I Believe

We want real prosperity for working Americans without piling debt on future generations.

So, we’ve got to be open to new ideas. Some of those ideas might sound like they’ll never work. That’s fine. What matters is that we consider the options, build consensus, and stay focused on the results, not just the method.

Consensus makes lasting change possible. If we build real consensus across parties and regions, then we open the door to a rarity in American policy: a permanent solution. Not a temporary fix. Not a patch for the next election cycle. We need a system that works because enough people agree on the goal and not the method for achieving that goal.

Achieving the goal matters. How we get there is secondary.

There’s another angle we need to consider. When we’re looking at solutions, we have to be willing to think all the way to the edges. On one end of the spectrum is the “do nothing” option. This option is something we should consider even when everyone’s yelling that we have to act. On the other end is the option that delivers overwhelming, decisive results.

At both ends, we have to ask: Why wouldn’t that work? And if we can’t find a good answer, then maybe that so-called extreme isn’t extreme at all. Maybe it’s the best option we’ve got.

So, with that in mind, here’s a question worth asking:

If our goal is food on the table and heat in the house for all American workers, why do we tax businesses at all?

If that made you pause or even angry, that means we’re asking the right question.

Goals Matter More Than Methods

During World War II, America faced a nearly impossible problem. The country needed tanks, planes, and ships. We needed millions of them. We needed them fast. But at the time, the factories that could build them were busy making cars, stoves, and washing machines.

The problem was so dire that adversary global leaders assessed there was no way we could achieve our goals and win the war. Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, one of Adolf Hitler’s top lieutenants, said that Americans could only make refrigerators and razor blades. He assessed we would never be able to produce the military equipment and supplies necessary to defeat Nazi Germany.

At the time, Göring was right.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt knew it, too. So, Roosevelt started building consensus in order to create permanent effects to win the war.

And he had a tough row to hoe. Many thought FDR was anti-business. He had expanded government oversight of banking, labor, and markets. He raised income taxes on the wealthy and introduced new corporate taxes many saw as hostile to business investment. He supported unions and workers’ rights that businesses viewed as empowering strikes and weakening employer control. He framed the wealthy elite as obstacles to recovery.

But FDR wasn’t anti-business. He was pro-American worker. He opposed exploitation. He knew he needed a strong business culture. In his annual Budget Message to Congress on January 5, 1942, FDR said…

“We cannot outfight our enemies unless, at the same time, we outproduce our enemies. It is not enough to turn out just a few more planes, a few more tanks, a few more guns, a few more ships, than can be turned out by our enemies. We must outproduce them overwhelmingly, so that there can be no question of our ability to provide a crushing superiority of equipment in any theater of the world war.”

FDR’s administration couldn’t mandate patriotism or force companies to comply. It had to make the pivot profitable. The administration partnered with industry and offered massive contracts, tax incentives, and full-throttle support to retool factories for war production.

The government offered something called cost-plus contracts. For every dollar a company spent retooling its factory, it got that dollar back, plus a guaranteed profit. There were advance payments, tax incentives, and full reimbursement for production costs. That meant zero financial risk for the companies. If they stepped up, they didn’t just help the country. They came out ahead.

The results were fantastic.

Ford built a mile-long assembly line just for B-24 bombers. Chrysler stopped making cars and started producing tanks. General Motors converted its plants to churn out machine guns and aircraft engines. These weren’t small measures. They were full-scale industrial makeovers. Entire factories partnered with FDR’s administration and reimagined themselves for the singular purpose of achieving the national goal. The method for achieving that goal was secondary.

And it worked. Not because everyone agreed on the politics but because everyone agreed on the goal. And the government made it profitable to help achieve that goal. The system rewarded those who helped achieve it.

America became the Arsenal of Democracy not just through sacrifice but through consensus. The right incentives produced the right results in the timeframe we needed.

Fast forward to today. If we want prosperity for American workers, if we want families to thrive without leaning on public assistance, maybe the answer isn’t another patch or another tax. Maybe it’s the same principle. Let’s reward the businesses that help us achieve our national goals.

If a business pays livable wages, covers worker healthcare, and doesn’t push its costs onto taxpayers, what are we taxing them for?

In the end, it’s not about the method. It’s about the national goal of any worker being able to work for and achieve food on the table and heat in the house, all without taxpayer support. If we can achieve our goal, the method is irrelevant.

If Low Wages Are a Business Model, the IRS Should Send a Bill

Business taxes bring in less revenue than the cost of low wages. So, maybe we’re taxing the wrong thing.

Let’s take a closer look at the numbers.

In 2024, the federal government brought in about $4.9 trillion in revenue. Out of that, corporate income taxes made up just 10 percent or around half a trillion dollars of that five trillion.

At the same time, low wages cost the American taxpayer far more than half a trillion dollars a year. They cost about a quarter of the entire federal budget or 1.25 trillion dollars.

When companies pay poverty wages, workers still need to survive. No matter what, people need food on the table and heat in the house. We have all agreed to this principle. Both parties have expanded social programs to help people meet these necessities.

Because we all agreed that people need to be able to work for and achieve food on the table and heat in the house, these programs become mandatory funding. Mandatory means we must pay them. So, mandatory taxpayer-funded social programs kick in. These programs, including Medicaid, SNAP, housing aid, and refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, are automatic payments written into law. If someone qualifies, the American taxpayer pays.

In 2024, nearly 25 percent of all federal spending went to these kinds of programs. Much of this deficit is wage-related. Medicaid alone serves millions of low-income workers, especially in food service, retail, and care work. The EITC is specifically designed to supplement low wages with taxpayer dollars. In short, the federal government spends far more cleaning up after low wages than it ever collects from taxing business profits.

But rather than be angry at the state of the world, we need to figure out a healthy path forward.

So here’s the question. If a business pays its people enough to live, doesn’t push its labor costs onto taxpayers, and supports self-sufficiency, should we tax that business at all?

Because right now, we’re taxing good businesses and subsidizing the bad ones. And that makes no sense.

But … we also can’t raise the minimum wage to mandate the change. Just like FDR couldn’t compel businesses to get on board to achieve national goals, we can’t compel businesses to eliminate the need for taxpayer-funded social programs by asking nicely. When we needed Ford Motor Company to build B-24 bombers, we had to incentivize the change.

If businesses don’t increase revenue, they can’t raise wages. Mandating higher wages leads to job losses, not higher wages.

Two Studies Arguing Past the Point

It’s been a year since California raised its minimum wage for fast food workers to $20 an hour. And, of course, some sources claim the wage increase mandate is killing businesses, and others claim it had no negative effect.

First, a study conducted by the Berkeley Research Group, dated February 18, 2025, found that nearly 9 in 10 restaurant operators cut employee hours in the first few months. A third reduced benefits. Most said they planned to cut even more over the coming year.

Jobs declined. According to federal data, California’s fast food sector saw its first December job loss in over two decades outside of a recession or pandemic. That’s not a small dip. That’s a reversal of a long-term trend.

And prices jumped. Fast food menu prices in California rose almost 15% in one year, nearly double the national average. In April 2024 alone, the month the new wage took effect, prices in California spiked by nearly 3%, the biggest one-month jump in the country.

…

But before we jump to conclusions, let’s look at the second viewpoint.

A study by the University of California at Berkeley from February 24, 2025, found something very different.

According to their analysis, the $20 fast-food minimum wage in California did what it was supposed to do. It raised pay by about 8 to 9 percent for covered workers. It did not reduce jobs, it did not cause mass closures, and the price of a typical fast-food meal went up by only about 6 cents on a four-dollar burger.

The University of California study used government data, private payroll sources, and job posting platforms. It compared covered restaurants to valid control groups and adjusted for seasonality and economic trends. Again, they found no significant job losses. In fact, the number of fast-food restaurants in California actually grew faster than in the rest of the country.

University of California economists pushed back on the BRG study. They said BRG cherry-picked data, failed to separate correlation from causation, and relied on sources that weren’t central to the wage policy itself. For example, job losses had already begun before the law took effect, and the price spike BRG cited didn’t account for restaurant type or broader inflation. So who’s right?

Both are likely correct.

Businesses act in their self-interest to maximize profits. This statement does not intend to demonize businesses. If a business can invest in automation in such a way that results in higher profits, it will do so, as it is a means to reduce labor costs.

But let’s get away from the contradiction. It only muddies our view.

The decisive point is not whether the government should mandate a wage increase. Any mandate the government makes to the business pool has ripple effects, and there are winners and losers.

The decisive point is that the government mandating a wage increase does not build consensus.

We will not achieve long-term consensus with a wage mandate. Just like FDR couldn’t compel businesses to get on board to achieve national goals, we will not achieve our goals in a lasting manner with mandates. We have to incentivize change.

We Won’t Agree on the Method. Let’s Agree on the Goal

The first step to building consensus is agreeing on the goal.

And we can agree on the goal: food on the table and heat in the house for working Americans. We can build from there.

Here’s a fact: any business that pays poverty wages costs the American taxpayer more than it pays in taxes.

Here’s another: if we’re against raising wages to a livable standard for every worker, then we are for continued dependence on social programs. You can’t be against both livable wages and social programs. No matter how much we argue for market freedom, if wages stay low, taxpayers pick up the tab.

So, we need to build consensus to get through our gridlock.

Let’s throw out a proposal.

If a business can prove it pays every worker a livable wage, including the dishwasher, the pipefitter, the burger cook, the philosophy major, the ranch hand … then how about they pay no federal taxes?

It doesn’t matter if a business thinks those are low-skill jobs that don’t justify higher wages. If they don’t pay their workers enough, the taxpayer fills the gap, and that costs America a trillion dollars a year.

But when workers earn livable wages, they don’t need food stamps. They can afford private healthcare, so they don’t need Medicaid. They no longer need the Earned Income Tax Credit. Higher wages reduce the taxpayer’s mandatory funding commitment.

As a bonus, this approach reduces the burden on the federal budget and raises revenue because higher wages mean more income taxes paid by workers.

Some will say that we can’t eliminate business taxes because we should mandate businesses pay both livable wages and taxes.

And they have a valid point. But that stance has blocked progress towards our goal for more than 40 years. We will likely never gain the political consensus to make lasting progress with mandates.

Whether a business pays taxes or how large its tax bill is isn’t the point.

The decisive point is whether Americans can work for and achieve food on the table and heat in the house without piling debt on future generations.

That’s the goal. That’s the consensus.

If we reward the right behavior, we don’t need mandates. We build a system that works, even if not everyone agrees with how we got there.

How we achieve our goal matters less than achieving it.

May God bless the United States of America.

Some say we fight for democracy. But what if that fight is misplaced?

Some Hills are Worth Dying On

July 2, 1863, outside of Gettysburg. It’s the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg. The air is thick with smoke, the smell of gunpowder, sweat, and blood. Cannon fire rumbles in the distance, and the screams of wounded men echo through the Pennsylvania hills.

The Confederate Army, under General Robert E. Lee, is pressing hard against the Union lines. After a brutal first day of fighting, Lee has ordered an all-out assault on the Union flanks. He intended to break their defenses, separate the Union Army from Washington, and win the war right here and now.

