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.

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

Ends and Means

George Will once called Thomas Jefferson the patron saint of limited government, which explains how my son came to be named Jefferson. Limited government, free markets and lower taxes also explain why I became a Republican. Today, however, those ideas also reflect why I now have such problems with the party, specifically that almost everything listed - just about everything the party stands for - is a commitment to the "means" rather than the "ends."

Free markets and limited government sound good and are good - up to a point. But unlimited freedom leads to anarchy, which leads to tyranny of the strong (interestingly, I spoke with a friend yesterday who's friendly with a Russian emigre, who said that is precisely what happened after the fall of the Soviet Union - unfettered capitalism led to corrupt oligarchy). But I digress.

When free markets are treated as an end, rather than a means, they tend to be left to their own devices because we are blind to their shortcomings in the belief that the nature of free markets makes them self policing. Not so, as we saw just eight years ago, when Alan Greenspan was shocked that bankers didn't police themselves to avoid the pitfalls of their actions. Problem was that he ignored human nature, which invariably chooses the short-term over long-term view. It's why we choose fries instead of steamed vegetables for our side - short term gratification over long-term good.

Economics are no different. Unfettered capitalism will have far greater highs than a moderated version, but also far greater lows. And without regulation, the true cost of free markets get passed on in ways that can be deadly (toxic waste, dangerous products, etc.), uneven (unemployment, dislocations) or in ways that lead to divides that are dangerous to democracy (hungry people gripe, starving people revolt).

So free markets need to be treated as a means to driving greater productivity, but as part of the goal (the ends) of creating the greatest common good for society as a whole (for the best example of ends and means, look at the U.S. Constitution - the preamble states the ends, the document outlines the means).

Supply-side economics is another issue where means have been confused for ends. Top tax rates exceeded 90% after WWII as we tried to pay down our debt from the war (that debt for war production is what pulled us out of the Great Depression, much like today's debt kept us out of another depression in 2008, but we do not seem to have the will to pay it down like our forebearers did). Again, I digress.  Still, those rates were reduced to 70% by JFK, then 50% by Ronald Reagan, based upon Arthur Laffer's theory that there is an optimal tax rate that maximizes tax revenue by increasing economic activity - but that reducing the tax rate beyond that point begins to reduce tax revenues once more.

It is almost certain that tax rates already are at or below that point where revenues will fall with further tax cuts. U.S. corporations are sitting on nearly $1.8 trillion in cash, largely because keeping it in the bank or financial markets generates better returns than could be had reinvesting in their own businesses. Further tax cuts will only increase that stagnant cash horde, and thus, are more likely to fuel asset bubbles and inflation than they are economic activity, while also fueling further government deficits. This is why I argue that the GOP has ceded their right to claim they are the party of fiscal responsibility.

Finally, health care - this requires a book, but suffice it to say that there is nothing where we have neglected to agree on our goal (the ends) more than with health care. But I will say without equivocation that a free market approach will lead to millions being left without insurance and that the overall cost of providing healthcare in the U.S. will continue to rise. That is because it is nearly impossible to create a transparent market where consumers can knowledgeably price and shop their healthcare needs in order to control prices. Add to that our willingness to spend ourselves into bankruptcy over health concerns and it becomes clear that the typical market forces that hold prices in check do not apply to health care (if corn goes up too much, I’ll buy wheat instead, whereas if a hip replacement is my last, best hope for pain relief, they pretty much have me over a barrel).

Bottom line, the GOP has become so intellectually constrained by mantras of free markets and lower taxes that they are operating with blinders on. That they are being led by perhaps the least intellectual president in our history does not give any cause for relief.

Predictions for a Trump Presidency

Less than three weeks into the post-election Trump transition and here’s what we have so far:

• We may keep parts of Obamacare
• We may not actually build a wall
• We’re not going to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants
• We probably won’t prosecute Hillary Clinton
• Climate change may have a human component
• We will not revert to waterboarding

Trying to predict where a Trump presidency will go is like trying to predict where a sputtering balloon will land – it’s impossible because there’s no rudder, no tether, no clear direction. It’s to be expected from a man with no moral or philosophical center, made worse by a lack of curiosity that leaves him susceptible to the last thing he’s heard (more on that in a bit).

All that said, for future reference, here are a few predictions as of November 27, 2016:

Immigration

• The wall will not be built. Sections may be completed to pacify "Build the Wall" supporters, but it will almost certainly be a thousand or more miles shy of closing off the entire border.
• There will be fewer annual deportations than there were during the peak of the Obama administration (404,000 in 2012), which deported more than 2.5 million illegal immigrants.
• Touchback amnesty will become vetting in place once technology and agriculture leaders explain the cost and logistics of requiring undocumented workers to return to their homelands to reapply for legal entry.
• The end result will be a policy and amnesty very close to what was proposed by the Gang of Eight.

