable because many involved were invoking their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms - and someone died because of the lawlessness that ensued. I fear we've not seen the last of such episodes. 

Sadly, too many view the lamentation of the Virginia governor as precisely how the Second Amendment is meant to work, as a protection against an overbearing government. That government forces were outmatched in armaments is viewed as a good thing. 

It is not. Our forefathers wisely stated that a well-regulated militia is necessary to secure a free state. They did not state that a well-armed, unruly mob is necessary to secure a free state. Every loosening of limits on guns increases the odds that events like that which took place in Charlottesville will become armed conflict. It may be those on the right who are most adamant about the Second Amendment guaranteeing unfettered access to firearms, but that right is not exclusive to them. It extends to all. We should not be surprised, therefore, when members of an undefined, anarchic group like Antifa exercises their Constitutionally protected right to arm themselves in anticipation of their next confrontation with the hate groups of Charlottesville. What transpires then will not be classified as terrorism, but civil war. 

God help us then.

The Pen is Mightier Than the Sword

I've long believed the First Amendment precedes the Second for a reason (beyond numeracy), namely that our founding fathers knew that the pen is mightier than the sword. More importantly, they understood that without principles of liberty in the First Amendment to defend, the guns protected in the Second Amendment defend nothing. 

Our current obsession with gun rights reminds me of the joke I've shared before about the construction worker who left work every day with a wheelbarrow filled with sawdust. Every day his foreman would search the sawdust for pilfered materials, but found nothing. After years of this, the worker arrived one day driving a new Mercedes. The foreman shouted, "I know you were stealing something! What was it?"

The worker replied, "A wheelbarrow a day." 

I often think the folks obsessed with the Second Amendment are unwittingly leading to a similar sleight of hand, wherein the First Amendment liberties we take for granted are being pilfered while we laser focus on protecting our right to keep and bear arms, A misguided focus, to be sure.

Thank You, Senator McCain

 It’s rare that Senate votes carry the same tension as a March Madness game that goes down to the wire, but that is what happened when Senator John McCain courageously broke with his party to give a final thumbs down to the GOP’s attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), aka Obamacare. But unlike March Madness, where joy and disappointment are split between winners and losers, we should all breathe a sigh of relief that the attempt to repeal failed for several reasons.

The first is that this was not the Repeal and Replace that President Trump promised throughout his campaign. Instead, it was simply the first half of that promise - the easy half - which would have wreaked havoc on those who have come to depend upon the marketplace options offered through the ACA. Without a replacement, the market would have quickly reverted to the pre-ACA reality where those with pre-existing conditions would have been forced into high-risk pools, which carry far higher premiums that often price such folks out of the market. 

Furthermore, elimination of the individual mandate would have induced many healthy folks to forego insurance altogether. Without their premiums, the rates for those remaining were sure to rise. That is because premiums are priced based upon the total amount anticipated to be needed to pay expected claims. If healthy people drop out, there is obviously less revenue from premiums to pay claims, but since it is healthy people most likely to drop out, the cost of paying the claims of those remaining remains nearly, though not entirely, the same, leading to a shortfall that must be made up by charging higher premiums for those remaining.

This leads to what is known as the premium death spiral, where higher premiums force people who can’t afford them out of the market, leaving even fewer premiums to cover the cost of those remaining, forcing premiums even higher. It becomes a vicious cycle that leaves only the sickest (one hopes, for their sake) or the most well-off who are willing and able to pay such premiums covered (note that employer group health plans operate outside this specific market dynamic, a discussion for another time).

As it is, the Congressional Budget Office projected that as many as 17 million Americans would lose or forego coverage in the first year of repeal alone, with that number nearly doubling to 32 million by 2026.

Now, an argument can be made that it is unfair that healthy people should be forced to subsidize the premiums of those with serious health issues, but in a sense, that is what insurance is all about - the pooling of risk, where all pay in to protect against the unexpected. And while one may be healthy today, there is no guarantee that will remain true tomorrow. An auto accident or unexpected illness may arise at any time. In fact, that very thing happened to an uninsured family member of ours, who was seriously injured in a car crash while in his twenties, requiring air care and more than a week in the ICU. He ended up paying less than 10% of his total charges, the balance of which were covered implicitly in the future healthcare costs the rest of us paid. The individual mandate exists to ensure there are no such free rides, which is what one is getting when they play this game of health insurance roulette.

It should be noted that even F.A. Hayek, the grandfather of free-market economics, wrote in support of government-organized health insurance in his ground-breaking work, The Road to Serfdom. Providing the type of coverage available via the ACA, which isn’t even government health insurance, is hardly anathema to our free market system, which still largely relies upon private health insurers.

If anyone is to blame for the failure of this measure, a strong argument can be made that it is Donald Trump, who consistently promised a better plan but never produced one, leaving us to debate whether his was really better or simply nonexistent (I lean towards the latter). It was the lack of that replacement that Senator McCain cited when explaining his vote. So, while many in the GOP are calling John McCain a traitor, those same folks may want to look up Pennsylvania Avenue, from the Capitol Building towards the White House, in seeking a culprit to blame. Meanwhile, the rest of us - and especially those who have come to rely on the ACA to protect themselves and their families - should say a little prayer of thanks that John McCain, suffering from a terminal illness himself, found both the courage and the empathy to act in the best interest of those who need it most.