Up on the far left of the Union line was a rocky little hill called Little Round Top. There, a professor-turned-soldier named Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain stood with his men, the 20th Maine Regiment.

Chamberlain wasn’t a career military officer. Just two years ago, he stood in front of a classroom at Bowdoin College in Maine. He taught students theology, philosophy, and the great ideas that shape nations.

He pursued truth. He was a man of character and conviction and believed in the union of states. He studied the moral arguments against slavery, knowing that America could not truly be free while slavery existed. He believed in liberty and justice.

After the war broke out, Chamberlain volunteered for the Union Army. In his letter to Maine Governor Israel Washburn, Chamberlain stated he had much to learn about military service, but continued that…

“I fear, this war, so costly of blood and treasure, will not cease until the men of the North are willing to leave good positions, and sacrifice the dearest personal interests, to rescue our Country from Desolation, and defend the National Existence against treachery at home and jeopardy abroad.”

So, volunteer he did. But in all his reading and studying, nothing had prepared him for this moment at Gettysburg.

He stood on this hill, gripped his sword, and stared down at the tree line below. The Confederate army was coming. If they broke through and took the hill, the Union line would collapse. And if that happened, Gettysburg could be lost. Maybe even the war.

The first wave hit them hard. The men of the 15th and 47th Alabama came crashing up the rocky slope, firing, shouting, bayonets flashing in the sunlight. The 20th Maine fired down into them, holding the line. The Confederates fell back, regrouped, and came again. Then again. Then again.

Chamberlain’s men fell exhausted, running low on ammunition, some down to their last few rounds.

Chamberlain looked down at his men. They were bloody, battered, barely standing. The logical thing to do would be to fall back. But there was nowhere to fall back to. If they broke, the enemy would sweep through them like a flood.

In war, everything is simple. But achieving even the simplest task is daunting. Fog, friction, risk, and the unknown close in on you. Exhausted, outnumbered, and wounded in the leg, Chamberlain could barely stand. His men had no more bullets. He did not know if help would arrive, and whether his unit would survive the day. He took a breath, steadied himself against the pain, and gave the order.

He shouted, “Bayonet!”

The 20th Maine roared to life. They charge.

Down the slope, straight into the enemy. The Confederates, themselves tired, expecting another volley of bullets, not cold steel, panic. The Union men slam into them, driving them back, pushing them down the hill. Other Union soldiers arriving at that moment on Little Round Top fire volleys behind the Confederates. The Confederate line buckles. Then it shatters. They turn and run.

And just like that, Little Round Top, Gettysburg, the Union Army, and the United States of America, held. Had Chamberlain’s men lost the hill, the Confederates may well have won the war. There would be no America.

Chamberlain had spent his life studying ideas, philosophies, great speeches. He had left a good position in Maine and sacrificed his dearest personal interests for the union of states.

He believed in liberty and justice.

For him, that hill was worth dying on.

And Some Hills Are Not Worth Dying On

It’s 1953, the final months of the Korean War. The war is dragging on. Behind closed doors, diplomats are hammering out the details of a ceasefire. The fighting, at least in theory, should be winding down. But on a barren, rocky outpost known as Pork Chop Hill, men are still killing and dying.

The hill itself is meaningless. It’s a craggy mound of earth, scarred by months of shelling, roughly shaped like a pork chop. No major roads lead to it. No towns depend on it. It has no real strategic value. And yet, it has become a battlefield. Two sides fight not to win the war but to influence the negotiations.

The first battle erupts in April 1953. US forces, led by Lieutenant Colonel William Kern, first hold the hill when the Chinese launch a massive assault. The fighting is brutal. Soldiers fight hand-to-hand, clawing for control of bunkers, trenches, and high ground. The Americans barely hold. Casualties pile up. When the shooting stops, the hill is still ours, but we’ve gained nothing.

Three months later, in July 1953, the Chinese come again. Thousands of soldiers charge up the slopes in waves. The battle turns into a meat grinder. The US high command debates whether we should keep defending this worthless hill, or we should let it go.

(The low rumble of retreating trucks.)

The decision comes down. We abandon the hill. The Chinese take it, planting their flag in the same dirt that had swallowed hundreds of lives over the past few months. And then, just a few weeks later, the war ends.

After the bloodshed and sacrifice, the final armistice line was drawn north of the hill. The Chinese didn’t even keep it. The battle, in the end, meant nothing.

This fact makes the battle even more tragic. Real breathing men fought and died over a worthless position. It was abandoned by the US, taken by the Chinese, and then given up anyway as part of the armistice agreement.

Pork Chop Hill is one of the clearest examples of fighting for the sake of fighting, with no real strategic or territorial gain for either side.

Some hills are worth dying on.

This wasn’t one of them.

History has made clear that some fights are necessary, and some are senseless. Today, we hear calls to ‘save democracy.’ We have to ask: What are we fighting for?

Save American Democracy!

Today, some call for Americans to “Save our Democracy.” This call has echoed for several years.

To be clear, this rallying cry is futile.

The word democracy appears in the US Constitution exactly zero times. That wasn’t an oversight. The founders didn’t build America on majority rule. They built it on structure, balance, and law. American government was designed to restrain power, not distribute it. The father of the Constitution, James Madison, even wrote a series of documents identifying why America is not a democracy.

In Federalist Paper No. 51, Madison identified the purpose of government. He stated…

Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.

Justice is the purpose of government. Not power or control. Not democracy. Justice. It is the purpose of civil society. It’s the reason we create laws, elect leaders, and build nations. Only when we start to threaten liberty should we stop pursuing justice.

The American founding fathers outlined a dogma that a just government exists to protect the weak, not to serve the strong. America owes allegiance to no king, and no aristocracy. America owes allegiance to the American people.

The best way to safeguard justice is with many voices, many factions, and competing interests. No single group should be able to seize control and oppress the others. Justice requires checks and balances that divide, limit, and restrain power and influence. No branch of government should dominate. No leader should rule unchecked. No law or executive order should go unchallenged.

Justice and liberty are inseparable. One cannot exist without the other. A government that fails to uphold justice will eventually destroy liberty, and a society that loses liberty will never know justice.

This is a rallying cry.

Our goals are simple. But achieving even the simplest goal is daunting.

Until government servants establish conditions of justice that enable every American family to work for and achieve heat in the house and food on the table without taxpayer support, we will fight for liberty and justice.

Until women have the liberty to make their own healthcare decisions without the government knowing what they decided, we will fight for liberty and justice.

Until American institutions again support checks and balances and no longer threaten the due process and structure of the nation itself, we will fight for liberty and justice.

The list goes on. Sure seems like we have plenty to keep us busy fighting for liberty and justice. We need not die on the hill of democracy.

Those Who Cry for Democracy Have Lost Their Way

Yes, we are a democratic republic. But the point of American governance is not democracy.

The foundation of America has never been majority rule. We are built on the higher purpose of liberty and justice.

Justice for the oppressed.Provision for those in need.Liberty for those whose rights are threatened by the majority or the ruling class.

Some say we must fight for democracy, but democracy is just a process. It means nothing without justice, and it is worthless without liberty. If we fight, let it be for the only things that matter.

America was never meant to serve the will of the strongest, even if the strongest is the majority. It was meant to defend the rights of the weakest.

That is the hill worth dying on.

May we seek justice. May we defend liberty.

May God bless the United States of America.

Why do we spend so much on defense?

Opening Scene – Key West, 1948

[Sound Design: Waves crashing, seagulls squawking.]

Narrator: It’s March 1948, and the tropical heat of Key West, Florida, presses against a group of men in khaki uniforms and dark blue service caps. They sit around a long table in what was once a naval officers’ club, now repurposed for one of the most important meetings in US military history.

This is where the fate of America’s post-World War II military structure is being decided in a meeting known as the Key West Agreement.

Before this meeting, President Harry S. Truman had signed the National Security Act of 1947 into law. It came into effect on September 18, 1947. Among other directives, the act created the Air Force, separated the Marine Corps as its own service, and merged the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force into one big, happy Department of Defense family.

Except they were all unhappy.

At the head of the table sat the first-ever Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal. He was tasked with bringing order to the growing tensions between the military services. There’s no official transcript of this meeting, but Forrestal’s message was clear. He wasn’t here to debate; he was here to decide.

Forrestal (Actor’s Voice): “Gentlemen, this nation cannot afford inefficiency in its military forces. The roles and missions of each service must be clearly defined, or we risk wasting taxpayer dollars on duplicative efforts. The President expects solutions today, not another fight over who controls what.”

Narrator: It was a polite way of saying, “Stop the infighting.” The war was over. The Soviets were the new enemy. And America needed a plan.

The Fight Over Military Roles

Narrator: The stakes couldn’t have been higher. World War II had ended just three years earlier, and now, the services were battling over bureaucracy.

The Air Force, freshly carved out of the Army in 1947, wanted exclusive control over air operations, strategic bombing, and nuclear weapons.

Furious at the idea of losing its aircraft carriers, the Navy fought to keep its fleet air arm.

The Marine Corps wanted no part of being absorbed into the Army.

The Army, which had spent the war defining large-scale land combat, was now struggling for relevance in a world obsessed with air power and nuclear bombs.

[Sound Design: Ice clinking in glasses, the scratch of pens on paper.]

Military Officer (Actor’s Voice): "Mr. Secretary, how do you want to handle this?"

[Sound Design: Chair creaks. A brief pause. Papers being folded shut. Silence hangs for a moment, then quiet murmurs of dissatisfaction.]

Forrestal (Actor’s Voice): “The Air Force will control strategic bombing and nuclear weapons delivery. The Navy retains control of aircraft carriers and fleet operations. The Army’s role remains ground warfare and land-based air defense. The Marine Corps will not become part of the Army.”

Narrator: Forrestal had one goal. He intended to divide responsibilities before the inter-service feuding weakened America’s military effectiveness.

This was the compromise. The Navy kept its carriers and agreed not to pursue its own strategic air force. The Air Force agreed not to pursue carrier aviation. Everyone agreed the Marine Corps would not become a part of the Army.

All the services had vital peacetime tasks except the largest. The Air Force would operate the nation’s global strike weapons and stand watch over the homeland. The Navy would protect shipping lanes. The Marine Corps would project decisive combat power within days of notification.

The Army, the largest service and used to special treatment, was left wondering whether its traditional role would fade away.

And yet, the agreement set the foundation for American defense spending for generations. Instead of reducing redundancy, it baked in inter-service rivalry. Instead of cutting costs, it ensured every branch would fight to justify its share of the budget. And over the next few years, that fight would escalate and become public.

[Sound Design: A military phone rings in the background.]

While the generals and admirals were busy carving up the military’s future, another war was brewing. In Asia.

[Sound Design: The hum of a military transport plane. Fade to silence.]

The Forgotten Warning – Korea, 1949

Narrator: The Korean Peninsula was spiraling toward war a year after the Key West Agreement. The US had withdrawn most of its forces from South Korea, assuming that a small advisory mission would be enough to keep order.

