For many years, and verified by study after study, sociologists and child development experts have noted that the youngest children raised in wealth develop faster and better academically than their cohort children raised in poverty. Duh, you might think. But the real question is whether it’s the money or something else associated with the wealth/poverty conditions. Perhaps rich parents spend more time with their children (including two parent vs one parent households), or buy/read more books to them, or hire more qualified care-givers, or provide better nutrition and so forth. If it’s just the money, it points to an obvious solution.
In 2018 a group of researchers decided to take on the challenge of studying the issue. It was not just a theoretical assignment. Real debates were going in Washington, DC (and elsewhere) about direct monthly payments to poor parents of young children, along with related proposals for Universal Basic Income (UBI, the idea of a cash supplement available to all people from the government). The researchers developed the Baby’s First Years randomized control trial: the gold standard among scientific research. They identified one-thousand racially and ethnically diverse mothers (from New York, greater Omaha metropolitan area, New Orleans, and Minneapolis/St. Paul) with incomes below the U.S.federal poverty line, whom they recruited from postpartum wards in 2018-19, and randomized to receive either $333/month or$20/month for the first several years of their children’s lives. The $20 group was the control, representing an amount which induced the mothers to participate, but not enough to make a difference in their children’s development. The $333 group may not sound like much either, but it represented an 18% increase in their available income, a sum designed to elicit a positive change. The study was planned to last forty months, but they extended it twice to a total of seventy-six months.
The rigor of the study is unquestioned: children were routinely tested for four primary child outcomes (language, executive function, social/emotional development, and resting high-frequency brain activity) as well as three secondary child outcomes (visual processing/spatial perception, pre-literacy skills, and diagnosis of developmental conditions).
By early 2022, the team released preliminary results: children in the $333 group were more likely to show brain activity patterns associated with the development of thinking and learning. The results hit just as Republicans in Congress had torpedoed a Child Tax Credit, creating a cascade of bad press. Press reporting and politicians skipped mentioning the usual disclaimers: it was only a preliminary result, it was only one of seven possible measure areas, the results were suggestive (even such a well-designed study cannot be definitive, after all). NBC led with “Giving low-income families cash can help babies’ brain activity” and “No-strings-attached subsidies for low-income families improved brain activity in infants, a novel clinical trial finds.” The New York Times headline was “Cash Aid to Poor Mothers Increases Brain Activity in Babies, Study Finds” but then immediately added the political spin “The research could have policy implications as President Biden pushes to revive his proposal to expand the child tax credit.” And other legacy media wrote/led with much the same.
In May of this year, the team publicized their final results. What, you didn’t hear about it? No one did. Here is the final outcome: After the first four years of the intervention, we find no statistically significant impacts of the cash transfers on four preregistered primary outcomesnor on three secondary outcomes. Zero. Nada, Ziltch. The preliminary finding of increased brain activity washed out when all the data was accumulated; it happens.
How did I find out? Yesterday, the New York Times ran with this headline: Study May Undercut Idea That Cash Payments to Poor Families Help Child Development” with the subtitle, “Rigorous new research appears to show that monthly checks intended to help disadvantaged children did little for their well-being, adding a new element to a dispute over expanded government aid.” Kudos to the Times for even uncovering the report, but I do note they re-introduce uncertainty they didn’t show (“May Undercut . . .”) when they liked the preliminary result. And the secondary language (“adding a new element . . .”) fairly runs away from the obvious.
Speaking of running away, the research team quietly completed the study without publicizing the results, just formally submitting them. The Times buried this point in the article, although it did also note that several co-authors declined to comment on their work.
The study results speak for themselves. Several outside experts wonder whether the pandemic somehow skewed the results, but it is unclear how that would happen, or what to do about it. I do add that two additional findings undercut another common argument: the high-cash mothers in the study did not spend the extra money on alcohol and cigarettes, at least according to self-reporting. Also, they were less likely to work full-time, and reported higher stress than the low-cash mothers.
What to take from all this? Unlike the media and political left which ran with the story as a scientific fact when they approved of the preliminary results, I’m not sure it is definitive in its final form. Maybe the pandemic was too large, the stipend was too small, or maybe the kids will improve academically later in life. Maybe. The real lesson here is how science was used as a political weapon. Acclaimed when it confirms one side’s views, literally hidden–by both the researchers themselves and the media–when it does not. There is a related problem in the sciences called the “file drawer effect.” It happens when scientists simply don’t publish negative research findings; they simply drop them in their files to disappear. This has the effect of letting other scientists end up re-creating the same research rather than building on the negative outcomes, so it wastes resources. But it also indicts the scientists’ objectivity, as they put the outcomes they desire above what the data show.
I haven’t seen any other coverage, especially in the legacy media sites which initially reported. Maybe it’s coming. But the next time someone pipes up with “follow the science,” ask them about the Baby’s First Years study. It’s hard to follow what is hidden.
I have tried politely suggesting people think before texting/tweeting/etc. I have tried mildly poking fun at social media inaccuracies, or gently correcting them. I have tried appealing to people’s humanity, and even pointed out the discrepancy between demanding truth and posting lies. I guess it’s time for a different tack.
The amount of disinformation or just plain stupidity in social media is reaching some unequaled crescendo. It’s not just the politicians, who truth be told, have always shaded the truth, known as spin. Next it spread to the news media and talking heads, who carefully maintained an air of credibility and non-partisanship while clearly favoring one side or the other. Now it’s further democratized to the general public, where people known as trolls take it to a whole new level.
Who or what are trolls? They have always been with us, but in bygone days they were easier to avoid or shame, which regulated their behavior. Trolls are people who simply enjoy causing other people to get angry, especially people with whom they disagree politically or culturally. You might have had a family troll, your distant cousin or uncle who always showed up at family gatherings and brought up some contentious issue or piece of family history, ensuring a loud argument which could never be resolved. He did it because it was his idea of fun. Or she did it because it made her the center of attention. The reason is irrelevant in the end. It was a fundamentally anti-social behavior. But you could avoid being around that troll, or someone more powerful or influential in the family could warn them to STFU (Latin for “please don’t say that”).
Now they’re much harder to avoid. The algorithms which control social media notice who your trolls are, and feed them to you to get a reaction (remember, that’s how they win advertising dollars, by the amount of time and interaction you spend on their media). It’s designed to get you to interact with the trolls, or in internet jargon, “feed the trolls.” Now my wise friends are tut-tutting (love that phrase), “Pat, you know we’re wise to the world, and we would never feed the trolls.” And that may be true. Now you’ve become the trolls!
Yes, I said it, but this is an intervention. Too many of my wise, seasoned, and very lovable internet friends have become trolls. No, they’re not as bad as those family trolls, who were professional psychopaths. Rather, my friends are just practicing occasional troll behavior, which in some ways is more concerning. Other people quickly learn to ignore professional trolls, but when an average upstanding citizen does it, they take others in, too. Because your friends believe you would never troll them.
It’s not all my friends’ fault. Yes, our leaders set a bad example, but I remind that that has always been the case (read about the public lying between Jefferson and Adams, for Heaven’s sake!). And opinion leaders do it too. Fox News is full of it, in all senses of the phrase. Rachel Maddow is a Troll Queen who came to prominence promising to uncover Trump as a Russian mole. . . still waiting on that. These people aren’t stupid, they are businesses or entertainers who knows that outrageous claims=dollars in their pocket. And they won’t stop. But you can.
What evidence shall I present? To avoid unnecessarily calling friends out, I won’t be too specific. But time and again I see people either sharing sources they should know better, or posting garbage that a millisecond fact check would show as wrong. I’m not talking about sharing a New York Times editorial about whether tariffs help or hurt a nation’s economy: that’s arguable, and have at it. I’m talking about claiming Elon Musk is a grifter getting rich off insider government contracts. Or Canada is a fentanyl threat. Or government employees must liquidate Thrift Savings Program accounts to avoid Trump seizing them. Or all foreign aid is either fraud, waste, or abuse. Or the 2024 federal voting results were hacked. Or freeze your credit because DOGE has your data. Stop it already.