Party or Constitution - Time for GOP to Put Up or Shut Up

In his farewell address, George Washington warned that political parties, which did not exist when he first took office, were likely “to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

That is where we are today if Republicans in Congress choose to dismiss Donald Trump’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey as simply the exercising of presidential prerogative. This is not a time for partisan circling of the wagons to protect one’s own. Instead, it is time for the party that professes to be the great protector of the Constitution to embrace the fundamental separation of powers that our founding fathers recognized as the single best tool to check any attempt to subvert democracy itself.

Consider how such subversion might transpire – an ambitious candidate with little respect for Constitutional limits on power, a recognized lack of moral principle and a win-at-any-cost reputation decides to pursue the presidency, naming a former agent for Russian politicians as campaign manager.  As the campaign unfolds, a series of security breaches and releases of stolen communications take place against his opponent. Every intelligence agency involved in studying possible meddling identify with virtual certainty that those breaches were perpetrated by Russia with the intent of harming the candidate’s opponent.

Once elected, it becomes known that members of the campaign and transition team not only communicated with Russia after the election, but possibly before and that some lied about those communications. The FBI becomes central to investigating possible attempts by Russia to influence the election, which rightfully requires investigating the questionable contacts between the candidate’s team and Russian officials. This investigation becomes even more urgent given the unusual praise the candidate showered upon Russian President Vladimir Putin during the campaign.

Given all that, how could a president thwart such an investigation? Well, he could start by firing the person heading the most independent investigation of the election. That is precisely what Donald Trump did – and admitted to in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt – when he fired James Comey. Given the circumstances under investigation, this is nothing less than democracy at risk.

Now, it is entirely possible that Donald Trump and his campaign are completely innocent in this case. But that is not for the president to decide, and if he tries to claim it is and obstructs law enforcement’s  pursuit of the truth, then it is the duty of Congress to step in and state that this will not stand. It is their duty to ensure that a full, fair and thorough investigation takes place. Moreover, Congressional members of both parties need to state in no uncertain terms that they understand the gravity of the situation and that country takes precedence over party. That is patriotism – and the elegance of our Constitution – at work.

Whether guilty or innocent, if this president can fire the person investigating potential wrongdoing – potentially treasonous wrongdoing – then so can the next president. The precedent regarding how such challenges to our democracy are addressed is being set now. Will the precedent be one of principle, or one of partisanship? The reputation of the Republican party and the future of the republic itself will largely be determined by whether Republicans choose loyalty to the Constitution or to their party. Their choice will determine just how prescient our country’s first president may have been.

Steven Miller - The Most Frightening Man in America

Quite simply the most frightening performance I've ever witnessed by a United States government official. The fact that the administration is praising his performance on yesterday's Sunday morning shows only serves to reinforce how dangerously they disrespect the limits of power that have been the foundation and hallmark of our existence as a free nation. We are in trouble.

View his frightening claims of executive power here.

Six Words to Reclaim the Party of Lincoln

"Four score and seven years ago…"

With those six words, Abraham Lincoln transformed the United States from a geographic region governed by a set of laws into an ideal. An ideal for which the Republican Party – the Party of Lincoln – was founded to preserve and perpetuate. Today, that party is traveling a path contrary to that ideal, and thus on the verge of forfeiting its claim as the party of Lincoln. However, if it – or any party – wishes to earn the right to such a claim, a good start would begin by embracing these six simple words:  Lincoln’s idealism, Roosevelt’s populism, Reagan’s optimism.

Lincoln’s Idealism

When Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg, he pointed back not to the ratification of the Constitution, but the signing of our Declaration of Independence eighty-seven years prior, with its founding principle that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.

That must be the foundation upon which the party is rebuilt, rededicating itself to the proposition that all men, and all women, of every race, creed and color are equal not only in the eyes of their Creator, but also in the eyes of the law and the eyes of their fellow citizens. To do so demands not just quiet acceptance of such an obvious fact, but active rejection of those who would argue otherwise. Let those who are so rejected seek refuge elsewhere, but let them be denied safe harbor within our party. Let the Republican Party regain its long lost historic place as the defender of liberty and guarantor of equal justice. And let us finally acknowledge, and forever rescind, our quiet tolerance of those who would deny such justice in the cynical pursuit of electoral victory. We may suffer temporary defeat, but let us lose on principle, rather than win by sacrificing it.

The Party must celebrate equally the diversity that makes us unique among nations, and those common bonds that unite us as Americans. We must be the party that lives by the motto E Pluribus Unum – out of many, one. Such was the founding principle of our nation and our Party. We must make it so again and forever.