In Washington, the focus was shifting toward nuclear weapons and strategic deterrence. Ground forces and conventional war were yesterday’s thinking. The real threat was the Soviet Union and its growing atomic arsenal.

To make the matter more urgent, the Soviets conducted their first successful test of a nuclear weapon in August 1949. The West had lost its dominance.

Then, in January 1950, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson defined America’s vital security interests in the Pacific. He excluded Korea from that list.

But by the time Washington realized Korea wasn’t just another skirmish, it was too late. A Soviet-backed North Korea invaded the South on June 25, 1950, launching a war that the US wasn’t prepared for.

And this is where General Matthew Ridgway enters the picture. He was the man who would change America’s military spending forever.

[Sound Design: Artillery explosions in the distance. The rhythmic thumping of helicopter blades overhead.]

Ridgway’s War – 1950

Narrator: December 1950. The war was going badly. US and UN forces were retreating. The Chinese had entered the war, pushing American troops into a brutal winter retreat. Morale had collapsed. Soldiers were exhausted. Supplies were low. The US commander had been killed in a traffic incident.

Amidst the turmoil, the Army chose a new commander, Matthew Ridgway. During World War II, Ridgway commanded the 82nd Airborne Division at Normandy and the XVIII Airborne Corps during the Ardennes Offensive.

Upon taking command, Ridgway assessed the situation. He stated:

Ridgway (Actor’s Voice): “The men I met along the road, those I stopped to talk to, all conveyed to me a conviction that this was a bewildered army, not sure of itself or its leaders, not sure what they were doing there. The leadership I found in many instances sadly lacking, and I said so.”

Narrator: Many wondered whether America would leave. This list ranged from South Korean national leadership to soldiers on the ground. Ridgway expressed his intent and stated:

Ridgway (Actor’s Voice): “I’ve come to stay.”

Narrator: Ridgway took over the 8th Army after General Walton Walker’s death and immediately changed everything. He re-energized the troops, stopped the retreat, and launched a counteroffensive. By early 1951, he had stabilized the front and turned the tide. The Forgotten War would end in a stalemate rather than a decisive loss.

But his biggest impact wasn’t just on the battlefield. It was what he did after the war.

The Birth of Permanent Military Spending

Narrator: After Korea, Ridgway became Chief of Staff of the Army. And this is where he made his mark. Not with a rifle, but with politics.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, himself a former Army officer who led the Allies to victory in Europe, aimed to balance military commitments with economic sustainability. He knew that without military drawdown, America would run deficits due to military funding. He intended to cut the Army and shift spending toward the other services and the global strike weapons that defend America’s homeland. He sought troop reductions in Europe and intended to share defense responsibilities with NATO allies.

Eisenhower stated, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

Eisenhower warned against the establishment of a military-industrial complex.

Ridgway publicly fought back. He argued the US needed permanent large ground forces to handle conflicts like Korea. He testified before Congress, pushing back against budget cuts and warning against over-reliance on nuclear deterrence.

Ridgway won out. Presented with two conflicting arguments, Congress did what it does best. It gridlocked. The Army didn’t shrink. Military budgets remained high. And America locked itself into a cycle of permanent defense spending. This defense spending premise continues today.

People like to say the US spends so much on defense because we have to “fight two wars at once” or “project power.” That’s wrong. Those policies were the result of high defense spending, not the cause.

The real reason was that Matthew Ridgway and others like him made sure each military service had a justification for more funding, even when nuclear deterrence made massive peacetime ground forces unnecessary.

And that’s the story of why we spend so much on defense.

Seventy-five years later, America is still locked into this model. But what happens when the world changes and we don’t?

Fast Forward to Today

Our high defense spending had an unintended consequence. America had such a large defense capability that some partner nations chose to put less effort into theirs. Now, America wants NATO and Europe to spend more to contribute to their own defense. This is an echo of President Eisenhower in the 1950s.

And despite the fact that NATO has only once activated the Joint Defense Act, and that was to come to the aid of the United States in Afghanistan, some call for us to leave NATO.

But in a twist that defies logic, those who call for America to reduce our commitment to partner nations still call for us to maintain high defense spending.

These two positions contradict.

One valid position would be to strengthen the economic footing of every American and reduce the burden of debt on future generations. One generation has no right to bind another generation with debt. The dead have no rights over the living.

This position would acknowledge that we must reduce defense spending during peacetime. A result of this position would be reduced support for partner nations, requiring our partners to increase their capability.

A countering valid position would be to maintain our high defense commitment to our partner nations. Security, economics, and influence are all tied together.

This position would acknowledge that if America will be great, we need to maintain global leadership. We must act alone and with partner nations to create favorable conditions and gain and maintain freedom of action and influence. Nations form and maintain coalitions and international partnerships not out of altruism but as a strategic effort to enhance their own strength, stability, and interests.

But threatening and divorcing our long-term partners while still increasing debt for future generations is both unsound and unwise.

Is a country that burdens its future generations with debt while weakening its alliances making itself great again?

May God bless the United States of America.

Intro…sounds of echoing hooves on stone, a cart creaks, lanterns glow, a horse pulls steady and slow.

1801. The Revolution’s Philosopher Takes Power

It's March 4, 1801. A cold wind sweeps through the muddy streets of Washington, D.C., a rough, partially built capital city. Philosopher, writer, and revolutionary Thomas Jefferson is about to become America’s third president.

As he stood before the partially finished Capitol, the weight of history settled on his shoulders. Demonstrating simplicity, Jefferson wore plain clothes instead of a monarch’s suit. Unlike his predecessors, who arrived in grand carriages, Jefferson walked from his room to the Capitol. When he arrived, nearly a thousand people filled the Senate Chamber, waiting.

This wasn’t just another transfer of power. It was a test. The election had been bitterly contested, newspapers spreading lies to the darkest corners of the nation.

But he had prevailed. Now, America faced a question: Would the young republic stay true to its founding ideals or drift toward the centralized power Jefferson feared?

(Sounds; a horse neighs in the distance…)

We remember Jefferson not just as a president, but as a great philosopher.

He devoted his life to contemplating freedom, governance, and human rights. He upheld the liberal ideal that everyone is born with natural rights no government can take away. His ideas laid America’s foundation. Inspired by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, Jefferson regarded government not as an instrument of control, but a protector of individual freedom.

Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence weren’t politics; they were principles of governance and philosophy. He carefully crafted the Declaration to define what America stood for. More than two centuries later, those ideas still shape our views on freedom, representation, and government.

Jefferson’s philosophy shaped America from our earliest days. His principles still inspire discussions about freedom and our democratic republic.

Moving from philosophy to practical matters, Jefferson believed in limited government, fiscal restraint, and individual liberty.

He championed small government, lower taxes, minimal public debt, and strict adherence to the Constitution. He viewed centralized power and extensive government intervention as threats to individual freedom and pursued policies to limit federal influence, reduce government size, and preserve states’ rights and personal liberty.

(Ambient crowd sound…)

Back to March of 1801. Jefferson stood in the Senate Chamber to deliver an inaugural address defining his presidency.

The crowd fell silent.

Jefferson spoke passionately about simpler, smaller government. He declared: “a wise and frugal government... shall restrain men from injuring one another…(and)…shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits…”

His speech echoed a 1799 letter to Elbridge Gerry, where he detailed his vision of a disciplined, frugal, and simple government. Every dollar should strengthen the nation’s economic footing, not expand government control to reward political allies.

The Shadow of Debt

Jefferson entered office with a clear vision, but immediately faced a looming crisis: America was drowning in $80 million of debt, an unimaginable sum for a struggling young country.

Debt wasn’t just a financial burden. Jefferson believed debt represented bondage, robbing future generations of freedom.  

In a 1789 letter to James Madison, Jefferson pondered whether one generation had the right to bind another with debt. He argued that the dead have no rights over the living.

If the government kept borrowing, it had to keep taxing. Endless taxing meant Americans would never truly be free. Jefferson feared policies driven by debt obligations rather than the people’s will.

Taking office, Jefferson didn’t hesitate. He refused to let the new republic fall into the traps of Europe’s monarchies, where endless spending fueled endless war. Determined, he launched an ambitious plan to slash spending, dismantle bloated government offices, and strip unnecessary costs.

He intended to create a government small enough to live within its means, freeing future Americans from borrowed money. Success meant setting a precedent for efficient government. Failure meant endless national debt and expanding federal power.

Jefferson’s Radical Plan

Jefferson saw the military as too big, too expensive, and too dangerous. He believed standing armies led to tyranny, soldiers answering to power, not people. So, he slashed military spending, cutting the army nearly in half. Officers were dismissed, outposts abandoned. Only six Navy ships remained active, enough to protect trade, not wage war. The rest sat idle.

Critics warned Jefferson was leaving America defenseless, vulnerable to Britain, France, or pirates. Jefferson didn’t flinch. He envisioned a citizen-led defense, believing a large military was a threat rather than protection.

While ruthless with military budgets, he trimmed the rest of government more gently. His aim wasn’t to gut government, but to prevent it from growing. Military savings funded debt reduction, the republic’s real enemy.

For Jefferson, this wasn’t just about money. As a philosopher, he wanted government out of people’s lives, power resting with citizens. To that end, he fought against a bloated army and an overreaching federal system.

A Revolutionary Tax Overhaul

Jefferson saw taxes as tools of government control. He quickly eliminated the whiskey tax, a hated levy that sparked rebellion in the 1790s. To Jefferson, the idea that the government would send troops against its own people over taxes was a disgrace.

He didn’t stop there. Jefferson aimed to reshape federal revenue entirely. Instead of direct taxes, he preferred customs duties, or what we would today call tariffs.

At the time, material needs were modest, social programs nonexistent, infrastructure minimal. Federal tax needs were low.

Jefferson proposed there would be no income tax, property tax, or internal revenue taxes during peacetime. Government would be funded only by trade. He bet a thriving economy with goods moving through American ports would suffice.

Critics warned tariffs made America vulnerable. Reduced imports meant reduced revenue. Others argued tariffs raised consumer prices. Jefferson stood firm.

Mostly, his plan succeeded. Government stayed afloat, people kept more money, and he cut the national debt in half.

Triumph and Irony

Jefferson reduced the national debt from $80 million to $57 million his first two years in office. Americans celebrated. It was proof his vision worked.

Yet Jefferson soon faced contradiction. In 1803, Napoleon offered the Louisiana territory, 827,000 square miles, for $15 million. The Constitution gave no clear authority for this purchase.

Jefferson, a strict constitutionalist, faced a philosophical crisis. He suddenly found himself arguing in favor of implied powers that he had long opposed. Ultimately, his practical vision of freedom won out. He justified the Louisiana Purchase as securing liberty for future generations.

With one stroke of the pen, America doubled in size. He opened vast new lands for settlement, farming, and expansion.

Critics highlighted the contradiction. How could Jefferson, who spent years shrinking government, justify this massive federal purchase?

Jefferson believed this purchase didn’t expand government power, but opportunity. More land meant more self-sufficient citizens and less European interference.