In case you’ve missed the news lately, it’s easy to doctor a picture, so any incriminating photo that looks absolutely incredible and you’ve never sent it before? It’s probably fake. Try using Google Lens (formerly Google reverse image search), which will tell you if a photo is AI-generated. Is it a text/tweet? Does it have a date/time stamp? can you access the account and check? Yes, yes, you can, if you care about the truth.
Listen, I’m not saying you can’t express your opinions. Many times when friends share something, I ask them to restate, in their own words, how they feel, and that comes across more reasonable and honest. Or I ask them to check what they are about to share: just type the first line in with the word “hoax” added, and see what Señor Google has to say. When you just share something because you know it’s going to “pwn the libs/Maga crowd,” what you’re really saying is “I don’t care about the truth. I don’t care about my social media friends. I don’t even care if anyone does something stupid because of what I posted.” That, mis amigos, is quite anti-social behavior. Troll-like.
Even worse (I know, it’s possible!), while troll-like behavior is making your “friends” dumber, it’s making you dumber, too. See, when you post something without fact-checking, or just because it makes you feel good to denigrate somebody else, that All-Seeing Eye (the algorithm) says, “hey, John Doe falls for this sh!t. Feed him more!” See, the algorithm doesn’t care about right and wrong, so if you choose to ignore what’s correct or real, it will, too. And you get a steady diet of social media stool. Enjoy!
Way back when, the comedian Jeff Foxworthy had a routine which always ended with the punchline, “here’s your sign.” The set-up was about the fact that stupid people should wear a sign indicating their status (stupid) so you wouldn’t be surprised when their stupidity showed up. It may seem a little harsh, but it was an effective joke routine, and the material to set it up was almost endless.
Next time you’re about to troll, stop, think twice, and remember; Here’s your sign!
After the passage of President Trump’s “One, Big Beautiful Bill” (its literal title, hereafter OBBB), you no doubt have seen some fairly apocalyptic predictions about Medicaid. Keep in mind that these are all predictions. What can we say factually about the program and what the OBBB says about it?
What is Medicaid? Formally Title XIX of the Social Security Act of 1965, Medicaid is a federal-state partnership that provides medical assistance to low-income individuals and families who cannot afford private health insurance. I bolded the key terms. The federal government provides most of the funds (two-thirds) and dictates who always qualifies and what care must be covered. The states provide the rest of the funding and administer the program (with significant variance between the states). It was designed to provide health care to the poorest and neediest: a truly charitable endeavor. In 1965, about 2% of Americans were covered by Medicaid; today it is around 20%. Are there ten times more poor and needy today? Of course not. The change in enrollment is driven by increasing eligibility over time. This chart details some of the changes:
From the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF)
Form the 1970s through 2008, the number of Americans enrolled in Medicaid was driven by population increases (200 million to 300 million approximately) and by more inclusive rules (for example, greater eligibility for women, children, and people with disabilities). The biggest change begins in 2010, when President Obama signed into the law the Affordable Care Act (ACA in the chart, hereafter “Obamacare”).
This law greatly decreased the number of those uninsured by making health insurance mandatory (the personal insurance mandate, backed by a tax penalty), by offering Obamacare marketplaces where insurance could be purchased with a means-tested federal government subsidy, and by increasing eligibility for Medicaid. Most people don’t realize that in the great debate over Obamacare (for example, the personal mandate was ruled constitutional by the US Supreme Court, but effectively rescinded by the Trump administration in 2017 when the tax penalty was set to zero), most of the gains in insurance coverage were due to the simple increase in eligibility in Medicaid (which didn’t require any grand new law).
In the chart, Medicaid enrollment sharply increases after 2008, going from about 40 million to over 90 million at peak. This was also accelerated by a pandemic-era (2020) legal change, called continuous enrollment, which required states to leave persons receiving Medicaid on the rolls whether they still qualified or not. The point here was to avoid cutting people off from their only health insurance during a pandemic. Medicaid enrollment currently stands at around 80 million, after continuous enrollment was cancelled in 2023. The point here is that 15 million people were removed from Medicaid under the Biden administration, not because the government is cruel, but because they were not eligible, under the law.
While most of Medicaid funding goes for poor people over 65 years old and those disabled, the fastest growing segment of Medicaid enrollees is (non-disabled) adult men, age 18-40 who are eligible under the relaxed Obamacare income rules rules. The second fastest-growing group is children, oftentimes children of adults eligible for Medicaid. The federal cost of Medicaid has skyrocketed: from US$333B before Obamacare to US$860B in 2023.
Now to the OBBB. It:
Requires able-bodied adults aged 19-64, who are enrolled in Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act’s expansion, to work/volunteer/participate in other approved activities for at least 80 hours per month to maintain their coverage.
Restricts state provider-tax arrangements. This sounds obscure, and it is, but some states taxed medical providers, then charged the federal government too, in effect “laundering” federal resources for state priorities that otherwise would be prohibited. California, for example, used the money to provide health insurance for illegal aliens/undocumented persons. It wasn’t technically illegal, but it most specifically is, now.
Eliminates certain recent increases in federal funding to states to encourage them to increase Medicaid eligibility, and increases eligibility checks from once every year to once every six months.
Denies eligibility to non-citizens, some lawful permanent residents, and refugees.
That’s it. Notice there is no change to eligibility for pregnant women, poor single parents, the disabled, or any other groups.
There are endless estimates about how much money will be “cut/saved,” how many people will be dis-enrolled, how many people will die. It is important to note that all of these estimates are, in fact, just estimates. Estimates of how people will respond to Medicaid and other changes in law have been poor, at best. When the Trump administration eliminated the personal mandate, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated 15 million people (healthy young folks who didn’t care to have any insurance anyway) would quit; they didn’t quit, at all. Now CBO estimates between 10 and 15 million will lose coverage. Are they right this time? No one knows.
Look at the facts of Medicaid coverage above, and the OBBB provisions. Ask yourself these questions:
Should Medicaid be a program for the poorest and neediest, or a mini-form of universal medical coverage?
Should working-age men with no disabilities be required to work/volunteer 20 hours a week in order to have government-provided health coverage?
Should non-citizens have the same healthcare coverage as poor/needy Americans?
Should states be permitted to use federal resources for programs not authorized by federal rules?
If the estimated 15 million loss in enrollees under the Trump administration bothers you, how do you feel about the 15 million actually dis-enrolled under the Biden administration?
How much of the increase in Medicaid enrollment and spending is consistent with the program’s intent? and finally,
How much are you willing to pay for all of this? Before you toss out “what about ________?” naming another budget item you would rather cut, look at this chart of current federal appropriations. If you can’t cut Social Security, Medicare, or Interest on the debt, the remaining options are limited!
Don’t engage with the headlines designed to enrage you; think! I am not saying cuts to Medicaid are a great idea, but neither are they catastrophic. If you want to join in and debate the topic, first learn something about it. Or at least something more than “people will die” or “what about the children?”
The Two-State Solution is the holy grail of Mideast politics: a way to solve the unending Arab-Israeli conflict by creating a “Palestinian”* state aside the existing Jewish state of Israel. It was the original UN plan for the partition of the region, but was rejected by the Arab countries and peoples. That was only the first time it failed. There were several other attempts, and every time the sides got close, extremists intervened (Jewish extremists assassinated their Prime Minister, Arab extremists provoked widespread violence) to undermine progress.
Despite this long history, western politicians and experts continue to insist the Two-State Solution is the only way to achieve peace. Even after the October 7th terrorist attack, some people continue to support the notion. While Israel is closely divided on politics in pro- and anti-Netanyahu camps, almost nobody there favors a Two-State Solution now. Let me provide an analogy to which Americans can relate.
