President Donald Trump made big news on January 31, when he met in the White House with top pharmaceutical company executives. Or at least he deserved to make big news, because the issues he raised in the West Wing’s Roosevelt Room will prove to be central to the health, and wealth, of every American.
As we await the debut of the Trump administration’s healthcare policy, perhaps it will be helpful, providing a useful context, if we step back and consider the wisdom of the 19th century free-market economist, Frédéric Bastiat. In 1848, in an essay entitled “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen,” Bastiat argued that shortsighted people look only at immediate and obvious effects, which could be harmful, while farsighted people look to longer-term and not-so-obvious effects—which could be beneficial.
When all is said and done, the Trumpcare that replaces Obamacare will reflect the interests of Trump voters, and the middle class. It will thus be different from past efforts, coming from both sides of the aisle, to devise a workable form of health insurance.
Everyone knew that Obamacare wouldn’t be repealed without a fight—and everyone was right. But how rough of a rumble will it be? That’s the real question.
The holiday season is a joyous time for most, but not for all. For some—for too many—it’s a lonely time. And yet in that sadness is an opportunity both to do good and to make real change.
Most Americans, of course, are familiar with Trump’s emphasis on rebuilding America’s industrial might. And yet the idea of curing disease has long been a part of Making America Great.
Whither populism? Is the insurgency associated with Donald Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders a flash in the pan, or is it something real The answer to that question, of course, depends on who does the answering. Most of the Republican establishment, along with the Democratic establishment—which some describe as the “Uniparty”—would prefer to believe that the populism of Trump and Sanders is temporary, that is, a nightmare from which they will soon awaken. Meanwhile, the Trumpians and the Sandersistas see themselves as part of a long-term force, even the winning force, within their respective parties. Yet now comes an author with an arresting argument: He believes that the Trump and Sanders groups, currently in different political parties, might yet find themselves fighting on the same side—perhaps even in the same party.
1. The October Surprise
Remember the “October Surprise”? I sure do. Back in the 1980 presidential campaign, the October Surprise was the rumor that the incumbent president, Jimmy Carter, vexed as he was by the Iranian hostage crisis, would pull off some shocking ploy—such as gaining the sudden release of the hostages—as a way of winning that year’s November election. That October Surprise never happened, of course, and maybe we’ll never really know if it was ever anything more than a figment of someone’s imagination.
1. The Old Four Freedoms
In his 1941 State of the Union address, President Franklin D. Roosevelt articulated his vision of the American social contract, which became known as the “Four Freedoms.” These were, “freedom of speech,” “freedom of worship,” “freedom from want,” and “freedom from fear.” Those big ideas have defined much of the 20th century—and not just in America.
In an earlier article, “The Democrats vs. The Deplorables: The New Class Struggle Comes to the Midwest,” this author detailed the Democrats’ systematic campaign against the interests of American energy workers, many of them unionized—a curious stance for the presumed party of working people and labor unions. In this piece, I will outline an even more curious stance: the Democrats’ systematic campaign against American border security and American sovereignty.
The Democrats, once the party of working people, are now a party dominated by environmentalists and multiculturalists. And I can prove it.
There’s something happening here. And what it is, well, it’s perfectly clear: There’s a peaceful revolution rumbling through the country. On one side of the metaphorical barricade: Donald Trump and his “deplorables.” On the other side: Hillary Clinton and her close allies, the Mainstream Media.
Second of two parts
In Part One, we were witness to the power of the 60 percent majority, and we saw how our 26th president, Theodore Roosevelt, welded together the center-right majority of his day to achieve historic reform—there’s a reason why TR is immortalized on Mt. Rushmore. And we also saw, more briefly, how our 37th president, Richard Nixon, also built a center-right majority.
The world, as seen through the eyes of a working stiff: “You are patiently standing in the middle of a long line stretching toward the horizon, where the American Dream awaits. But as you wait, you see people cutting in line ahead of you.”
In politics, you know you’re getting somewhere when your name becomes the “peg.” That is, if your name is used as a tease to get readers to keep reading, then you’ve got some star-power.
The headline in Sunday’s Detroit Free Press was revealing: “Trump’s trade talk resonates for some union members.” Here, in what was once the citadel of organized labor, there’s anxiety—and curiosity. How will working people vote this November? For Hillary Clinton? Donald Trump? Or perhaps another candidate?
It was a headline that launched headlines. On August 24, Politico, the buzzy Bible of the Beltway, put these words atop its homepage: “Hillary Clinton’s run-out-the-clock strategy: The Democrat aims to ignore the email and Foundation controversies, seeing a shrinking calendar as her friend.”