Legacy of the Small-Government Philosopher Revolutionary

Jefferson’s presidency leaves a powerful legacy. His dramatic cuts and bold ideas about limited government continue to shape American debates even today.

Much has changed in America in the last two hundred and twenty-four years. Roads stretch from coast to coast. Power lines hum with energy. The internet connects even the most remote corners of the country. Education shapes the next generation. Social security ensures no one is left behind in old age. All of it; our infrastructure, our systems, our stability, comes at a cost.

But Jefferson’s fierce dedication to freedom and simplicity defined an era and makes us question what is possible today.

Should we dramatically cut the size of government?

On the one hand, we’ve forgotten Jefferson’s philosophical principle that one generation has no right to bind another generation with debt. The dead have no rights over the living. Yet, every president since 1940 has increased the national debt. Every president. Both parties.

And on the other, each generation uses, and must pay to maintain, national infrastructure. Roads and telecommunications systems are infrastructure. Education and training is infrastructure. Societal stability is infrastructure. We can’t eliminate federal taxes and still maintain our infrastructure. There is no free lunch.

We can’t claim to be Jeffersonian conservatives and cut taxes on the rich, expanding government control to reward our political allies. Jefferson didn’t cut taxes for his political allies. He intended to strengthen the economic footing of every American and reduce the burden of debt on future generations.

And Jefferson didn’t cut the size of the federal workforce just to slash jobs. He was guided by philosophy.

Cutting the federal workforce while taking steps that increase the federal debt and pass the burden of debt on to future generations is against his philosophy.

Only four presidents have monuments on the National Mall in Washington D.C.

Washington, who helped birth an America at war, and then gave that power back to the people of the republic.

Lincoln, who reunited a nation torn apart from our dispute over whether people from any station of birth have a right to the fruits of their labor.

FDR, who championed the infrastructure that protects working Americans.

And Jefferson, the revolution’s philosopher, who sought to safeguard every American’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness through limited government, lower taxes, minimal public debt, and unwavering commitment to the Constitution.

So…should we dramatically cut the size of government? After some reflection, that seems to be the wrong question to ask.

Should we strengthen the economic footing of every American and reduce the burden of debt on future generations?

May God bless the United States of America.

Petro Kalnyshevsky: The Last Cossack

Curtain up. The stage is set. A warrior, a nation, and a betrayal that would echo for centuries.

Imagine. A man who has spent a lifetime fighting for his people, riding into battle, outmaneuvering empires, defending his homeland. He commands warriors, negotiates with kings, and builds a thriving nation from the wild steppe. And then, at 85 years old, after everything he’s given, his so-called ally betrays him.

One moment, he was the leader of the fiercest, freest people in Eastern Europe. The next, a prisoner, dragged away in chains, locked in a stone cell, left to rot in the cold, endless dark.

This is the story of Peter Ivanovich Kalnyshevsky, the last leader of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, betrayed by the Russians. He lived through the rise and fall of a nation and spent 25 years in confinement, refusing to break.

A Warrior’s Rise

Kalnyshevsky was born in the late 1600s in what is now central Ukraine, a land of vast, untamed wilderness where survival meant strength. From a young age, he was drawn to the life of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, the wild horsemen of the steppe. They answered to no king or emperor. They lived by the sword, fought as free men, and bent the knee to no one.

By the time Kalnyshevsky rose through the ranks, people both feared and admired the Cossacks. They were known for their brutal raids against the Ottomans and their cunning ability to play empires against each other. But by the mid-18th century, the world was changing. The Russian Empire was expanding, and the Cossacks were caught in a dangerous game.

Kalnyshevsky was a master of strategy, on and off the battlefield. In 1762, the people elected him Kosh Ataman, the leader of the Cossacks. Russian Empress Catherine removed him in 1763, but the people, undeterred, elected him against her wishes again in 1765. He ruled with a mix of toughness and diplomacy. Under his command, the Sich thrived. The Cossacks became essential allies to Russia in its wars against the Ottomans, and Kalnyshevsky hoped that by proving their loyalty, he could secure their independence.

Catherine had other plans.

The Night of Betrayal

The Cossacks failed to shape the battlefield in their favor. They relied on Russian alliances that betrayed them. They believed their contributions would secure their future.

By 1774, Russian Empress Catherine the Great had secured a major victory against the Ottoman Empire in the Russo-Turkish War. That same year, she signed the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, which gave Russia control over Crimea and expanded her empire’s reach. The Cossacks, once useful in the fight against the Ottomans, were now a liability.

For years, Catherine had been dismantling Ukrainian autonomy. She had already crushed the Hetmanate, another independent Cossack structure, in the 1760s. The Zaporozhian Cossacks were next. She saw them as too independent, too unpredictable. Their lands were valuable. Their fighting spirit, too dangerous to be left unchecked. The empire could not allow a warrior state to exist within its borders.

On the night of June 4th to 5th, 1775, without warning, General Pyotr Tekeli’s army surrounded the Zaporozhian Sich. Sixty thousand Russian soldiers against a few thousand Cossacks. There was no chance. Kalnyshevsky, then 85 years old, knew that fighting would mean slaughter. So he ordered his men to lay down their arms, hoping to negotiate, hoping to save what little remained.

He was wrong. Catherine’s betrayal wasn’t just political. It was complete.

That night, there was no bloodshed, but two months later, Russia finished the betrayal. On August 3, 1775, Catherine ordered the Sich to be destroyed and wiped off the map. The Russians tore down fortifications, looted homes, and desecrated churches. They seized Cossack records in an attempt to erase their history. Some Cossacks managed to escape to Ottoman-controlled lands. Others were forcibly conscripted into the Russian army. The Zaporozhian way of life, centuries old, was erased.

And as for Kalnyshevsky, the empire couldn’t risk letting a legend roam free.

Ten Years of Darkness

In July of 1776, the American Continental Congress signed the Declaration of Independence from Britain. The same month, the Russians arrested and exiled Kalnyshevsky. And not just any prison. Solovetsky Monastery. A frozen fortress in the White Sea, where political prisoners were sent to vanish.

Then in 1792, the Russians put him in solitary confinement for ten years. His cell was three meters by three meters, a stone box with no windows, no books, and no human contact. Kalnyshevsky sat in the darkness. He went blind. The world outside changed, but he remained trapped, a relic of a lost nation.

He was a warrior who had led thousands into battle, now left alone with nothing but his thoughts and prayers. And yet, he refused to break.

The Russian empire expected him to die quickly, but the old Cossack endured.

Years of isolation and deprivation robbed him of his vision but not his will. Even the monastery guards, hardened men who had seen many prisoners die in despair, came to admire him. He became known not as a broken old man but as a saint-like figure—silent, unshaken, and still carrying the pride of the Cossacks.

In 1801, at the age of 110, Emperor Alexander I of Russia pardoned him. Alexander intended to present himself as a reformer. One of his early acts was to grant amnesty to several long-imprisoned political figures.

But it was too late.

There was nowhere left to go. The Sich was gone. The Cossacks had been scattered. Kalnyshevsky was an elderly blind man without a home, without a people. So he stayed at the monastery, living out his final two years in quiet solitude.

When he died in 1803, he was buried in the cold northern soil, far from the land he had fought for.

The Last Cossack

Today, we remember Petro Kalnyshevsky as a symbol of resistance. He refused to break in the face of an empire.

Despite efforts in the 1990s to repatriate them, his remains were never relocated to Ukraine. His gravestone exists, but the exact location of his grave is lost; buried at Solovetsky Monastery in Russia. In 2008, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate canonized him as a saint, recognizing his enduring legacy.

Today, the last Cossack still stands. A legend of defiance. A reminder that free people will always fight against Russian aggression.

(Beat. Silence.)

Curtain down.

Scene Two

Enter Stage Right … the Capitalists

It so happens that funding the fight of a free people against their Russian oppressors isn’t inexpensive. Some Americans think these resources should be a two-way street. If Ukraine wants American support, it needs to prioritize aligning its economic future with US interests. And that starts with a minerals deal.

Some say our relationship shouldn’t be transactional. But Friday’s meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky made it clear that the White House isn’t treating support for Ukraine as a matter of ideological solidarity. The United States is making decisions based on interests. If Ukraine wants continued support, securing the mineral rights deal with American companies must be its top priority.

Ukraine has a stronger hand than is apparent. America is desperate to counterbalance China’s monopoly in the rare earth element business, and getting rare earth elements from Greenland appears increasingly unlikely.

From Ukraine’s perspective, this agreement is about survival. A stable Ukraine isn’t possible without economic security, but economic security depends on stability first. The US won’t invest in a war zone. To establish this stability, the minerals deal must include security guarantees, infrastructure commitments, and long-term stability.

War is diplomacy combined with other means. Wars aren’t won only with kinetic weapons. We achieve national objectives with power, with influence, and with the right pressure in the right places. Money and resources are influence.

If Ukraine wants American support, it must commit to an economic relationship that makes its survival an American interest. The minerals deal isn’t a side negotiation. It is the negotiation.

Enter Stage Left … the Bleeding Heart Liberals

It may seem unlikely that those who champion the struggle of the Ukrainian people would need to root for the capitalists, but here we are. We may lament the state of the world, but that doesn’t mean we can change it.

This is not a new phenomenon. The term “bleeding heart liberal” first appeared in 1938, mocking those pushing for an anti-lynching bill. The bill failed. Lynchings continued. The US didn’t officially make lynching a federal hate crime until 2022—84 years later.

History reminds us that moral clarity doesn’t guarantee action. Righteous causes are every day delayed, diluted, or outright denied. And when they are, people suffer. Ukraine can’t afford to wait 84 years for the world to catch up.

Despite its lack of grace and decorum, the term never quite disappeared. Last week, Elon Musk took aim on X, commenting:

"Every bleeding-heart liberal I talk to about the Russia-Ukraine war wants to keep feeding bodies into the meat grinder forever….They have no plan for success."

It’s easy to mock those who care, but caring without strategy prolongs suffering. If Ukraine is to win, security can’t be a moral stance. It must be a vital American interest, which means money, power, and leverage.

No one wants more bodies in the meat grinder. Passive support in the form of moral backing, speeches, and aid packages that sustain but don’t resolve the conflict isn’t enough.

We need decisive action. That means changing the conditions of the war in a way that forces Russia to back down, not just keeping Ukraine in the fight. We need to turn Ukraine’s security into a US interest through the minerals deal and economic integration.

Moral conviction won’t stop Russian aggression.

Enter Center Stage … The Pragmatists

The capitalists see opportunity. The bleeding hearts see morality. And the pragmatists see reality. They see that security, economics, and influence are all tied together. If we are to achieve a successful outcome, we have to stop reacting and start shaping the battlefield.

Russia is not a friend to the American people. It sponsors violent extremism across Africa and the Middle East, fueling the same instability that leads to deadly attacks on American soil—including the worst in our history, twenty-four years ago.