For our hypothetical situation, let’s change the events of 9/11 to more closely resemble that of 10/7. Imagine a group of highly-organized, Native American terrorists working across several reservations staged the attack. They took down one of the twin towers with a plane and occupied other buildings. During the ensuing stand-off, they filmed hostages begging for their lives before cutting their throats. Eventually, American military units stormed the buildings, but some terrorists escaped with hostages, returning to the reservations.
Then imagine people citing the long history of American mistreatment of Native Americans, justifying the attacks. Accepting the progressive critique of how “Indians” were treated (I don’t, but . . .), it easily surpasses anything the Jews have done to the Palestinians. After all, the Native population in America is a tiny percentage of what it once was, while the Palestinian population has grown five-fold since 1948. (Note: Next time someone says Gaza and the West Bank are prisons or concentration camps, ask them when has anybody ever seen a concentration camp which had a natural population increase of 500%?) Now imagine even more people, especially people outside the United States, calling on America to set the reservations free as independent nations. How would Americans feel about this “Two-State Solution”? I’m inclined to think we might have seen the third use of nuclear weapons, myself.
In a previous post (Gaza Delenda Est), I called for eliminating Hamas and removing the Palestinian people from Gaza (remember, you heard it first here!). Many of my astute friends pointed out the extreme challenges to this approach– which I acknowledge–and those challenges remain. I will note that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have done much (but not all) of the required military work, and both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump had mooted the same idea (removing the Palestinians). I suggest the Overton window (a concept that says the range of acceptable opinion on anything is a variable which can be moved) has changed.
But none of that addresses the larger problem of Palestinian statehood. There has never been a real Palestinian state, and now there never will be. Nobody wants the Palestinian people. When the Romans exiled the Jews from their homeland, the Jews became wildly successful expats throughout the empire (much to their eventual chagrin, as it made them convenient scapegoats, too). When the Palestinians suffered their Nakba (“catastrophe”), or exile, they became a corrosive force everywhere they went. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) went to Lebanon, upset its delicate ethnic and religious balance, and Beirut went from being the “Paris of the Mideast” to a poster-child for desolation. The PLO then moved to Tunisia and created more havoc. Palestinian refugees went to Jordan and almost overthrew the monarchy. They went to Egypt and had to be forcibly suppressed. And they stayed in Israeli-occupied areas and fought, and fought, and fought.
Worst of all, they gave control of Gaza to Hamas, a move which Israel tacitly accepted, a major mistake by Netanyahu. He thought Hamas was happy to be perfromative against Israel, launching some missiles, conducting some raids, living the good life while corrupting UN aid and building tunnels that no Palestinian civilian could ever use as bomb shelters. Netanyahu and the IDF focused on Iran and Hezbollah, which is why the October 7th attack was such a success (and why the war with Iran is, too). But most importantly, Gaza under Hamas was a precursor: the Palestinians had, for all intents and purposes, a state. When they did, they turned it into a corrupt terrorist base. Where is the evidence that would ever change?
Israel cannot accept incorporating the West Bank, because to do so would very soon make Jews a minority in Israel. They can’t go on forever as an occupying power either. Eventually they will have to grant some successor regime in the West Bank limited autonomy. Such a regime will by necessity need to be not only demilitarized, but completely disarmed., and it will (also of necessity) exist at the sufferance of Israel. It will not be a normal state, because the people have not demonstrated any ability to act as one. Yes, they’ll vote for their leaders, create their own internal rules, and police themselves. No, they won’t vote in the United Nations, conduct foreign policy, or have any authority over the Jews who live amongst them (in some cases) or surround them.
Every act of violence, every new bit of evidence of the corruption and terror Hamas wrought, re-sets the timeline for eventual peace. And only after a prolonged period of peace is the prospect of a Palestinian mini-state even a possibility. Few people reading this (even the youngest) will ever live to see it, and it will only happen when those same Palestinians give up their dreams of reclaiming the country from the Jews.
Palestinians had a state for moments in 1948; they launched an invasion and lost it. They had a territory in 1994, and used it for corruption and terrorism (two intifadas). They had an enclave (Gaza) which freely elected a terrorist organization. How many times does the Two State Solution have to fail?
*I choose to initially refer to the terms Palestine/Palestinian within quotations marks to denote my belief using such terms denotes a reality that does not exist. The people living there are, and always have been in modern times, Arabs. I only use the marks the first time in any blog, to make the point, and afterwards use without further comment. I believe any nation should be able to determine how they are labelled. People from the United States are “Americans,” not United States-ians, because we choose to be called Americans.
Musings, observations, and other half-completed thoughts that occurred to me as we took a transatlantic cruise (Miami-Barcelona), stayed in Andalusia and Alicante (Spain), then briefly toured Rome on the way home (via London and Los Angeles).
I have no idea what this warrior is supposed to be doing; Spear-throwing?
The “tourists go home” movement is mostly theater. We visited the Canary Islands, Barcelona, and Sevilla, three hotbeds of protest against foreign tourists in general and apartment-buying foreigners specifically (we are both). We saw none of it. There are occasional protest events, but they’re scheduled and conducted for the cameras and local politics (this Sunday’s protests are an example). It’s not that there isn’t a real issue: lack of affordable housing is very real, as is over-tourism. The first is primarily a problem because Spain’s socialist government hasn’t tried very hard to increase home/apartment construction since their economy imploded back in 2008. Now they have a huge backlog, and too much demand, not enough supply. And the other part is Spanish property owners changing their rental units to tourist rentals. Who wants to rent to your fellow Spaniards when they can invoke unwise renter protections and live rent-free for years while you try to evict them? Whose problem is that? The tourists? Foreign owners represent a single-digit percentage of Spanish properties. And everybody knows that Spain is riding an economic wave right now at least partly fueled by tourism. So expect a lot of press noise and political posturing, but just love from those you meet on the street.
I’ve complained every year in these posts about the growing slovenliness of travelers in general, i.e, adopting American-casual as appropriate attire. It’s official. In the Year of Our Lord 2025, you can no longer spot an American using the usual dead-giveaways (until one opens his mouth). Baseball caps are ubiquitous on men of all ages. Shorts, too. Women in workout leotards. Both sexes with oddly-named collegiate attire (“Carolina U.” in purple?) or English slang prints (sometimes quite offensive, but I guess not if you’re not primarily an English-speaker). Europeans still get dressed up for things, but if they’re just walking down for a cappuccino and a croissant, they’ll look like they might be headed to Mickey D’s!
Modern technology has pretty much ended one’s ability to get really lost. GPS is always “watching you, watching you” as Hall & Oates sang. Google has mapped the entire planet, then photographed its streets, too. I’ve come to rely on Google for locations and times of operations for local businesses, especially bars, cafes, and restaurants. And it’s been pretty accurate in major cities. But we like to get out and about, to small cities, towns, and even villages. And there,the days and hours of operation, even whether the business is still in business, are all quite lacking. The businesses themselves don’t keep the data updated, and the locals who frequent them already know. So remember, Google may get you to that little bit of heaven cafe you seek, but whether it’s open or not? Only heaven knows!
Always the Commander; he needed guidance!
There is no need to pretend you’re a Canadian, eh! Europeans don’t generally bring up politics with strangers. We met many locals, in taxis, on tours, in cafes, and we were never shy about being Americans. Of course we had two advantages: speaking Spanish and being able to say we live in Mexico, which everybody finds endlessly fascinating, so there’s no need to talk about US politics. While Americans seem to enjoy immediately picking red and blue sides, other countries don’t. So if you don’t shove it (your MAGA-hate or -hat) in a local’s face, nobody else will care, either.