(See post of October 2 https://www.facebook.com/pszydlowski/posts/10209610520314105),

Deficit

Quite simply, spending will increase, taxes will be cut, revenue will decline and the deficit will increase. Expect debt to increase by $2 trillion or more from the $19 trillion Trump will inherit.

Sidenote: The Republicans have officially abandoned any claim to being the party of fiscal responsibility. Their supply-side fervor has caused them to lose sight of the fact that even Arthur Laffer, whose Laffer Curve is the basis for supply-side tax cuts, argued that there is a point at which tax cuts do not deliver increased revenue through growth stimulus. It's like turning the furnace down from 90 degrees. for a while you experience increased productivity, but eventually you go too far and the foot-stomping and hand-rubbing to keep warm becomes as big an impediment to productivity as the 90 degree heat. So it is with taxes. [see this 2024 NY Times piece where GOP fiscal hawks makes the same lament.]

Economy/Jobs

We will learn those rural manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. Neither are those high-paying auto jobs. Truth is, we make as many cars today as we did before NAFTA, but automation has cut the number of workers needed by more than a third. The economy will continue to be driven by technology, efficiency and services, and society will continue to be roiled by the upheaval those bring. How that will play out when it becomes clear to the blue-collar Trump supporter that their factory is not reopening and low-wage jobs at chain stores, call centers and the like remain the mainstay of local employment opportunities remains to be seen.

Healthcare

One of Steven Covey's 7 Habits is to begin with the end in mind. We, as a nation, have not done that regarding health care, which is why it remains a mess. Do we want to ensure universal coverage? That requires a government-heavy approach. Do we want to minimize the cost for the greatest number of people? That requires a transparent free-market approach. But we will not achieve universal coverage with a free market system. Therefore, if Trump pursues a free-market answer, as his Republican colleagues on Capitol Hill will likely call for, we may see premiums for certain groups and healthy individuals moderate or even decline - but it will be at the cost of coverage for many and affordable coverage for even more as unhealthy groups and individuals find they are no longer sharing the cost of their illnesses with the broader insurance pool.

If Trump chooses to pursue a middle way, as suggested by his call to retain the pre-existing condition and adult child coverage provisions of Obamacare without retaining the individual mandate, we will see the worst of all worlds, as premiums adjust upwards because people wait until they need insurance to buy it (I see no way this will be the approach, but it points out that the idea of a free-lunch is no more workable with health insurance than it is in any other walk of life).

Social Issues

I predict gay marriage will remain legal (Trump has said it's been decided, though that is currently the Supreme Court's call, not his). Abortion will most likely remain so, despite the talk of appointing Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v Wade. Watch for a President Trump to backtrack on unfettered gun access after the first mass shooting on his watch. Black Lives matter and identity politics will require visionary leadership, something I believe is woefully lacking in our President-elect. I pray I'm wrong, I fear I'm not.

Governing Style

Every administration deals with the battle for the president's ear.  That battle will be magnified exponentially in the Trump White House, as aides battle for supremacy with a president who lacks both the moral or philosophical center that guides most leaders and the curiosity to seek the wisdom that provides such a center. Therefore, the last voice will be the most powerful voice. If his campaign is any indication, where there were three managers in eight months, we can expect infighting and incoherence to rule. We have seen this at work already, as indicated by the policy changes outlined at the top of this piece.

Combine the lack of leadership at the top, the ongoing potential for conflicts of interest, the well-known disdain for detail management style of Donald Trump and the opportunity for mischief in a government spending $3.8 trillion each year and, well, infighting may be the least of our concerns.

The Big Picture

Despite regional turmoil, the world has been more stable since the end of WWII than it has in its entire history prior. That is due almost exclusively to the role the United States has played in maintaining order. If we join the global run for the exits regarding trade, military and social compacts, we risk a slow, inevitable devolution into disorder, with players like Russia and China seeking to fill the vacuum left by the loss of U.S. leadership. I make no predictions how that will play out in terms of trade, military conflict or societal upheavals, but I will predict that 1) we'll wish for the old order, and 2) continue to believe further withdrawal is the proper course - until we realize it isn't, at which point it will be too late.

The Warning

We've been watching a slow progression of disdain for government over the past 30 years. I'll argue it began, innocently enough, with Ronald Reagan's claim that government wasn't the solution to our problems, but was the problem itself. Accurate as he may have been at the time, and though he refrained from calling government malevolent, others were not so forgiving.