This threat goes beyond terror networks. Russia actively undermines US alliances and disrupts international stability, making the world more dangerous and unpredictable. The stronger Russia’s grip on Ukraine, the more emboldened it becomes elsewhere.

Russia has no real incentive to negotiate in good faith because it believes it can outlast Ukraine and Western support. They assume political divisions, shifting US priorities, and battlefield attrition will eventually work in their favor. They will drag out the conflict, knowing that American attention is fleeting. They will use the battlefield as their primary negotiating tool, showing little regard for the lives of their own soldiers, let alone Ukraine’s.

Instead of waiting for Russia to decide when it’s willing to talk, the US and our allies need to shape the conditions under which Russia has no good choices.

NATO needs to apply pressure to key pieces of vulnerable Russian geography, such as Kaliningrad. Kaliningrad is a tiny piece of Russia, separated from the main Russian landmass. Even stopping and searching shipping vehicles entering or leaving Kaliningrad sends a message. No blockade, but disruption. It’s not an act of war, but it brings traffic to a standstill. And that means we can blockade Kaliningrad whenever we want.

Stopping and searching traffic in and out of Kaliningrad is a message. A warning shot without an empty casing. If Russia escalates or drags their feet in Ukraine, NATO can escalate in Kaliningrad.

Russia knows this. Kaliningrad on the table changes the calculus for Russia. Every second they delay in Ukraine, we can squeeze them in Kaliningrad.

We need to strengthen our negotiating position. We can’t just ask Russia nicely. Strength is the only thing Putin understands. But leverage isn’t just about more weapons or more aid—it’s about shaping the conditions of the war. We need to make the cost of Russia staying in Ukraine higher than the cost of leaving. And that starts with Kaliningrad.

Russia is a threat to the American people, and we need leverage to negate that threat.

In Sum

Kalnyshevsky fought well. He resisted. He endured. But he lost.

Not because he wasn’t strong enough. Not because the Cossacks lacked courage. They failed to shape the battlefield in their favor and were betrayed by their Russian allies.

Ukraine cannot afford to make the same mistake.

The American capitalists need Ukraine, and Ukraine needs the capitalists.

The world doesn’t operate on sentimentality. Ukraine must commit to an economic future tied to American interests. Securing a rare earth minerals deal is its survival strategy. The minerals deal isn’t a side negotiation; it is the negotiation.

The compassionate need Ukraine, and Ukraine needs the compassionate.

A tragic reality is that history is full of righteous causes that fail. Support for Ukraine must be more than a moral conviction; it must be a vital US interest.

The pragmatists need Ukraine, and Ukraine needs the pragmatists.

We need to shape the battlefield. Russia threatens the American people, and we need leverage. Kaliningrad is that leverage.

Free people will always resist Russian aggression. Will America stand with them?

May God bless the United States of America.

A quick note before we dive in. This week, “I Believe” officially hit the numbers to rank as a Top 10% global podcast for all of 2025. Of course, it’s still February, and we have plenty of room to grow. I just want to take a moment to say thanks for listening!

…

How do we bring manufacturing back to America?

🎙️ Tariffs Built American Industry

In the early 1800s, the United States was still an economic underdog. We had won our independence from Britain, but economically we were far from independent.

Across the Atlantic, the Industrial Revolution was transforming British manufacturing. British factories had decades of experience in mass production. They churned out cheap, high-quality goods. Meanwhile, US manufacturing was small, scattered, and struggling to compete.

America’s economy revolved around agriculture. Cotton. Tobacco. Wheat. We relied heavily on European imports for manufactured goods. British industries dominated global trade, producing textiles and iron at such low costs that American businesses couldn’t compete.

That left us with a major vulnerability: We were too dependent on foreign goods. Without a strong domestic manufacturing base, America had little economic control over its own future.

James Madison & The Road to War

In 1808, America elected James Madison as the fourth President of the United States. Tensions with Britain were boiling over.

For years, British naval forces harassed American ships, seized cargo, and forced American sailors into their navy, a practice known as impressment. As an international insult, the British stirred unrest in the Northwest Territory, backing Native American resistance against US expansion.

By 1812, America had had enough. On June 18, 1812, Congress declared war on Great Britain.

The War of 1812: A Mixed Outcome

Militarily, the War of 1812 was a mess. The US attempted to invade Canada, which … didn’t go well. We did capture York, which is modern-day Toronto, and burned public buildings, but the British retaliated in full force. They marched into Washington, D.C. and burned the White House and the Capitol.

But here’s where things get interesting economically.

British naval blockades cut off trade. Those cheap British imports we had relied on were gone.

American businesses had no choice but to step up. Factories that might have otherwise struggled suddenly had a captive market. We had to produce goods for ourselves, and for the first time, we saw what an independent American industry could look like.

The Aftermath & Economic Crisis

In December 1814, the war ended with the Treaty of Ghent. Neither side gained or lost territory. Militarily, it was a stalemate.

Symbolically, it was a turning point. The US had stood up to Britain and survived. National pride soared. The war cemented America’s identity as a sovereign power.

While the fighting stopped, Britain wasn’t done economically. Almost immediately, British manufacturers flooded American ports with cheap goods, undercutting US businesses and threatening to wipe out our industrial progress overnight.

Congress had newfound confidence and a choice. We could let American industry collapse, or step in to protect it.

The Tariff of 1816: America’s First Protective Tariff

In 1816, Congress gained consensus and passed the first major protective tariff in US history. Even the Senate’s most prominent conservative states’ rights advocate, John C. Calhoun (South Carolina), publically advocated for it.

The Tariff of 1816 imposed a 20 to 30% tax on imported goods, particularly textiles, iron, and leather products. Our goal was to make British goods more expensive and give American manufacturers a chance to compete.

And it worked.

Textile mills in New England flourished. Lowell, Massachusetts, became a booming industrial hub.

Iron production surged in Pennsylvania, fueling railroads, construction, and manufacturing.

Infrastructure projects expanded as a growing economy demanded better roads and canals.

This was America’s manufacturing turning point. It was the moment we moved from a country dependent on foreign goods to one that could build its own industrial future.

The Tariff Debate: North vs. South

Now, not everyone was on board.

Southern cotton planters feared retaliation. They worried that if Britain had to pay more for American goods, they’d buy less American cotton in return. Higher tariffs, to them, meant less trade and lower profits.

This tariff debate, whether to protect US industries or keep trade open and cheap, would continue for decades. It fueled sectional tensions between the industrial North and the agrarian South.

Despite the controversy, the US took its first major step toward economic independence.

Instead of relying on Europe, we were finally building an economy of our own.

It’s easy to come to the simple conclusion that tariffs protected American industry. You could say, “Our success all started with tariffs!” But that would be a shortsided conclusion.

The decisive element that protected and grew American industry was consensus.

Tariffs Today

The Wall Street Journal last week reported President Trump is considering tariffs “in the neighborhood of 25%” on automobiles, semiconductors, and pharmaceutical products. He suggested these tariffs could increase over time.

There’s been a lot of discussion lately about tariffs, so that wasn’t so compelling.

President Trump suggested that US companies could be given a phase-in period on the items they import. This period could give businesses time to move production back to the US. He even said he’d allow “a little bit of a chance” for companies to re-shore before ramping up the tariffs.

He didn’t offer details, but the logic behind giving industry time to come home before tightening the screws is what makes this policy intriguing.

He billed it as a different kind of protectionism.

In the early 1800s, Congress passed protectionist tariffs to protect American manufacturing from British manufacturing. But American manufacturing was already here. It just needed a kickstart.

Today, we face a different challenge. We don’t need to protect industry. We need to rebuild it.

Starting in the 1960s and 1970s, America began exporting its manufacturing jobs overseas. Jack Welch and General Electric were at the forefront, pushing for offshoring to boost profits. Other companies followed, chasing cheaper labor and higher margins. Bit by bit, America willingly chose to dismantle our own industrial base. Washington stood by and watched as we destroyed our national capability for a quick buck.

As an example, that was our moment to save American steel. Had we implemented protective tariffs in the 1960s and 1970s, some of those jobs and, more importantly, that capability might have stayed here.

So … the protectionist tariffs President Trump is considering might not just be about protecting our industry from foreign competition.

They might be about protecting us from ourselves.

And the logic behind that is fascinating.

But again, let’s remember that the decisive element that protects and grows American industry is not tariffs. It’s consensus. There’s a key difference between the Tariff of 1816 and today.

James Madison and the Tariff of 1816: The Evolution of a Founding Father

James Madison wasn’t just a president. He was the architect of America.

Few figures in American history shaped the nation as profoundly as he did. Before he ever set foot in the White House, he had already built the American framework.

He was the Father of the Constitution. He meticulously crafted the structure of the US government. When the new republic teetered on the edge of collapse under the weak Articles of Confederation, it was Madison who designed a stronger system that balanced power between the federal government and the states. He sought stability without tyranny.

He didn’t just write the Constitution. He defended it. Alongside Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, Madison co-wrote The Federalist Papers, a series of essays that convinced the states to ratify the Constitution. Without him, there might not have been a Constitution at all.

When critics of the Constitution demanded protections for individual liberties, Madison delivered. He authored the Bill of Rights, enshrining free speech, religious freedom, and due process into law.

He designed the system. He fought for its ratification. And then, he spent the rest of his career making it work.

From Congressman to Secretary of State

Madison served as a congressman from Virginia, playing a crucial role in shaping early American policy. He was one of Thomas Jefferson’s closest allies, standing at the center of nearly every major political battle of the era.

He opposed Alexander Hamilton’s vision of a strong central government and a national bank, fearing that these would concentrate too much power in the hands of the federal government. He fought for states’ rights.

He fought against policies that favored wealthy elites over working-class citizens.

In 1801, he became Secretary of State under Jefferson. There, Madison oversaw The Louisiana Purchase, one of the most important events in US history. Jefferson saw an opportunity to double the size of the country. Madison handled the negotiations. He drafted the plan and authorized James Monroe to offer a price starting at ten million dollars for the land. In total, four cents per acre. The deal secured vast new lands, opened up the frontier for westward expansion, and strengthened the nation’s position on the world stage.

For eight years, Madison handled foreign affairs. He navigated tensions with Britain and France as the US struggled to maintain neutrality during the Napoleonic Wars. By the time he took office as president in 1809, conflict with Britain had become unavoidable.

Quite a list of accomplishments. The nation forever owes a debt to James Madison.

Because he literally wrote the document to govern America, he knew he needed consensus to make America great.

Madison and Tariffs

James Madison was a champion of divided power, states’ rights, and the right of the people over tyranny.

He wrote the document that explicitly gave Congress, not the President, the authority to impose tariffs. The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, placed that power in the hands of the legislature.

And because he wrote it, Madison knew he could not simply order a tariff into existence. He needed national consensus to prompt Congress to act. A president acting alone creates no legacy, and certainly not a legacy like Madison’s. A policy dictated by one man is erased by the next administration. A policy built through Congress, through debate, and through broad support is the decisive effect that endures.

By 1815, Madison publicly acknowledged that the United States needed a strong manufacturing base to avoid dependence on Britain. In his Seventh Annual Message to Congress, he explicitly called for tariffs to protect American industry, marking a major shift in his thinking.