Transatlantic cruises are a real alternative to red-eye flights to Europe. You can scale your costs to your budget (inside cabin/no frills, balcony with drinks package, sweet suite) compared to economy/premium economy/first class airfare. Yes, you need to get back, eventually. But you do buy 10-14 days of leisure, a few ports-of-call, and minimized jet lag. For those with the luxury of time, it is a very attractive alternative. Caveats: don’t try to discover whether you like ocean cruises on a transatlantic one. The Sargasso Sea is no place to learn you have a landlubbers stomach (although they’ll have plenty of meds on board if you do). Do research the various lines, as their offerings are very different and aimed at different crowds. Transatlantic cruises will generally feature an older, more well-off clientele, that is, people who have the time (most importantly) to spend. But in general transatlantic cruises are less pricey (per day) than other cruises, because they are one-offs (the ship needs to get from here-to-there for the upcoming season).
The EU and UK have added new travel authorizations. These are not visas, which are legal permissions to visit. Long ago, western nations agreed to visa-free travel between certain countries to facilitate business and tourism. After 9/11, the problems with this approach were apparent. The US was first off the mark with ESTA, the Electronic System for Travel Authorization. The EU has been trying to initiate a similar system called ETIAS (European Travel Information and Authorization System) for a decade, and it’s still not in effect! The UK has rolled out its Electronic Travel Authorization or ETA. All of these are administrative reviews done online. You pay some money, submit personal/travel data, and get a response which verifies your data is tied to your passport and good for travel over a specified period (usually 2+ years). The processes are simple and should be quick, as long as you haven’t been naughty, traveled to odd locations, or have a name like Bill Bin Laden. Anyway, what do you need to know? You need to complete the process before you travel! And it may apply to transit at airports, too. We were returning from Rome via London/Heathrow, and neither the government, the airport, nor the airlines could assure me we would not leave the secure area of the airport to make our connections, so we could technically “enter” the UK and need ETA. We got it (instantly) as a precaution, and it’s good for two years. Better safe than sorry. When the EU’s ETIAS comes online, you’ll need to do the same for continental Europe. Be prepared! (Late update: the Heathrow Express bus ran between the terminals on the secure side, so we didn’t need our ETA at all. But if we had checked luggage, we might have needed it.)
Always the therapist!
We remain impressed with Spain’s national train system. It was one of the worst in Europe, but a few years back, the government stopped controlling the market, let in competition, and invested in infrastructure (courtesy of the EU). The results have been tremendous. You can get comfortable, high-speed train tickets for 20-40 Euros that take you quickly cross country. Most of the lines connect in Madrid, but even with the connections they are fast. We were just on a fast line from Madrid that clocked in at 299 kph (that’s 186 mph!). There are plenty of locals lines (cercanias), trams, a few subways, and of course many busses. On the high speed network, both Renfe (the Spanish national line) and Iryo (a Italian-Spanish consortium) impressed us. Comfortable cars, multiple classes, good service, even good food at the cafeteria car. We were less impressed with Ouigo (the French-owned alternative) which seems to have adopted the budget airline model of customer service. But all were quick and inexpensive. Pro-tip: if you’re visiting Spain and moving around, skip the airports and use the train. Just book your tickets early, as there are huge discounts for early booking and the trains do fill up. Second pro-tip: if you take a high-speed train, your ticket is good for local travel before/after the main ride (ie., getting to/from the train station on other trains/trams or connecting between trains).
Maybe everybody else knows this, but here goes in case someone doesn’t: we like keeping up with the news/shows we watch regularly while we travel. So we bring a long our Firestick and remote, then plug it into the smart TVs every hotel/rental has. It updates automatically to the new television, then brings up our channels, viewing apps, etc., all as we like it. Perhaps it’s just because we use YouTube TV (not YouTube, which is different) on the Firestick. But I’m betting other streaming devices and providers have similar options. It’s a nice touch of home, and takes up very little space (about the size of an electric shaver). Don’t forget an international plug adapter!
Usually, social media nonsense runs off me like water off a soldier’s poncho. But this time, it forced me to summon my inner soldier. Be forewarned: this post may contain flashing anger, strong language, smokin’ rhetoric, but no nudity. At least I think not.
There is a specter haunting DC. A threat so terrible it must be stopped. A crime against all that is holy, humane, and intelligent. It is wasteful of time and money, unnecessary, and potentially damaging to our delicate infrastructure. It is a birthday celebration. And a parade.
On June 14th, the US Army is going to celebrate its 250th anniversary. It’s going to have a big parade in Washington, DC. Army leaders love parades; soldiers don’t. I know. As a onetime cadet and alum of the “long, gray line,” I participated in more parades than most any other soldier (short of the Old Guard at Arlington). We paraded twice a week, sometimes three times when Saturday seemed like too much of a day-off. And I hated all of it: the getting ready, the practice parades, the occasional mid-parade rainstorm, the cold north wind blowing down the Hudson river, the sunburn on one’s exposed ears. I still have “too late/not ready” dreams about West Point parades, as my subconscious seeks something about which to stress.
That’s me . . . I’m the one in the gray.
I hated all the parades, but one. I got “awarded” to march in President Reagan’s inaugural parade (depicted above). The reward was a heavily-policed bus ride to a barracks in Virginia, locked in for a night so we couldn’t commit any misdemeanors, then the honor of being the lead military unit (oldest unit comes first) in the parade line, which put us first after all the horse-mounted civilians. Yes, a great pair of corfam shoes ruined, and trousers which forever after had the faint hint of horseshit. But it was worth it, I think.
So I speak from no love of parades. But I do have great respect for the Army. It deserves a celebration. It didn’t choose to be born on June 14th, 1775. The Continental Congress created it that day. Nor did it choose to make 2025 a special anniversary. The Navy will celebrate the same on October 13th. The Navy won’t have a parade: they’re terrible at marching (just watch any Army-Navy football game march-on). Perhaps they will have a group swim, although I once told a naval officer “isn’t there something terribly gone wrong when a sailor is ‘in’ not ‘on’, the water?” He was unamused. The Marine Corps will celebrate this year, too, on November 10th (of course) The Marines are also eschewing a parade. They would be magnificent if they did it, with 3D holograms of beach landings, drone fireworks, and 24 hour press coverage, naturally. The Air Force will have nothing, as they are about as old as a great Scotch. But I digress.
The parade should be a blast: over 6,000 soldiers with full guidon regalia. Army aviation flyovers. Storied units, with some soldiers in era-appropriate gear (Even I would sign up for that. Hell, I marched in wool–not Merino wool, by the way–in a uniform design from the war of 1812. It combined the breathability of polyester with the smell of damp sheep). This parade should be a visual re-collection of our nation’s history , and one not likely to be recreated in our lifetimes.
Yet something about the Army’s parade has set people’s collective hair on fire. I can’t put a finger on it. Some say it will cost too much; estimates range from US$16-45 million! One note: when estimates range that widely, they’re basically what the Brits call shite. If you count things like “military pay,” “overtime,” and “training time loss” and give them monetary value, you can make a cost estimate as large as you like. President Obama’s inaugural cost the government a very real US$50 million. The federal government spends $50 million every four years on each of the party nominating conventions. The DOD Comptroller reported in 2023 the department spent US$86 million on diversity activities. And the list goes on. Somehow, this one-time, semiquincentennial expense alone merits unique opposition.
But it’s not only about the cost. There are serious national security concerns, too, I’m told. Those soldiers won’t be training. As if one week-plus of downtime was going to be the difference next war. One numbnuts (a technical Army term for someone who should know better) actually said ‘the Army was wasting time and money moving heavy vehicles cross country rather than using them for training.’ Learning how to cross-load an M1 Abrams tank correctly on a train at a railhead, planning the routes so it doesn’t get decapitated by a bridge, and getting all the supplies, fuel, and parts to the right place at the right time ARE training, amigo. Better yet are those who complain that the vehicles might harm DC roads (have you driven there? There are potholes which could double as anti-tank barriers!) or perhaps damage the bridges. Hmmm. Guess the Army never learned how to check that out. Or maybe it already did (hint: Google is your friend):
So many opinions, so few bother to fact-check . . . Army M1 Abrams tank crossing Arlington Memorial bridge, 1991
So no, this isn’t about cost, nor is it about damages, nor is it about military preparedness. This is all about one thing, and one thing only: Donald J. Trump. It seems the Army had the great misfortune to share its birthday with the 47th President of the United States. For that sin, people are calling for the parade to be cancelled, and some idjiots are even planning a protest.