Since then, we've seen self-styled patriots bomb a federal office building, take on the federal government over grazing rights and publicly solicit funds to protect gun rights from "jack-booted government thugs." Along the way, the ideas of Tim McVeigh have become more mainstream, as those who fancy themselves patriots (sincerely, I might add) become more outspoken in their disdain for government, more brazen in their actions against it and more militant in defense of gun rights. It is a volatile combination. The rural outcast warning of black helicopters and secret surveillance 25 years ago is now the neighbor up the street with both an arsenal designed to take on an evil government and a strident lack of faith in our democratic institutions of a free press, an unbiased judiciary and fair elections. How that neighbor - and all those like him - will react when reality hits that bringing good jobs back isn't that easy, that withdrawing from the world makes us neither safer nor wealthier or that the demographic changes thought reversible turn out to be permanent and ongoing, will go a long way in determining the future of our republic. Whether misguided calls for a convention of states or militant calls for armed resistance result, such will mark a sad beginning to a sadder end.

And whether Trump's supporters decide to turn against their man or double down in support if things go south remains to be seen. Much will depend upon whether a President Trump seeks to turn their anger against the very institutions his oath swore to uphold. Let us remember that this great nation has survived 228 years with the setup we've got. We should not sacrifice it because of one bad choice.

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

The Results

July 29, 2017

The GOP attempt to repeal (but not replace) Obamacare failed last night when John McCain gave a dramatic last-minute thumbs down to the proposal. The president refused to reveal his healthcare plan throughout the campaign, almost certainly because he didn't have one. Yesterday's attempt to repeal the ACA without anything to replace shows that assumption was correct.

April 4, 2020

Note that deficits have steadily increased under Donald Trump - and this was before COVID

January 7, 2021

In the piece above I wrote "And whether Trump's supporters decide to turn against their man or double down in support if things go south remains to be seen. Much will depend upon whether a President Trump seeks to turn their anger against the very institutions his oath swore to uphold."

Need I say more?

January 20, 2021

Total US debt as of January 20, 2017, when Trump took office was pegged at $19.95 trillion by the Treasury Department. That number stood at $23.2 trillion on March 1, 2020 before COVID had hit the U.S., or more than 3.25 trillion more than Donald Trump inherited, blowing away my estimate of $2T. This despite holding both houses of Congress and the White House for his first two years in office. I stand by my argument that the GOP can no longer claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility.

Debt upon Trump taking Office:    $19.95 T

Debt as of March 1, 2020:              $23.20 T

                                                        -----------

Increase in debt                               $  3.25 T 

July 22, 2022

Liz Cheney's comments regarding Donald Trump's relationship with his supporters to close the July 21, 2022 hearing of the January 6 Select Committee:

"He is preying on their patriotism. He is preying on their sense of Justice. And on January 6th Donald Trump turned their love of country into a weapon against our capital and our constitution."

December 3, 2022

Enough said.

July 29, 2023

The following appeared on Politifact:

Before Trump’s 2017 inauguration as president, the southern border had about 654 miles of primary barriers and 37 miles of secondary barriers, according to Customs and Border Protection information from an unpublished Jan. 22, 2021, report provided to PolitiFact. By January 2021, there were 706 miles of primary barriers and 70 miles of secondary barriers. Trump added 52 miles of primary barriers and 33 miles of secondary barriers over his four years in office.

FYI, the US/Mexico borders stretches nearly 2,000 miles

December 17, 2024

Headline:

North Carolina joins states calling for a constitutional convention

https://ncnewsline.com/2024/12/17/north-carolina-joins-states-calling-for-a-constitutional-convention/

March 22, 2025

In my review of Trump's accomplishments posted here, I made the claim that the economy was faltering before COVID hit. This piece backs up that claim.

From the March 22, 2025 John Mauldin economic newsletter:

"Note the decline in 2019 as a prescient precedent, the last time global trade contracted for a full year. The US economy would have landed in recession if not for COVID bailing it out with $15 trillion in government spending, an inordinate portion of which was monetized by the Fed."

https://www.mauldineconomics.com/frontlinethoughts/the-inflationista-illuminati-part-2#share

June 12, 2025

It took nearly nine years, but the president finally proved me right about his backtracking on immigration:

July 23, 2025

As I warned under The Big Picture above, our run for the exits would open the door for Russia and China. This has accelerated during Trump's second term on education, global aid, propaganda and more. Just one example. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/23/world/asia/unesco-china-us.html

August 25, 2025

September 3, 2025

 In today's NY Times:

Here, too, the administration’s inclinations have cut both ways. On some days, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has targeted work sites with aggressive raids. On others, the president has floated grants of amnesty to workers when employers would find it convenient to retain the cheap labor, or “touchback” provisions to briefly send some immigrants to their home countries and then welcome their return. In response to complaints of labor shortages in agriculture and hospitality especially, Mr. Trump has also indicated an interest in expanding the temporary visa programs that allow employers to rely on foreign seasonal workers. 