Madison understood the stakes. America had the natural resources, the labor force, and the potential to be an industrial power, but manufacturing would not develop on its own. He argued that certain industries, particularly those tied to national defense and essential goods, were too important to be left at the mercy of foreign competition.

He knew that without government support, industry could take decades to grow. Without broad, lasting consensus, it would not grow at all. A policy that shifts every four years did not support American industry.

Madison’s public support signaled a major shift in Republican thinking. His endorsement reassured moderates, convincing those who had once resisted federal economic intervention.

If the Father of the Constitution, the guardian of states’ rights, and the protector of the people’s liberty believed it was in America’s best interest to protect its industry, who would dare question the brilliant President James Madison?

Back to Today

The lesson of 1816 is clear.

America owes allegiance to no king. Executive orders are fleeting.

Madison worked to build consensus, spurring Congress to action. It was not Madison alone who reshaped America’s economic future.

The long-term success of American industry does not rest on executive orders or short-term tariff hikes. Just like in 1816, it rests with Congress.

We must deliberate, gain consensus, and pass tariffs that protect American industry, especially our defense capability and goods essential to running American society. We need to make these goods internally and defend ourselves from coercion from other countries.

May God bless the United States of America.

Should America Give Our Surplus Grain Away Every Year?

This week, the nation’s Food for Peace Program—and all other United States Agency for International Development (USAID) programs—found themselves on the chopping block.

Before we go any further, let’s get on the same page.

American agriculture is national security.

Second, let’s share some quick history.

On July 10, 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act, allowing the president to ship surplus commodities to “friendly” nations on concessional or grant terms. For the first time, America could give away its excess grain to partner nations.

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy expanded the program, rebranded it Food for Peace, and established USAID to oversee it.

If you believe that those with plenty should help those with nothing, Food for Peace was a success. It became the largest single food donor to the United Nations World Food Programme. In 2022 alone, “American farmers provided more than 4 billion pounds of U.S.-grown grains, soybeans, lentils, rice, and other commodity staples” through the program.

It’s also good business for American farmers. Now, Republican lawmakers from agricultural states are fighting to save it.

Every government program should face scrutiny. But this one is worth saving.

This isn’t about charity. That was a benefit of the program. But Food for Peace wasn’t only about poverty. It was about national security.

Global hunger breeds instability.

Instability creates openings for adversaries.

Adversary influence threatens the American people.

So the real question isn’t whether America should shut down an agency that some see as a global social program driven by ideology.

We need to step back and look at the bigger picture. Forget charity for a second. Let’s take the question at face value.

Should America give our surplus grain away every year?

Food Security is National Security

A country that cannot feed itself becomes a victim of coercion and geopolitical manipulation.

By the late 1930s, Japan relied heavily on imports for most of its food and nearly all of its oil, rubber, and metals. Japan’s domestic agriculture couldn’t keep up with its growing population, and they started seizing food from their neighbors. Between 1936 and 1938, 95% of Japan’s imported rice came from Korea or Taiwan (Johnston, B. F. (1953). Japanese Food Management in World War II. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 45–49, 166–170, 202–204).

Food shortages forced Japan to expand. As its military campaign in China escalated, the US and other Western powers imposed economic sanctions.

Japan’s food problem became catastrophic during World War II. Imports were disrupted, military priorities came first, and by 1940, Japan rationed food. Malnutrition, disease, and starvation followed. Beriberi, a disease caused by vitamin B1 deficiency, spiked.

Hunger was a key factor in Japan’s surrender. By 1945, US naval blockades and bombing campaigns had destroyed Japan’s food supply chains. America targeted Japan’s food vulnerability as a center of gravity in our strategic approach. Even if the war had continued, famine would have crippled Japan’s ability to fight. After the war, food shortages persisted into the US occupation.

This suffering changed Japan’s long-term policies. The country fortified domestic agriculture and imposed high tariffs on imported grains like rice, wheat, and barley. Even today, Japan strictly controls grain imports, avoiding overdependence on foreign suppliers, including the US.

The lesson is clear. Food security is national security. It is not just about feeding people. It is sovereignty, stability, and strength.

Japan wasn’t the only nation that learned this the hard way.

Let’s talk about another fallen American adversary: the Soviet Union.

Khrushchev and Yeltsin Go to the Grocery Store!

On Monday, September 21, 1959, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev went to the grocery store. Not in Moscow. Not in Leningrad. In San Francisco, California.

He walked through aisles of produce, deli meats, and frozen dinners—foods unimaginable in the Soviet Union. The next day, in Des Moines, Iowa, he ate his first American hot dog and joked:

“We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.”

But in 1959, Khrushchev never publicly admitted shock at America’s grocery stores. That would come later.

By the 1980s, Soviet agriculture had collapsed under central planning. Shortages and rationing became commonplace.

Then, in 1989, just two months before the Berlin Wall fell, Boris Yeltsin visited a grocery store in Houston, Texas. Unlike Khrushchev, Yeltsin couldn’t hide his reaction. The Houston Chronicle described how he roamed the aisles of Randall’s, shaking his head in amazement.

Yeltsin had grown up hungry. The Soviet State had taken away his family’s farm, leaving them dependent on a system that couldn’t feed its own people.

That grocery store visit shattered any belief in communism. Two years later, as Russian President, Yeltsin ordered Russian state land to be divided into private family farms.

From the defeat of Japan to the fall of the Soviet Union, our lesson is that:

American Agriculture is National Security

Food isn’t just about feeding people. It is economic strength, national security, and global influence.

Japanese agriculture couldn’t keep up with American agriculture.

Soviet Russian agriculture couldn’t keep up with American agriculture.

And today, we still need agricultural abundance.

Agricultural Abundance

America’s agricultural dominance isn’t an accident. It’s a deliberate national choice. It’s built on policy, infrastructure, and continuous innovation. Both necessity and profit drive this system.

On February 13, President Trump reinforced this priority, signing an Executive Order establishing the Make America Healthy Again Commission. One of its key tasks is to “Work with farmers to ensure that U.S. food is healthy, abundant, and affordable.”

The focus on abundance is critical. Food security isn’t just about today. It’s long-term stability.

A nation that produces only ‘just enough’ food is one disaster away from crisis. That’s why the national agriculture system cannot be designed for maximum profit alone. There has to be excess. The system must be resilient.

Food production isn’t instant. Crops and livestock take time, land, and weather cooperation. For example, with the recent egg shortages, if producers could ramp up supply overnight to chase profits, they would. But you can’t create egg layers out of thin air.

This is why food security requires intentional overproduction.

Without surplus, a drought, flood, or disease outbreak can cripple the food supply. Unlike other industries, agriculture can’t instantly scale production to meet demand. Efficiency alone isn’t the right measure. Resilience is the right measure for agriculture. A strong system produces more than necessary because shortages are more dangerous than excess.

The resulting surplus shields against uncertainty. It stabilizes the food supply, prevents reliance on foreign imports, and protects against market disruptions. On the world stage, a nation that produces more food than it consumes has leverage. Countries that depend on imports are vulnerable to foreign control. When America has a surplus, adversaries can’t weaponize food against us.

In this way, surplus grain isn’t waste. Surplus grain is a strategic asset.

There’s another key factor at play.

Agriculture is Unpredictable

Farmers don’t control the weather, bird flu outbreaks, or global trade policies. One in three years is a bad year for agriculture. A system that only produces ‘just enough’ in a good year guarantees shortages in a bad year.

The only way to secure the nation’s food supply is to grow more than needed every year.

When one region suffers from drought, another’s surplus offsets the losses. When unpredictable events disrupt production, a buffer ensures food remains affordable and accessible. Surplus keeps Americans fed, prices stable, and the country resilient.

Because our agricultural system must be designed this way, we always have more grain than we need. Even though we need surplus every year, we also need to manage it wisely. Uncontrolled surplus drives prices down, hurting American farmers. If we don’t address the grain surplus, we risk losing the ability to grow it.

We also need to think about American influence on the world stage.

Agricultural Surplus and Influence

Without order, scarcity leads to conflict. Nations compete for limited resources. The strong dominate, and the weak suffer. In a world where food shortages create instability, countries that control the global food supply exert power over those that do not.

This is why agricultural abundance is more than an economic advantage. It is a tool of influence. Nations with surplus can stabilize their allies, undermine their adversaries, and dictate the terms of trade. Japan and the Soviet Union failed because they could not secure their own food supply. America’s agricultural surplus allowed it to feed its friends and keep its enemies dependent.

But surplus alone is not enough. It must be managed strategically. An uncontrolled surplus collapses domestic markets, driving prices so low that farmers go bankrupt. A controlled surplus allows America to direct influence where it matters.

Food is both a commodity and a diplomatic asset. Throughout history, America has used surplus grain as a foundation for long-term partnerships. Food aid programs have strengthened alliances, opened trade routes, and cemented US influence in key regions. The Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe and ensured that newly rebuilt economies were tied to American markets. The Food for Peace program fed the hungry while reinforcing US influence in developing nations. It aligned economic structures with American interests rather than Soviet alternatives.

Partnerships built on food endure. A nation that depends on America for food security is far less likely to align with adversaries. A reliable food supplier is a stabilizing force in times of crisis. Strategic agricultural surplus is not just about helping others. Our agricultural surplus secures America’s position in the world.

We need to extend our influence and maintain strong partnerships to achieve our global security goals. And to do that, we need surplus grain.

Which brings us to our question. Should America give our surplus grain away every year?

Should America Give Our Surplus Grain Away Every Year?

American agriculture is national security.

Food is not just about feeding people. It is economic strength, national security, and global influence. On the world stage, America has interests, and we have partners. Reliability and trustworthiness are both virtues and strategic advantages.

Surplus grain is not waste. It is a strategic asset that we need to use wisely. The question is not whether we should give grain away. The real question is how we should use it to advance American interests.

If you believe that those with plenty, like America, have a duty to help those with nothing, then Food for Peace was a success. But food aid is not charity. It is good business for American farmers and a powerful tool of influence.

Food aid programs do more than just feed people. They strengthen alliances. They open trade routes. They cement US influence. They align global economic structures with American interests rather than those of our adversaries.

We might choose not to send our surplus grain through the United Nations World Food Programme. We might prefer more direct control over where we exert influence.

But we must choose to use American agriculture to reinforce partnerships, secure influence, and protect our global standing.

May God bless the United States of America.

Why is remembering American history so hard? It’s a question that needs an answer because Black history is American history, and federal agencies decided to ban Black History Month.

Black history isn’t just Black history. It’s a record of our constant battle between order and justice. To erase it is to erase the struggle that defines our national identity. It may be easier to maintain a neat, sanitized version of our history than to confront the struggle and resistance justice demands, but that ease is detrimental to America.

If remembering Black history is too difficult, maybe we should turn to the one document that defines our national values. Every state in the Union agreed with the verbiage. You’d think it would offer clarity.