During his first term, French President Macron invited then-president Trump to attend the massive Bastille day military parade in Paris. Trump was impressed, and wanted to do the same in Washington. Not because there was any reason to do so, just because he wanted to do so. It never happened. Now there is an excuse. Do I think Trump readily agreed to any request for an Army birthday celebratory parade? Of course he did. Do I imagine the Army seized on the opportunity? I hope so. If the Army staff didn’t point out the fact there will never be more White House support for a parade than this President, this year, it was malpractice. Every interest group looks for White House support. It just so happens the Army got lucky.
So riddle me this, Batman: if Trump were born on the same day as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, would we be calling to “stand down” vice “stand up” that day? If the Army held its parade on June 13th, would it be ok? Sometimes dates and commemorations are inconvenient. I know people who were born or got married on September 11th; should they not celebrate because of the terrible evil of that day? I don’t feel I am going out on a limb to say the Army will only have one 250th birthday; why spoil it because of someone else?
If you hate Donald Trump, you have a lot of company. Get together and hold a birthday party for Harriet Beecher Stowe, Burl Ives, Pierre Salinger, Che Guevara (!), Pat Summitt, Boy George, Steffi Graf, or the United States Army, all of whom share birth-dates. You can resume your non-stop hatred the next morning, and I’m sure there will be something about which to be angry. In the meantime, tell a soldier “happy birthday” and buy them a drink. If you’re in or near DC, show up and give them some love. They’re marching whether you’re there or not, but I’ll admit, an enthusiastic crowd is at least a distraction from the horse turds.
Everybody else: drop the silly pretenses, and leave my (stupid) parade alone.
We’re on a European trip and we had the great pleasure to spend a day and night in Barcelona. We chose a hotel just a block from the Sagrada FamiliaBasÃlica, and a room with a view thereof. Spectacular. I’m sure most of my friends are generally familiar with the story of Atoni Gaudà (1852-1926) and his plans to build Sagrada Familia. He started in 1882, and it’s nearing completion today. Some of his ideas for construction had to await new technologies to be realized. The Basilica itself somehow escaped destruction during the Spanish Civil War (1936-39), when most churches in Catalonia were ransacked and destroyed, and even GaudÃ’s original plans were burned. As I watched the daylight settle on the almost finished structure, the view itself changed before my eyes. Gaudà designed it to highlight different parts depending on the time of day!
And then it struck me that I was witnessing a very concrete metaphor for the Catholic Church itself. The more I probed, the deeper the connection presented itself.
It is the work of millennia, not yet finished and perhaps never will it be. Begun before electricity became commonplace, sons have become grandfathers working to finish Sagrada Familia. And yet it still needs more work to realize its master’s vision. Asked how faithful Catholics can remain so when confronted with whatever outrage presents itself, we respond, “as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end, Amen!” We are not promised perfection (or completion) in our lifetime, only in eternity. If you do demand it, you expect too much.
It is beautiful, for its own sake. How many times have you heard someone say, “wouldn’t it have been better to spend all that money on the poor?” Folks who mouth those words may not know they are quoting scripture, as Judas (who wants to play that part?) scolded Mary (of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus fame) for “wasting” a year’s wages on perfume for Jesus’ feet, and Jesus replied: “You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me” (John 12:8). Yes, we could melt down the Statue of Liberty for scrap, or sell off all the works in the Met and feed the hungry. But for all those hungry for food, there are even more hungry for beauty. Everyone needs beauty in life, and all should have their fill (not just those who can afford to visit the Metropolitan Museum!).
It is always in danger of becoming that which it is not. The Basilica is a House of God. But you can’t really visit it to pray. There are certain “free” masses, but the tourist groups fill them before the lines can even form. Sometimes you can wrangle some time in the crypt church, but otherwise you buy a ticket. This is understandable as the structure is a quite spectacular tourist attraction. But Saint Peter’s is more so, and free. The Duomo in Milan is similar in stature, and you can still enter to pray or attend exposition, gratis. Much like in the days of Martin Luther, the Church must constantly be on guard lest it become too this-worldly, and not enough other-worldly.
It is permanent, yet constantly changing. The Catholic Church has been in a battle with modernity since around the beginning of the twentieth century. After the famous Vatican II ecumenical council (1962-65), many outsiders (and some Catholics) expected the Church to “get with the times,” as in change fundamental doctrines. That it didn’t happen has been a sore point ever since for those who expected it to. But the Catholic Church has something called the Deposit of the Faith, and the Pope and his fellow Bishops are responsible for safe-guarding it, not changing it. Doctrine can “develop,” but the authenticity of any developments is demonstrated by how the fundamentals remain the same after the “change.” GaudÃ’s towers and spires look amazingly different in the morning and evening light, yet remain fixed physical structures; thus it is for the Church, too. There are other places which welcome a more flexible, with-it vibe. Peace be with them.
It is a compromise between an eternal vision and an earthly reality. The immensely high towers could not be constructed from the materials available when Gaudà envisioned them. Money ran short, time and again. Adjacent structures had to be razed, dispossessing their owners. Progress was retarded by both the Spanish Flu (1918) and the Covid pandemic (2019). Construction exhausted a stone quarry in Montserrat, and England came to the rescue. The Church proceeds, always two steps forward and one step back, always trying to reconcile human frailty with Divine mercy and Divine justice.
It can be used and abused, for good or for ill. Millions are moved simply by the sight of it. Thousands swarm its perimeter, hawking everything from bird-calls to kitschy, plastic Jesus souvenirs. It inspires spontaneous prayers and premeditated pick-pockets. Just so the Church has been a refuge for sinners and swindlers, a hospital for the sick and haven for scoundrels.
It is a temple “not made by human hands” yet of this earthly domain. GaudÃ’s design is organic. Its spires and columns resemble trees stretching up from the earth, ending in branches and grape clusters and sheaves (you know, “bringin’ in the sheaves”). It somehow appears to have grown there, rather than placed there as so many other edifices do. Yet its complicated history suggests it was placed there, just not by GaudÃ, nor any of the builders. So, too, the Church which endured Roman persecution, barbarian invasion, schism and Reformation, crusade and jihad, Nazism and Communism, state capture and modern indifference. There it stands, demanding your notice.
The announcement from the Vatican of “habemus papam!” was a moment of mixed emotions for me. On one hand, we were on our way to Europe and would be in Rome soon enough. Sadly, the Conclave of Cardinals couldn’t wait. The Gospel (good news, after all) is they found a most excellent alternative, and the world was spared from Pope Gonzo I.
We were on a transatlantic cruise, watching a live satellite feed as the white smoke billowed from the temporary chimney atop the Sistine Chapel. Listening to the breathless coverage of talking heads filling time, waiting for the Papal doors to open, I heard one commentator read the lines the protodeacon would say to announce the new Pope. First, the famous “habemus papam,” Latin for “We have a Pope!” Then the statement of the full baptismal name, preceded by the word for Lord, “Dominum.” I listened intently for that keyword, as the protodeacon continued ” . . . Dominum Robertum Franciscum Sanctae Romane Ecclesiae Cardinalem Prevost.” Recognizing the latinization of the American name, I turned to Judy and said, “it’s the American, Prevost!”
Like most of the world, we were shocked. Catholics had generally believed American Cardinals were not “papabile ” (Italian literally for “Pope-able” or more correctly “Pope material”) because it was thought to be unwise to pair American political power with Vatican moral suasion. The Holy Spirit, apparently, thought otherwise.