Roosevelt’s Populism

If Lincoln taught us that America was an ideal, Theodore Roosevelt‘s populism showed the world it was exceptional. And he did so by championing two seemingly contradictory, but decidedly American icons – the big idea and the common man. Roosevelt’s America did the impossible, building a canal through godforsaken jungle. The unthinkable, preserving vast swaths of American wilderness for future generations. And finally, the unexpected, breaking up trusts owned by industry titans with names like Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan.

Such a far cry from the cowering populism and crony capitalism of today. Rather than walls to shield us from the outside world, we built pathways to bring it closer. Rather than building barriers to trade, we knocked them down. Rather than viewing natural wonders as resources to be exploited today, we saw them as gifts to be preserved for tomorrow. And rather than cater to the whims of the powerful, we put the people first.

A return to the Party’s roots needs to begin with the understanding that America still does great things. It is evident every day. From Silicon Valley to the far reaches of space, from agriculture to water technology, Americans and those who have come to our shores seeking opportunity are doing things thought impossible, unthinkable, unexpected. We are on the verge of a new dawn driven by science and technology. We must embrace, rather than reject, what science, knowledge and the future can bring.

A return to the Party’s roots must include Roosevelt’s respect for the planet and the resources we’ve been given – not with an eye only on today’s pleasures and tomorrow’s profits, but for the health, safety and well-being of mankind for millennia to come. The universe is filled with limitless energy and resources, but we have only one home. Tapping the former, while preserving the latter takes only human ingenuity. Doing so can lead to a future unimagined. No nation is better suited to lead and deliver that future than the United States. Our Party must be the driver, rather than the naysayer, in pointing our nation and our planet forward.

A return to the Party’s roots must include a commitment to competition rather than cronyism, in both the private and public arenas. We must also recognize in our zeal for liberty, the paradox that unlimited freedom – laissez faire - inevitably leads to anarchy, which leads to tyranny of the strong. Roosevelt recognized this danger in the monopolies of the day, and we see it at work today as money begets influence, which begets more money. And so on. It is an insidious feedback loop that benefits the privileged at the expense of the many, done cynically in the name of liberty.

A return to the Party’s roots would value an even and predictable playing field where competition takes precedence over scale. Competitive markets ensure fair prices, efficient operations, innovation and distributed benefit. Conversely, today’s free markets are little more than crony capitalism that ultimately rewards only the connected via protection and patronage. The result has been a world of “too big to fail,” where the connected reap the lion’s share of the benefit, while the risk – financially, environmentally and otherwise – is borne by the people and society as a whole.

Furthermore, a return to the Party’s roots must recognize those same dangers in the public arena, where vast swaths of alienated citizens feel powerless as money buys both a voice and influence.  That God and guns are the palliatives left to soothe the rank-and-file, as the establishment elite exchange cash for considerations, only makes the situation more volatile. Thus, the same commitment to competition must apply in the public arena, lest the voiceless rise up with guns on their hips and God on their side.

Just as Roosevelt broke the backs of big money trusts, so must we break the backs of big money donors. To libertarians who would decry such limitations as free speech violations, let us be reminded that the First Amendment makes no guarantee of an audience, only the right to speak one’s mind. Limiting cash in politics limits no one’s right to speak, only the opportunity to be heard. An equal platform means an equal voice. A renewed Republican Party needs to be committed to permitting the voices of all to speak, with the ultimate power being exercised via the ballot box, rather than the checkbook. Liberty and justice for all.

Reagan’s Optimism 

Finally, Ronald Reagan’s optimism, most famously on display in his portrayal of the United States as the shining city on a hill, was a manifestation of Lincoln’s idealism and Roosevelt’s populism. He understood that America was as much an aspiration as destination because he understood fundamentally the ideal that Lincoln captured at Gettysburg. And he believed America capable of great things because he believed in the American people.

His optimism was also born of the understanding that the world is not a zero-sum game. That for one to win does not require another to lose. He thus saw America’s contributions to the world as mutually beneficial, which in turn fueled his belief in American exceptionalism. Exceptional in the liberty that pointed a way for countless oppressed. Exceptional for the wealth that worked to end poverty and disease on a global scale. Exceptional for the sacrifice that helped save the world from tyranny. And, exceptional for the belief that all men, and all women, of all colors and all creeds are equal. Reagan knew that sharing our liberty, wealth, sacrifice and ideals with the world did not make us poorer. It made us richer as a people by making us part of a richer, freer world community.

Conclusion

These prescriptions are sure to alienate parts of the Republican constituency. That is not only expected, that is by design. As our politics now lie, there are essentially four distinct parties in the United States – the Sanders Socialists, center/left Democratic technocrats, limited government, chamber of commerce Republicans and Donald Trump’s nationalist alt-right. If a return to the Party’s roots attracts centrist Democrats while alienating those who seek to exclude and divide on the right, we may find a new governing center that makes America both good and great. Let the socialists and nationalist reactionaries tug at the edges, but let those who believe in the goodness of the American people, those who trust in science, knowledge and our democratic institutions, those who know a better future awaits, work together to make that future a reality. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

That must be the Party’s creed. If not, may another party rise to proclaim it.

[Notes:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/17/climate/trump-fishing-marine-protected-zone.html