But even there, justice and order are locked in a constant struggle. The Constitution sets both as national goals, side by side. Then, history demonstrates again and again how the ideals clash and how essential they are to each other.

Justice Disrupts Order, and Order Suppresses Justice

Last week, we discussed the inherent tension between justice and order. Ensuring domestic tranquility and establishing justice are two of our six national goals, but they are often at odds.

Tranquility means a society built on order, stability, and mutual respect. Tranquility is a deliberate national choice to maintain a collective structure.

Justice is the foundation for a society in which individuals can fulfill their roles and contribute to the nation’s well-being. It includes fair and equal treatment under the law, equal access to individual opportunity, and equitable distribution of resources like education, healthcare, and housing.

Justice threatens order. We build institutions and cultural norms around systems that offer stability but perpetuate inequality and power imbalance. Calls for justice expose inherent flaws. They challenge the status quo.

Order threatens justice. While order is necessary for social stability, the rigid pursuit of order obstructs justice. Groups in power preserve the status quo instead of addressing systemic imbalances. They argue that stability must be maintained at all costs. This focus on order suppresses dissent and marginalizes groups that call for reform.

No American better embodies the tension between justice and order than the great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

But to really understand the challenge of justice, order, and Dr. King, we need to first understand Reverend Billy Graham.

Billy Graham Believed in Order

In 1954, TIME Magazine called Reverend Billy Graham “the best-known, most talked-about Christian leader in the world today, barring the Pope.” US presidents sought his council. He became the moral advisor to the nation.

By 1957, Graham was at the height of his influence as America’s most prominent evangelist. That year marked his landmark New York City Crusade. The 16-week revival held at Madison Square Garden drew massive crowds. Over two million people attended, and more than 60,000 responded to his call for conversion.

Graham’s sermons emphasized personal salvation and moral living. His message resonated with many Americans wrestling with Cold War anxiety and social change. It offered comfort in uncertain times.

During this crusade, Graham crossed paths with a young reverend, Martin Luther King Jr., for the first time. Graham hoped to expand the reach of his message to a broader audience and invited King to speak in New York. King spoke of a brotherhood that transcended race and color. He hoped alliances with influential figures like Graham could accelerate the fight for civil rights.

By 1960, differences between the two men’s approaches emerged. Graham made it clear he valued social order above civil disobedience. He stated…

“I do believe that we have a responsibility to obey the law. Otherwise, you have anarchy. And, no matter what that law may be—it may be an unjust law—I believe we have a Christian responsibility to obey it.”

There it is. Order versus justice.

Graham wasn’t just preaching personal salvation—he was tapping into a national desire for stability in a time of upheaval. For many, his message was a soothing alternative to the discomfort of systemic injustice.

Graham’s stance reflected the views of many Americans at the time. They were uncomfortable with the confrontational approach of the Civil Rights movement. They preferred order to justice. Graham’s supporters argue he wasn’t racist. They argue he was called to a mission focused on personal salvation rather than political activism. His critics argue that his reluctance to challenge unjust laws reflected a failure to meet the moral urgency of the moment.

No matter the reason, his line was drawn by April 1963. As Graham envisioned order, King led the Birmingham Campaign. This bold, nonviolent movement targeted deep-rooted segregation and racial injustice in one of America’s most racially divided cities.

Letter from a Birmingham Jail

In April 1963, Birmingham, Alabama, was the most violently racist city in the United States. Its aggressive resistance to desegregation earned it the nickname “Bombingham” due to the frequent bombings of Black homes and churches by white supremacists. From 1945 to 1962, white supremacists conducted 50 racially motivated bombings of Black American homes, businesses, and churches.

They bombed the home of Reverend Milton Curry Jr. on August 2, 1949. The home of Monroe and Mary Means Monk on December 21, 1950. The home of the minister of Bethel Baptist Church, Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, on December 24, 1956. The Ku Klux Klan bombed Bethel Baptist Church on June 29, 1958. It was the second time the Klan had bombed the church.

On and on. 50 bombings.

Amid the years of bombings, Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor led the city government to openly enforce Jim Crow laws with brutal tactics. They used police dogs, fire hoses, and mass arrests to suppress civil rights demonstrations.

Quite a backdrop.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. arrived in Birmingham, Alabama, on April 3, 1963, to lead the Birmingham Campaign. It was the season of the major Christian holiday of Easter. On Easter, Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his love for humanity. We remember our vow to love God and love others.

King’s Birmingham Campaign included nonviolent protests against segregation and racial injustice. King and other activists planned sit-ins, marches, and boycotts targeting businesses that upheld segregation.

On April 10, 1963, Circuit Judge of the Tenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama W. A. Jenkins, Jr. issued an injunction prohibiting the demonstrations.

King and others chose to defy the order. They viewed it as an unjust law meant to suppress their Constitutional rights. On April 12, Good Friday, the day Christians remember the Romans putting Christ to death, authorities arrested King and at least 55 other leaders for “parading without a permit.” King spent 9 days in jail. They loved him so much they denied him even his phone call.

While in jail, King read a public letter from eight white Alabama clergymen who criticized the protests as “unwise and untimely.” They urged activists to seek justice through the courts rather than the streets.

King wrote his response to the letter in the margins of a newspaper and on scraps of paper smuggled in by friends. The pieces became the iconic Letter from Birmingham Jail. In it, King defends civil disobedience and highlights the moral urgency of confronting injustice.

King explicitly calls out Americans who are “more devoted to order than to justice; who prefer a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.”

There it is again. Order versus justice.

…

Let’s reestablish that this is not a Black history topic. This is a Constitutional topic. This is the interlocked American history of Billy Graham and Martin Luther King Jr. Just as we have a national goal to ensure order, we have a national goal to establish justice.

Order and justice. Two ideals, forever competing. Let’s pause for a minute and honor the genius of Gouverneur Morris, Pennsylvania delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, who wrote the Preamble; the founding fathers that agreed to the verbiage; and each state in the Union for ratifying the document. Together, they laid out national goals that were almost impossible to achieve. They understood the delicate balance needed to hold a diverse and divided nation together.

In the ultimate irony, they placed the words establishing justice and ensuring domestic tranquility side by side in the Preamble.

They knew a society striving for justice would inevitably disrupt the status quo. We would challenge entrenched power. It would create tension. At the same time, they recognized that without order, society could descend into chaos. Chaos makes justice impossible to sustain. This tension is a feature of the system. The struggle forces every generation to wrestle with competing ideals.

Each principle threatens the other. But that’s not why they are next to each other in the Constitution.

They’re next to each other because each value is essential to achieve the other.

Justice Enables Order

Justice sets the conditions for trust. In an environment of justice, people trust that they have rights, that those rights are protected, and that fairness governs social interactions. They trust that they are treated equitably, regardless of race, class, or background.

In a just society, people respect the rules and institutions that govern their lives. Justice fosters legitimacy, and legitimacy is the foundation of stable, lasting order.

Enforcing order without justice is impossible. Without justice, any semblance of order is fragile. Authorities may attempt to maintain control through fear, repression, or coercion, but this “order” is unsustainable. It breeds resentment, resistance, and unrest. A society that values individuals, respects rights, and offers real opportunities for prosperity doesn’t need to police itself into submission.

Back to Birmingham in 1963. Authorities claimed they were maintaining order, but that “order” depended on segregation, discrimination, and suppression. It wasn’t order—it was controlled instability. The American people’s demand for justice didn’t just disrupt order—it exposed what many called ‘order’ was a system built on oppression.

On the surface, one might assume that justice threatens order. But justice and order are not rivals. Justice isn’t just compatible with order—it’s the only thing that makes order possible.

As justice enables order, order sustains justice.

Order Sustains Justice

Order is necessary to sustain justice. Justice requires a strong institution of structure, law, and social framework to establish and maintain it. Without order, these systems collapse. This collapse makes it impossible to protect individual rights, ensure fairness, or maintain trust in governance.

History demonstrates that righteous justice movements rely on some level of structure to succeed.

Back again to Birmingham in 1963. The Civil Rights Movement made lasting change in the nation. But dismantling segregation depended on legal victories, organized protests, and strategic leadership. Without disciplined nonviolent resistance combined with a functioning legal system to challenge unjust laws, racial justice would have remained an ideal rather than a reality.

Even when we achieve justice, we still have a duty to preserve it. A just society cannot exist in a constant state of upheaval. Laws must be enforced, rights must be protected, and institutions must remain strong to prevent injustice from creeping back in. Without order, justice is fleeting. It becomes a moment of fairness swallowed by instability.

Justice corrects and refines order, but order provides the structure that allows justice to endure.

American History

Justice and order are not Black history. They are American history.

They are the interlocked American history of Reverend Billy Graham, who believed in order, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who knew order was not possible without justice.

This is a Constitutional topic. Just as we have a national goal to maintain order, we have a national goal to establish justice.

Today, we continue to struggle with order and justice. We will always struggle with order and justice. History demonstrates again and again how the ideals clash.

When we look deeper, we see how essential they are to each other. There is no order without justice. We cannot sustain justice without order.

We don’t have to do it in February every year, but if we don’t study Black history, how will we remember American history?

May God bless the United States of America.

Before we discuss progressives today and ask, “Who is the Champion of ‘We, the People?’”, we need some context. We gauge progress by whether our decisive efforts move America closer to achieving its six national goals.

Both conservative and progressive principles are essential for effective governance. Without both sets of principles, we cannot achieve America’s goals.

But progressivism’s focus drifted. To meet our goals, we must restore it as a center of gravity—focused on the people, not just the government.

…

Conservatives believe in America and strive to conserve the institution that is the American ideal. Their principles respect tradition, state and local governance, individual liberty, and personal responsibility. Their philosophy values the wisdom of the past, seeks cautious progress in the present, and envisions a stable, prosperous future.

From a business standpoint, conservatives rely on their commitment to personal responsibility. They advocate for free-market capitalism and minimal government intervention. They believe that to command higher wages, workers are responsible for increasing their value. They oppose unfunded federal mandates because they face the reality that to pay higher wages, businesses must increase revenue or face elimination. High worker pay reduces profitability and can threaten business viability, especially in lean years. Therefore, acting in their self-interest, businesses seek to minimize wages to maximize profits.

Conservative values strongly benefit America. They advance living standards by driving economic growth, encouraging innovation, and fostering competition.

Democrats and Republicans alike can be conservatives.

…

Like conservatives, progressives believe in the American ideal.

Progressives view the government as a go-between representative for the people. An intermediary. Strong progressives advocate for fairness and equality across American society. They believe the government must set conditions enabling every individual to have a fair chance to be great.

Regarding business, progressives believe the government must set conditions enabling fair workplace environments, including pay, safety, and hours. They pass federal mandates that benefit workers and America as a whole. They seek to create a society where individuals fulfill their roles and contribute to the overall well-being of the state.

Progressive values strongly benefit America. They advance American society by promoting justice and economic stability, protecting worker rights, and ensuring fair wages. Government regulations create safer workplaces, prevent exploitation, and help sustain a middle class that drives consumer demand.

Republicans and Democrats alike can be progressives.