Frank: “do you get the feeling everybody is looking at us?” Earnest: “Yeah, and it’s creeping me out!”
There will be a rush to assess and even claim Pope Leo XIV; it’s already on. I think we can safely say two things. First, Chicago-style pizza is clearly better than New York-style (at least according to the Holy Spirit. Sorry, Cardinal Dolan). Second, no one knows anything about who Pope Leo XIV is.
Time changes all men. None of us are the same as we were as teenagers, or even as young adults. Careers change people, getting married really changes people, as does having children. But none of these fundamentally changes a man like being elected to the position of “the Servant of the Servants of God,” one of the nine official titles of the Pope. Think about it. You only need to be (1) a man and (2) a Catholic to be Pope (yes, even I am technically qualified). I thought you had to be celibate (i.e., unmarried in Church terminology), but that is only a discipline, meaning it is currently a rule (Bishops cannot be married, and the Pope is Bishop of Rome) but can be changed. Peter himself was married. Yet to accept the blessing/cross and step into the shoes of the fisherman (an unofficial title of the Pope), one must accept that you alone are God’s agent in shepherding his most Holy Church and all its people–in fact all people everywhere, Christian or otherwise–to Heaven. That changes everything.
In the coming days we’ll hear from his brothers (‘we wanted to play hide-n-seek, he wanted to play “priest.”‘), his former parochial school teacher (‘he was a quiet, “A” student’), probably even his first girlfriend (he went into seminary instead of high school, so that’s a long-shot prediction). The priests and faithful from his diocese in Peru will weigh in, as will his fellow Augustinians. Some bishops, too, will recall recent dealings with him. It’s all very interesting, especially for me: we share a faith, a region (Chicagoland), a time (1960s-70s), and a persuasion (expatriates). I haven’t discovered whether he’s a fan of the Fighting Irish, yet, but I remain prayerful it is so.
And it’s all irrelevant, because it’s all about Richard Francis Prevost, and he’s Leo XIV now. He’s not managing the appointment of Bishops anymore, or supervising a diocese or an order. He’s the Vicar of Christ. His say is final on all things of faith and morals, at least for Catholics. And his views on any other subjects require the due respect of all Catholics, and demand consideration around the rest of the world. It may be odd for those who don’t believe in such things, but rest assured, Leo XIV does so believe!
What can we say about the man, Richard Francis Prevost? He is of the Augustinian order, named for those religious who follow a set of rules formulated by the great Catholic theologian Saint Augustine of Hippo. I have to laugh when skeptical, non-believing friends deride theologians as “people who argue about how many angels can dance in the head of a pin.” Perhaps they have never read Saint Augustine, who could have (in fact did) dismiss the arguments of people like Dawkins, Atkins, or Hitchens before lunch without breaking a sweat. The Augustinians are known primarily for their teaching and missionary work. So we should expect a man well-read, well-informed, and down-to-earth.
As an expatriate, then Father/Bishop Prevost spent decades outside the United States, primarily in Peru, where he eventually became an Archbishop. He is fluent in at least Spanish and Italian (probably others), in addition to his native Chicagoan (listen for the “flat a” sound). He is very familiar with the developing world and the different set of challenges therein. No one forgets the world in which they grew up, but some experience other worlds, too. As an expat, he is one of those, and he will have a broader perspective as a result.
Others describe him as an excellent manager. Pope Francis chose him, first to head his order, which is spread around the world, then to head a diocese (in Peru), and finally to head the Dicastery (office) of Bishops in Rome. That’s a lot of trust in his management skills, and must have resulted in success, because that trust kept growing. In the last of those jobs, he was one of three individuals (the others being the Pope and the Vatican Secretary of State) who routinely met with all the Catholic Bishops. Not only was that incredibly important in a Conclave where eighty of the voters were there for the first time and needed name-tags to know who was whom, it tell us something more important. Those voting Cardinals knew him, not just as a name, but as someone with whom they had dealt. I guarantee you if his hallway file (rumor mill) was that he was ambitious, or proud, or hard with which to work, they would not have quickly settled on him. Likewise, the Curia (the permanent bureaucracy in the Vatican) knows him and apparently respects him.
Among Catholic pundits, he had a reputation as doctrinally sound, cautious, yet open to the Spirit. He shared Pope Francis’ love for the poor and marginalized, but none of his predecessor’s impromptu manner. That was good enough to place him squarely in the pro-Francis camp, while not antagonizing those who were more theologically conservative. He staked out very stable, very traditional positions on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, gender issues, and the impossibility of woman deacons or priests. That is his record as Bishop, but remember, as Pope Leo XIV he may change, either way. For all the progressive (political) bluster about Pope Francis, he never varied far from traditional Church teaching. Nor can any Pope, really. Media types and opportunistic activists always overstated the significance of things like Pope Francis’ “who am I to judge” comment.
In case I haven’t written that full story before, here it is:
Quoting Pope Francis for “who am I to judge?’ is like quoting FDR as saying “we have to fear fear, itself.” Why? The quote is truncated in a way that is directly opposite of what was said. The original quote came in relation to a question about a then-serving Vatican priest, who had been accused of being involved in a homosexual relationship many years before. Pope Francis said “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?” The phrase “seeks God and has good will” is left out, but it is not a throw-away line. In Catholic teaching, it means aligning oneself with the teaching of the Church fully and completely. In this case, the priest in question was living a celibate life, rejecting a homosexual “lifestyle.” He demonstrated “good will,” and thus the Pope was very doctrinally sound in saying “who am I to judge?” But of course this was very consistent with Catholic teaching (‘hate the sin, not the sinner’) and did not represent any change at all in Catholic doctrine.
How is this for a job description? “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock, I shall build my Church. And the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
People will pore over Pope Leo XIV’s opening words and actions for clues as to where he intends to lead the Church. He wore traditional Papal garments, not Francis’ humble ones. He first mentioned Christ, always a preferred reference point for Holy Fathers. He repeatedly mentioned pacem (peace), so there’s one theme. He specifically praised Pope Francis and Synodality, the openness of the Church to new forms of governance, so that will continue, albeit possibly with some changes. He mentioned bridge-building, which is de rigeur for a man with the title Pontifex Maximus (Supreme Builder of Bridges). He finished off asking for grace from the Blessed Virgin Mary, completing a full tour of Catholic doctrinal touch points. Omitting any of these things would have been noticeable; including them less so.
Some will also ponder the meaning of the Papal name: Leo XIV. What does that mean? Like so many things, it is best to wait, as he will probably explain why he chose that name. Pope Leo XIII (Pope 1878-1803) was famous for following a divisive Pope Pius IX, and he brought normality and peace to the Church and world. He issued a very foundational encyclical called Rerum Novarum that established Catholic doctrinal support for workers, unions, fair wages, and decent working conditions, yet also established the equally important principal of subsidiarity, the notion that solutions must be enacted by the lowest possible decision-level (one often overlooked by Catholics supporting large government programs). The new “American” Pope chose the same name as a namesake who coined a unique heresy called “Americanism,” which we know today as “cafeteria Catholics” (i.e., choosing which sets of doctrinal rules to obey, or “being a Pope of one’s self”). Who are we to judge? 🙂
Before the “extra omnes” (Latin for “Everybody out” as the Conclave began, and I want to open a new email account with that address), informed observers noted the Church was riven between those who wish to push forward with even more changes “in the spirit of Vatican II” and those who wish to reconsider the ecumenical council against a “hermeneutic of continuity.” If those terms sound confusing, don’t worry, they are Church terms meaning, roughly, theological progressives and conservatives (not to be confused with political ones). But that divide had many cross currents.