How should we judge the sincerity of the two major-party candidates, Clinton or Trump, when they affirm their opposition to TPP? And how do we assess their attitude toward globalization, including immigration, overall?
Economic growth: What a great idea! Now, if only we could get the Democrats to agree that growth is a good idea, and if only we could get the Republicans to be more persuasive in making the case for growth.
If the 2016 presidential race is tightening, how come the Main Stream Media is acting as though it’s widening? Indeed, why is the MSM indicating to us that Hillary Clinton is going to defeat Donald Trump in a landslide? Why are Republicans being told that they should abandon all hope of winning the White House?
I read that all the time that Breitbart News Network (BNN) is “right-wing”—but that doesn’t make it true.
Speaking in the Badger State’s Washington County, close by the city that has been racked by riotous violence in the last few days, Trump hit the “law and order” theme over and again.
1. Trump Shakes Up the Debate Over Keeping Americans Alive
Donald Trump is talking about homeland security in clear-cut language that Americans can easily understand—and so of course the left is furious. Today’s Democrats, and their handmaidens in the Main Stream Media, just hate it when Republicans emphasize getting tough on lawlessness and terror. Indeed, liberals shudder when they hear the words, “law and order.”
1. Urban Renaissance—or False Dawn?
One of the most consequential societal trends in the last thirty years has been gentrification. In many American metropolises, gentrification has turned the term “inner city” on its head. The old image was of a poor, blighted ghetto; the new image is of an affluent yuppie/hipster playground.
Second of three parts. 1. Lessons from Brexit In Part One of this series, we chronicled a tale of two cities: the populist-nationalist Republicans in Cleveland, and the establishment—some would say elitist—Democrats in Philadelphia. Yes, it’s obvious that there’s a
Yes, I thought about that headline before I wrote it. Hey, I read the polls, too, and right now, for Republicans, they’re bad. I understand that the last ten nationwide surveys listed on RealClearPolitics show Hillary Clinton ahead of Donald Trump by an average of 5.5 percent. If that victory margin were to hold, Clinton would win in November with a popular-vote advantage somewhere between that of Barack Obama’s 2008 margin and his 2012 margin—which is to say, an electoral college landslide.
Something big is happening in American politics—bigger than this election. And so even if we can’t precisely predict the winner this November, we can know the general contours of American politics in the decades to come: populists on one side, elitists on the other.
The latest CNN poll shows Donald Trump beating Hillary Clinton, 44:39. For Republicans, that’s good news. Of course, other polls show other results—some even have Hillary ahead.
Sometimes, you hate to be proven right about something, and that’s how I feel in the wake of the massacre of the police in Baton Rouge.
The recent headline in Breitbart was clear enough—and scary: “The Automobile Is Becoming The Weapon Of Choice For Islamist Killers.” That is, running people over. We all saw it in Nice, France, on July 14, as nearly one hundred people died and hundreds more were injured.
Britain’s departure from the European Union is a victory for English nationalism. Now we’ll have to see what happens to American nationalism.
NATO was the right idea, but that idea needs an update for these times, and maybe a new start. Today, we need a new organization: Let’s call it the World Anti-Theocracy Organization, or WATO.
We may never be able to prove that Omar Mateen, the killer in Florida, was directly in cahoots with some ringleader in the Middle East, but without a doubt, he was influenced by those ringleaders.
A great population is a healthy population. That seems like an obvious enough point.
And yet today, at least four major epidemics are stalking the country.
As we think about the 2016 presidential election, if we want Trump Republicans — or, as Newt Gingrich calls them, Trump Americans — to win, we must be sure to unite.
There’s not a lot of talking at Arlington. Even chatterboxes find themselves hushed by the endless rows of white headstones, solemn signposts of heroism, sacrifice, and duty. Yet still, Arlington speaks to me. It is there, for example, that I learned about both justice and the rule of law.
Most of us recognize that America is being pulled apart, becoming more unequal. We can add that this is not just the old split between workers and non-workers; instead, increasingly, it’s a split among workers.
As we shall see, peace with honor often comes from crafty diplomacy. Or, as Donald Trump might put it, peace through deal-making. No doubt at least some pointers about grand-strategy deal-making were covered in Trump’s May 18 meeting with Henry Kissinger, the 92-year-old former national security adviser, secretary of state, and Nobel Peace Prize laureate. After all, Kissinger still stands as the beau ideal of a US diplomat.
“You can’t con people, at least not for long,” Donald Trump wrote in his 1987 best-seller, The Art of the Deal. “You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don’t deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on.”
In his 2008 book, Think Big: Make It Happen in Business and Life, Donald Trump wrote, “Think BIG! You are going to be thinking anyway, so think BIG!”