I'm Voting for Hillary. Here's Why

I doubt it surprises anyone that I am not voting for Donald Trump, but it may surprise some that I will actually cast my vote for Hillary Clinton. This has been a troubling, but not all that difficult decision because, quite frankly, I firmly believe she is the better, safer choice. She is far less likely to damage our economy, our security, our culture and the very foundations of our democracy than is Donald Trump.

Clearly, I had three choices. Vote for Hillary Clinton, vote for a third party candidate or sit this one out.

To sit this one out abdicates responsibility to others and means I have not done all I could to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office. Voting third party would give me the chance to cast a principled vote, but given that no third party candidate has even the remotest chance of winning Ohio, that vote would be largely symbolic. If I were to vote third party or independent, I would cast a write-in vote for Evan McMullen, a conservative former CIA operative out of Utah. He is knowledgeable, with useful experience in global affairs and has respected conservative bona fides. He'd have made a very desirable major party candidate. But he can't win Ohio, so a vote for him does nothing to stop Donald Trump.

Therefore, I choose Hillary. It will be the first time in my life that I have not voted for the Republican candidate (I do plan to vote for down ballot Republicans). And while my support is almost exclusively to keep Trump out of office, there are a handful of issues where I can say I am affirmatively casting my vote in her favor. These include gun regulation, where I believe a nuanced approach is the responsible one - and one that need not violate the Constitution of the United States. Consider all the rules, regulations and training involving automobiles, yet none of them limit our ability to get in our car and drive where we want. We can surely find some reasonable middle ground that helps control the spread and misuse of guns.

I also prefer her on the environment. I do not think that whether one believes climate change is occurring or not, or whether man is at fault or not, is a partisan question. It is a scientific one. How we respond is certainly political, but the question of its existence is not. I worry when any politician dismisses it out of hand, especially one as ill-informed or lacking the curiosity to learn the facts like Donald Trump. The fact is that evidence points to man-made climate change that could be devastating. Again, we need an informed, nuanced approach. Hillary is far more likely to deliver that than Trump.

Finally, while Hillary is most certainly the poster child for all that is wrong with money in politics, she is the only one of the two candidates who has spoken against Citizens United, a Supreme Court ruling that even an ardent supporter of the First Amendment like me finds appalling - and one only the most active political partisans could love. It essentially took the lid off corporate donations, creating a dangerous feedback loop where money buys influence, which brings more money. It has the opportunity to destroy any semblance of government of, by and for the people. I support Hillary in her call to overturn this.

There is much I disagree with her on - free college tuition, a $15 minimum wage and more. I don't trust either side on health care because it is an incredibly complex, emotionally fraught, expensive subject that, quite frankly, we don't have the political guts or the informed electorate that would make workable reform possible.

As for her faults - and there are many - I have done my best to inform myself. I have read a long summary of the FBI investigations into her emails and much of the Gowdy report on Benghazi. I have looked at the tax filings and independent watchdog reports on the Clinton Foundation and reviewed her tax returns. I have concluded that there is far more smoke than fire. I certainly do not believe she has had anyone killed.

That said, the foundation has many questionable relationships, especially where donations bought access, but there appears to be little to no quid pro quo. As to claims they give only 5 or 6% to charity, that is misleading because their foundation is a "boots on the ground" organization that does much of the work itself, so salaries, travel and supplies are largely for care workers, experts and relief. Her email story reads like one almost any IT person dealing with a sixty-plus year-old senior executive would experience - a technophobe who just wants the darn thing to work and has no idea how it does. In this case, it was a server in the basement. And Benghazi is an unfortunate situation that could have happened anywhere. We are a strapped nation with resources spread too thin. Everyone is asking for more resources, more security, more personnel, but not everyone can get them. Unfortunately, Benghazi was the location where that lack of resources had a price. As for her "What difference does it make" comment, that has been taken way out of context. After being asked repeatedly why it took so long to report what actually happened, she finally says, "What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator." She then goes on to describe a fluid situation in the aftermath of the attacks. I know this all sounds like a defense, but it is what I've found when I go to the source for information. As for Bill, bimbos, Travelgate and all that, we've fought that fight and it really went nowhere.

In conclusion, I will not be happy come November 9, but I will surely breathe a sigh of relief if Hillary is slated to become our next president. And I will reserve the right to fight her on what I disagree with, defend her when the facts support doing so and pray that our country can find a way to return to informed, civilized debate.

That's my take.