Everybody loved Pope Francis’ way of reaching out to the poor, his humanity. His brusque demeanor with priests or Bishops with whom he disagreed? Not so much. Most agreed with opening up the Church to new insights and perspectives, but not those which directly question core (i.e., non-negotiable) tenets of the faith. And no one benefited from doctrine tossed out like quips on airplane flights. For the past twelve years, some who study the Church have sought to discover “a Francis effect,” meaning tangible evidence the Pope’s message was resonating in a way which fostered more, deeper, Catholic faith. It was never found. The Church grew rapidly in the parts of the world with the most conservative/orthodox leaders, even in portions of the United States. While the Pope received plaudits from former Catholics and legacy media (e.g., the New York Times), it never translated to butts-in-the-pews. A recent (anonymous) survey of new Catholic priests in America couldn’t find a single new priest who cited Pope Francis for fostering his vocation, while many still cited former Pope Benedict and Saint Pope John Paul II.
So what would I predict? I think the Conclave electors sought someone who can manage the Vatican, which has serious financial and organizational challenges. That may seem small or petty, but it’s a serious issue, and no one else can do it. I think they wanted someone who could continue Pope Francis’ legacy of welcoming all, while insisting on the Truths of the Catholic Faith as handed down by the Church. It has to be both. I think they wanted a leader who was not just open to new voices, but also heard the voices of his fellow Bishops. I can’t imagine how hard it was to sit in a listening session at the recent Synod, forty years of canonical experience and deep theological reflection behind you, and get lectured by someone in jeans and a t-shirt about what Jesus really meant when he chose men to be his apostles. The Church has a long history of laypeople speaking out, even correcting Popes, but not every lay person is Saint Catherine of Siena! Finally, I think the Cardinals wanted someone who would speak the truth fearlessly, but not extemporaneously. Catholic doctrine is hard enough to teach, harder still to understand, dreadfully challenging to live by. Making it sound less certain is worse for all concerned.
What do I think? The electors got exactly what they asked for. The Holy Spirit is funny that way. We all do well to follow where it leads.
In part I, I explained why I don’t feel the outrage so many others do. I made it clear that there are many things the Trump administration is doing that I disagree with either in intent or manner, but I don’t share the feeling that the end is near, as so many liberals, progressives, and the media preach. In part II, I covered what the big challenges are facing America today, and in part III, I suggested what those challenges require. It was a daunting list, yet I ended up sounding somewhat optimistic. In this conclusion, I’ll try to explain “why?”
The first cause for optimism is that it’s always better to correctly understand the world you’re in (and the problems thereof). That may seem obvious, but it bears repeating. Back during the Cold War, there were people who insisted the Soviet Union was just misunderstood, they weren’t as evil or ambitious as they seemed. Sometimes, these people were in power in various Western governments. It wasn’t a disaster, but it never went well. Anyway, people who think all will be well when we get to post-Trump are in for a rude awakening. They have missed the point.
That said, many people on both the right and the left are correctly describing how the world has changed. And that means they will be proposing solutions. Take for instance the economy. From the right, Oren Cass and the folks at American Compass have proposals to support families, unions, middle-class workers, and small businesses! On the left, Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson have a fascinating analysis in their new book, Abundance, which highlights how government regulations strangle both productivity and progress. Our leaders should welcome such ideas. I would love to hear that President Trump has invited Klein and Thompson to lead a federal study on which federal regulations to amend/eliminate.
On international relations, foreign leaders are admitting they have neglected military spending for decades, and have to adjust. I had a fascinating exchange on social media with someone defending Belgium as a loyal American ally who simply chose to invest in a better life for its citizens. I asked why that same idea didn’t apply to Americans, and of course got no response. Germany recently signaled a major investment in its military; I’ll withhold judgment until I see the spending turn into real capabilities.The notion of a “global policeman” is an historical oddity, and we need to return to reality. Freedom isn’t free, for anybody.
On international trade, no one can argue Trump hasn’t upended the system. That part is done. It’s very unclear if his administration has the acumen to create a new one. I guarantee if they don’t, they won’t get a second chance in 2028. There will be economic dislocations along the way, whoever eventually develops the new trading system. But the jury is still out, as we don’t even have a full quarter of economic data under Trump’s second term yet. What we can’t do is continue along the path of free-trade-no-matter-what that we were on.
Technology remains an unknown. America has the technological genius to win the AI war, but do we have the political genius to enable, enforce, and exploit it? I don’t see that in either party right now. And the people developing the systems can’t do it alone; remember, FaceBook was going to be a global commons of love and happiness–how did that turn out?
Education reform is a mixed bag, in my opinion. Things like growth in home-schooling and charter schools are only good in that having options is always better; they are not sure things, by any stretch of the imagination. But I hear of school systems resuming testing and standards, banning cell phones, and re-creating challenging placement programs. We’ll need a return of non-college track options, too. At the same time, some schools remain tied to things like the 1619 Project and DEI initiatives, which are educational dead ends. At least the general direction in education is toward more competition, which will expose the fads and frauds.
Government spending is where the outlook is most grim. DOGE has been mainly a stunt, notwithstanding saving $100+ billion. Trimming the federal workforce helps, but the way it’s being done is neither healthy nor precise. Everybody continues to swear all entitlements are off the table, which makes reducing the deficit almost impossible. Meanwhile, the MAGA party swears by Republican tax cuts for all and the Democrats profess “wealth taxes” and “ending corporate welfare,” bogus phrases which have no meaning. The silver lining here is that the threatening storm clouds will not blow away, so we have to face up to cuts eventually. I’ll go so far as to say that the party/leader who commits to addressing the deficit/debt issue with real solutions will win the next Presidential election.
One other reason for optimism is how fast the Trump administration is working when it knows what it wants to do. Look at immigration, which I don’t consider one of the great remaining challenges. Trump was always clear about how he felt on immigration; no one can debate that. We were assured by immigration experts that nothing could be done to stop the masses of people heading up through Central America, and that no one could identify all the undocumented/illegal aliens already in the country, that removing them would destroy the home-building and agricultural sectors, and that most of the people here were vetted and therefore not a threat. We have since learned that none of those “truths” were correct.
Border crossings are down somewhere around ninety percent (the exact numbers are in dispute, not the size of the change). The pipeline of migrants in Central America has reversed and is heading back home. The federal government is (for the first time) using all data at its disposal (including tax data) to identify those illegally in the country. Imagine that. Trump’s audacious (or illegal, the Supreme Court has not ruled) deportations have sent a clear signal that illegal immigration is as dangerous once you reach the United States as it was getting there. And people are realizing that no one could vet these migrants, as their home countries either didn’t share data with the US, or didn’t care.
But like many of the bigger challenges, all of this is being done quickly but impermanently. A future progressive Presidency could undo much of it just as quickly. The administration will need to work with Congress in a bipartisan fashion to enact laws that bring stability to the results already achieved. We need better border security, streamlined immigration proceedings, a new merit-based immigration policy, solutions for “the Dreamers,” elimination of birthright citizenship, reform of temporary refugee rules, and leadership to change international asylum law. That’s quite a menu! I have serious doubts about Trump’s ability to do this, even in immigration, which should be his strong suit. And the same goes for all the challenges above.
When you look at my list of challenges, you can see progress or promise in nearly every item. So the challenges are daunting, but I remain optimistic. One final note, about that Trump guy. I have friends who live-and-die on a steady diet of Trump outrage, and it only outrages them more when anyone else doesn’t join them. I don’t, because he’s just not that important. He is at best a transitional figure, and he seems to instinctively understand some of the issues, even if his solutions are often not well-conceived. If you focus on Trump, you have my sympathy. There are thousands of influencers, media types, and “friends” feeding the obsession. He doesn’t merit all the attention, and you’re missing out on profound things happening in the larger world. One day we will be beyond Trump, that much is certain. In the meantime, we all have choices to make: identify problems and solutions, or resist Trump. I choose the former. If you choose the latter, we’ll meet up again in the post-Trump world.
This is the third post in a four-part series. This post covers what the possibilities are following that (perhaps) creative destruction.