…

As a related topic, let’s recall there are six national goals outlined in the Constitution. Union… Order… Defense… Welfare… Justice… and Liberty…

Some might view the goals as having different priorities. For example, conservatives might lean toward order over justice, while progressives might choose the opposite. But the truth is that all six goals carry the same weight.

So … if conservatives and progressives see different priorities—but the goals themselves are equal—then we need both perspectives to achieve them. Relying only on conservative principles threatens justice. Relying only on progressive values threatens order.

Now that we have shared context, that brings us to this week’s question.

Who is the Champion of ‘We, the People?’

Representative AOC and Jon Stewart

On the January 23 episode of The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)—better known simply as AOC—joined host, hilarious comedian, and all-around great American Jon Stewart for a lengthy interview.

At around 45:20, Stewart and AOC begin a portion of their conversation that YouTube has named “What is the Process of Redefining what the Democratic Party Represents?”

Stewart comments—

“People are thirsty for … leadership. The Democrats, I think, have had a really difficult time responding to that thirst, responding to that action. What is the process then of redefining what this party is, what it represents moving forward, and are there leaders there?”

Representative AOC responds—

“If you ask a working-class American or just any normal American, what is a Democrat? What do they stand for? They will not really be able to give you a clear answer …”

A meaningful exchange.

…

Okay. Let’s tie our thoughts together.

We need both conservative and progressive ideas to attempt to achieve the goals outlined in the Constitution.

Conservatives have not wavered in their commitment to personal responsibility. They believe workers are responsible for their own wages. They oppose unfunded federal mandates. They support business profitability, recognizing the challenges of balancing profitability and survival.

Now for progressives. While both parties can have progressives, Democrats lean that way more often.

So…to answer AOC’s question…what do progressives stand for?

Working-class Americans no longer see a strong group of progressives fighting on their behalf. Progressives face a crisis of identity. They have become the party of government, not the party of the people. Leaders like AOC openly acknowledge this gap.

Let’s ask again. Who is the Champion of ‘We, the People?’

Do Progressives Believe in the People?

There are two points to be made here.

The first is a fundamental truth in life. Never reinforce your shaping effort—focus everything on the decisive action that brings real change. Save and expend all your resources, or as many as possible, towards your decisive effort.

For progressives, this means fighting against conservatives is a waste of time and resources. Political battles for the sake of winning political theater don’t serve the American people. In the fleeting moments when progressives have both the public will and the political consensus to create meaningful change, every ounce of decisive effort must be spent on delivering tangible results. Wasting that energy on ideological fights, political purity tests, or symbolic victories only kills progress for those who need it most.

Progressives need to fight for the people, not against conservatives. Every moment spent trying to score points against the opposition is a moment not spent improving wages, expanding opportunity for kids who live in projects or leaky trailers, or securing a better future for working Americans. If progressives are serious about governance, their singular focus must be delivering real, lasting benefits to the people they claim to represent. Anything less is a waste of precious time and resources.

The second point is even more fundamental: the point of government is not government.

Government does not exist to serve itself. It is not meant to perpetuate its own power or sustain bureaucratic inertia. The entire premise of American governance is that it is of, by, and for the people. That means every policy, every law, and every decision should be measured against a simple standard: Does this advance American interests toward achieving one of our six goals for the American people?

Progressives lose sight of this. Their attention drifts to prioritizing expanded government authority or making governance easier over empowering individuals. They allow their focus to change toward maintaining political control instead of achieving progress for working-class America. This breaks the trust of the people they claim to serve.

So the question remains: Do progressives believe in the people? If they do, then their path is clear. They must fight for them, not against their political opponents. They must use government as a tool to uplift Americans, not as a means to sustain itself. And they must never forget that political victory is not a measure of success. It’s measured by the prosperity of the working-class people they serve.

Many of us are both conservatives and progressives. We strive to conserve the institution that is the American ideal. And we believe in progress toward achieving our national goals for the American people.

Because we are both conservatives and progressives, we can reword our takeaways to make them more relevant.

Both conservative and progressive principles are essential for effective governance. Without both sets of principles, we cannot achieve America’s goals.

Relying only on conservative principles threatens justice. Relying only on progressive values threatens order.

The point of government is not government. Political victory is not a measure of success.

We measure our success by the prosperity of the working-class people we serve.

We gauge progress by whether our decisive efforts move America closer to achieving its six national goals.

May God bless the United States of America.

I love hearing from listeners and readers. While I don’t always respond with a dedicated piece, I genuinely appreciate the feedback and seriously consider the questions.

This week, John left a comment at Substack on Reward Work, Build Opportunity:

"Perhaps, instead of waiting for Washington D.C. to work for us, those with skills needed to stimulate the economy and create new jobs could work together."

I love the comment. It challenges the premise that “We, the People,” have a collective mandate to organize and address inequality. It reflects frustration with our elected officials’ inability to fulfill their Constitutional duty. But more than that, it suggests a belief that we can make America better—even without complete consensus.

So! … Let’s explore it.

Capitalism

The heart of John’s comment gets into capitalism as our foundational economic system. The fundamental truth of capitalism is best illustrated by a 1776 quote from Scottish Economist and Philosopher Adam Smith:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

In a capitalist system, private citizens control property and act in their self-interest to gain economic prosperity.

Capitalism drives significant economic growth and innovation. It undeniably demonstrates the ability to drive progress and meet consumer demand. Supported by order and defense, capitalism is the foundation of America’s high standard of living.

Let’s consider a series of questions as an example of this exceedingly high standard of living. How many of us put milk or cream in our coffee or butter on our toast this morning? How many of us woke up at four to milk the cow and churn the butter? After months or years working on a dairy, you will never take cream or butter for granted. Our national abundance of butter comes from capitalism.

Our butter example highlights one of capitalism’s great strengths: its ability to pool individual effort into a system that delivers abundance for others. Producers work to meet consumer demand in ways that create economic growth and improve living standards for everyone. As John’s comment suggests, collaboration within this framework—through competition, business partnerships, innovation, or shared effort— creates even more opportunity.

A capitalist system aims to enable individuals to act in their self-interest. Its success—economic growth, innovation, and increased living standards—motivates us to keep it as the foundational economic system.

A Simplified Premise

Let’s pose a simplified premise: inside this capitalist system, there are business owners (such as corporations, small businesses, etc.), and there are individual workers.

Businesses are solely responsible to their shareholders. They focus on profit and maximizing business value within legal and ethical limits. Diverting resources away from profit involves using others’ money—shareholders, employees, or customers—without their consent.

Some criticize this focus on profit, but it serves a vital role in a capitalist system. Profits enable businesses to reinvest, innovate, expand, and create more opportunities for workers and consumers. Without this commitment to profitability, businesses fail, jobs disappear, and economic progress stalls. In essence, by focusing on their bottom line, businesses indirectly contribute to the broader economy. Profits are what remains from revenue after expenses, taxes, and costs.

Worker pay is a component of revenue. Businesses generate revenue by selling goods or services, using part to pay wages among other expenses. They also invest in infrastructure, technology, taxes, raw materials, manufacturing, logistics, and research and development.

In sum, high worker pay reduces profitability and threatens business viability, especially in lean years. Therefore, acting in their self-interest, businesses seek to cut wages to maximize profits.

Let’s keep pulling on this thread. In this simplified system, individual workers command higher pay by raising their value. Workers seeking to raise their value need to change their position on the ‘Supply and Demand’ scale.

In simple systems, supply and demand explain free market prices. Supply refers to how much of a product or service is available, and demand is how much people want it. This applies to wages, too. Supply represents the number of workers available with the skills needed for a particular job, and demand represents how many employers compete for those skills.

For example, consider a dishwasher. It’s easy to find people capable of washing dishes, though maybe not easy to find someone willing to do so. The perceived value of the job remains low because the skill level required is minimal, and employers can usually find enough workers to fill the gap.

On the other hand, consider a computer engineer. It’s harder to find someone who can do the job because the skills required are specialized and take training, education, and time to develop. The limited supply of qualified engineers, coupled with the high demand for their expertise, drives their wages higher. Employers in this scenario must compete more aggressively for skilled talent. This competition means they offer higher pay and better benefits to attract the best candidates.

This back-and-forth illustrates why raising worker value is vital to supporting both workers and businesses. Workers who invest in learning new skills, gaining certifications, or entering high-demand fields improve their position on the supply-demand scale. They move into roles where their skills are scarce, making them more valuable to employers. As a result, they command higher wages. Businesses leverage their increased value to innovate and grow revenue, which supports paying higher wages.

Now that we have a common understanding of these basics let’s return to John’s comment. His suggestion touches on the idea that workers, business owners, and communities can collaborate within this system to raise worker value and create opportunities that benefit everyone.

Stimulate the Economy and Create Jobs

John suggests we work together through our capitalist system to create higher-paying jobs. In a non-regulated free market economy, this means raising worker value so businesses can innovate and grow revenue. As businesses grow, this revenue allows workers to command higher wages in the market.

Working together to raise worker value without taxpayer dollars or regulation likely involves creating a non-profit organization that would enhance the professional development of young workers. This organization could become a collaboration hub where businesses, educators, and communities work toward a shared goal of preparing local workers with in-demand skills.

This non-profit organization would establish a vision, mission, task, and purpose. Funding would come from private sources—particularly businesses needing a more skilled workforce. Local businesses would be instrumental in shaping the training programs, ensuring they align with actual market needs. With these resources, the organization could develop educational and training materials tailored to young individuals with no education and training beyond high school. These workers, equipped with quality skills, would enter businesses ready to innovate, boost productivity, and generate revenue. In turn, they could command higher wages, benefiting both themselves and the broader economy.

This organization would need to track results, such as job placements, wage increases, and productivity gains, to ensure its programs remain effective and relevant.

Of course, there would be severe challenges. Securing funding, maintaining a relevant curriculum, and scaling the program require focus and determination. But with the right partnerships and a clear purpose, it’s possible. Businesses, workers, and communities would need to come together, but the potential payoff of a more skilled workforce and a stronger economy is worth the effort.

It wouldn’t be easy, but it would provide businesses and individuals with a solution that works within our capitalist system. And it supports John’s idea of taking ownership of our shared future instead of waiting for the government to act.

…

In the meantime, we are spending the American people’s money to support society as a result of low wages. Half of American working families needing social program support is wildly excessive. Because businesses exist to achieve profitability, they seek to cut wages to maximize profits. Building consensus to reduce inequality through regulation is necessary and must continue.

Build Consensus…

Changing culture is hard. It takes dedicated and sustained effort.

A part of realigning our culture with the American ideal is building consensus.

Building consensus involves developing messages that resonate broadly across diverse populations, reminding us of our shared goals and the principles that unite us.

If we are to orient our perspective towards the goals that are America, we have to use our decisive effort to achieve our goals. It could take ten or more years.

So! … In the meantime, we focus on these guiding principles: Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty.

We conserve the institution that is our Constitutional democratic Republic.

We progress toward the opportunity for all Americans to be born from nothing and achieve greatness.

May God bless the United States of America.