What will the changed world look like, if we peer intently at it without filtering it through a Trumpian or Resistance lens? Like this:
Geopolitics and the Military. In case you missed it, Uncle Sam walked off the beat as the world’s policeman. It didn’t happen under Trump. We got tired of the beat way back under “W,” then started taking mental health days-off under Obama. It continued under Trump’s first term and Biden’s senescence. During that period, our absence became noticeable, then obvious. Red-lines crossed, invasions met with outrage or “sanctions,” diplomatic insults ignored or endured. None of the Presidents I mentioned are to blame specifically; they each correctly intuited the American people’s view that enough was enough.
Now we are one tough opponent away from having a military humiliation. That won’t mean the end of anything, let alone the good ole US of A. But it’s a bad situation. In the past, we were able to recover quickly (see Pearl Harbor, Kasserine Pass, Pusan perimeter, the battle of Long Island, Bull Run I & II, and so on), but that is not always an option. It takes economic production and national will, two other things in short supply. Our leaders need to be clear-headed about who we are committed to defending, and why. We are not facing a global peer competitor bent on world domination (like the Nazis or the Soviet Union were). China wants to coerce the world toward its preferences, much like the US did (cooperatively) after World War II. The end result would be bad, and it is something we should oppose. But every nation is going to have to pull its own weight. And the US needs to radically restructure its armed forces quickly and efficiently, since we can’t simply throw money we don’t have at the challenge.
Economics & Trade. Economists used to talk about the “rational consumer” making informed choices as the key to understanding the markets and trade. Such economic theorists never stood outside a Best Buy in the wee hours of Black Friday. Economics may be the dismal science, but it is hardly the rational one. Economics is a subset of national security, as we recently relearned. If a country can’t make the things it needs, it may be denied those things when it most urgently needs them (medicines, computer chips, minerals). The US must recover this notion not in order to become autarchic (meeting all our needs alone), but to avoid being at the mercy of competitors, whether friends or enemies.
This will involve upending the free trade system we built. As a person who benefited greatly from the free movement of goods, services, and people, I lament its passing. As a clear-eyed observer of what’s happening, I admit it has to go. That means more border restrictions, tariffs, quotas, and restrictions. It doesn’t mean a senseless rush to impose all such things against all countries at once. Nixon may have pulled off the madmen theory of international politics with respect to bombing North Vietnam, but that doesn’t make it a viable strategy in general.
Things will cost more. Some things will be unavailable. There will be disruptions. There were under the old free-trade system, too. The fallacy of just-in-time delivery was that not everything can be planned for, let alone adjusted to. Some manufacturing will return to America; we’ll never have as many manufacturing jobs as we once did, because we are producing more things with fewer people nowadays. But there will be more opportunities for decent middle-class jobs.
Education. The American educational system has lost its way. Our brightest students do fine, and we heap resources on those who need more/different/extra help. But the vast majority of students in the middle are terribly short-changed. We spend more than most nations (per student) and get worse results. Schools have increasingly added staff for counselling and managing rather than teachers for teaching.
True story: back when the founders were “bringing forth a new nation,” there were very few public schools. The rich hired tutors, and church schools provided the primary source of education. Our early leaders knew that a Republic needs an educated polity, so they developed the notion of free public education. A (very) secondary benefit was shaping the culture of the next generation. Today we seem to have gotten things reversed. Schools spend too much time pushing cultural agendas, and not enough time ensuring basic literacy and numeracy. You don’t need to engage in a culture war while you’re learning to read-n-write (take note, Montgomery County, Maryland). You don’t learn how to deal with a different person by being told how to think about one, you learn by having a friend in your class who is different.
We could all do with a significant clarification of roles with regard to how we educate our youth. The primary role belongs to parents and teachers in local schools. School boards exist to provide the partnership necessary to enforce those roles, not to tell parents to “mind their own business” or tell teachers how to teach. School boards absolutely do decide what to teach; that is their main purpose. They do this by representing the values and desires of the people in the community. It’s not censorship, it’s local control. And it’s okay if things are different in different places. City and State governments provide funding to address imbalances, and establish requirements for accreditation/graduation. The federal government can also provide funding, and should set national educational standards for achievement. Not use that money as a means to micro-manage it.
Taxes, Spending, Regulations. This is where most of us will feel the pain. We’ve been overspending for so long, so much has to be cut, it will affect everyone. There is no single magic solution, a la “tax the rich” or a wealth tax or ending corporate welfare that will bring the federal fiscal books back near balance. They don’t have to balance exactly, they just can’t be out for whack like they have been for forty-six of the past fifty years! Yes, we should raise taxes on the rich, but we’ll need some benefit cuts, too. More programs need to be means-tested.
Take social security for example. There are many terrible memes about it, like the Ronald Reagan quote that Social Security does not add to the deficit. It was true back in 1981, it’s absolutely false today. Or the meme decrying that social security should not be called an “entitlement” because ‘I earned it.’
It’s called an entitlement because that’s a federal legal term meaning the government “has to” pay it. Still want to change the word? And unless you die early, you’ll get more from social security than you paid in (even accounting for your employers contribution AND interest). See what the problem is? If most everybody gets more than they pay in, the only way the system can work is if the population of young workers (who have not yet retired) is always growing larger than the wave of retirees they are supporting. Guess what? It isn’t anymore, and since the number of twenty-somethings in 2045 is already set, it won’t ever be so again soon.
The good news is there are many small fixes which can make the system sound once more. There’s a website you can visit (here), where you can try your hand at fixing the problem, and it doesn’t require throwing granny off the cliff. But as long as we treat all entitlement reform as untouchable, we’ll continue to hurtle toward a very real, very sizable cut within a decade or two.
As to other spending and employee reductions, here’s a simple point DOGE made which has been lost in the partisan battle. DOGE is characterizing everything as fraud/waste/abuse, and the Resistance is highlighting how each cut will hurt. Did the US Agency for International Development (USAID) really spend US $32,000 on an LBGTQ+ comic book in Peru? No, the Resistance tells us, it was the State Department (not USAID), and it was a gay character, not LBGTQ+ (Snopes says so!). But stop and consider this: in a country seriously over-spending (as measured by our deficit), the system approved funding for such things. The system (people and process, both) thought it was no big deal. Maybe because it was small, but this happens all over the government. Maybe they thought it was important, even critically so. But when you claim we don’t need to radically restructure both the people and the process the government uses to spend money, you have to defend these outcomes. Good luck!
Good Luck!
Technology. We are on the brink of an important technological advance. Artificial Intelligence (AI) may prove as revolutionary as the printing press, or merely as important as the personal computer. But it will effect major changes in society, and we don’t know how. We just finished with a small experiment on our own children (smart phones + social media) that has not turned out well in my opinion. We currently let the Communist Party of China have direct access to the ids an egos of our children and young adults (via TikTok), in a way we never would have let the Nazis or the Soviets. The Chinese do not let their own children and young adults access the same info they peddle to ours. And now we are in a technological competition with them for AI supremacy. Did it matter who won the race for the atom bomb? Absolutely for the Nazis, not as much for the Soviets. But do we want to find out what it’s like to come in second? And are we ready in any event?
This may all seem to be bleak and overwhelming. That said, I wouldn’t trade the position of the United States for that of any competitor. Of all the nations/groups involved in this developing new world order, we have the biggest advantages, not least in that we have people on both the left and the right that realize the changes we are experiencing. Denying them, or attributing them to the passing fancies of Donald Trump, are fatal errors. And no, I’m not saying President Trump has the answers. I’m sure someone out there is readying another comment about Trump’s inadequacy or insanity, missing the global forest of challenges for the Trumpian trees.
The Trump administration may have stumbled onto some of the correct policies. They still have to implement them in ways which work. And these policies will require both legislative enactment and sustained commitments well beyond the Trump years. I’ll wrap up my thoughts on that in the final post.
