I Believe – Détails, épisodes et analyse

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.

Can we raise wages to fully fund Social Security?

Social Security is societal insurance, not an individual retirement plan. Its purpose is to protect society by ensuring a basic level of income security, particularly for the elderly, disabled, and survivors of deceased workers. It is a safety net to prevent poverty and economic distress in vulnerable populations. This fosters societal stability. Unlike a private retirement plan, Social Security pools contributions from the workforce to provide collective support, shielding America from the dire effects of widespread poverty that harm the economy as a whole. However, stagnant wages undermine this system. They limit revenue growth and increase dependency on government programs. Addressing stagnant wages is vital to ensuring the sustainability of Social Security and fostering financial independence.

Now that the election is over, the conversation about fixing Social Security has gained momentum. On the December 8th NBC News Meet the Press, President-elect Trump said he didn’t plan to cut Social Security. 

At the same time, Social Security is underfunded, and the program’s failure to provide full benefits is imminent.

We can’t bury our heads in the sand and pretend the problem will resolve itself. According to the Social Security Administration Annual Trust Fund report, “in 2023, the (Old-Age and Survivors Insurance) Trust Fund’s cost of $1,237.3 billion exceeded income by $70.4 billion.” At the same time, the “(Disability Insurance) Trust Fund’s income of $183.8 billion exceeded cost by $29.0 billion.” For those of us trying to do public math, the total shortfall was $41 billion. Let’s remember that figure for later.

The timeframe of 2034 to 2037 coincides with the time when all the Boomers reach retirement age. The size of the Boomer generation significantly exceeded the Gen X generation, and Social Security funding can’t keep up. Because Social Security revenue is lower than needed during this timeframe, the first Americans who could lose part of their Social Security benefits are the Boomers. Social Security benefits wouldn’t have to be eliminated; they could be reduced to distribute the available funds accordingly. The Social Security Administration estimates it could pay about 79% of benefits to retirees in 2034.

In principle, there are three approaches to addressing the deficiency, each with its trade-offs. First, we can increase revenue. Second, we can cut benefits. Third, we can increase the size of the working population.

You can rename these approaches any way you’d like. As an example, instead of saying we need to increase revenue, you can say we should raise or eliminate the Social Security tax cap. For 2024, the tax cap is $168,600. Employees and employers each contribute 6.2% of wages toward Social Security up to this income cap, totaling 12.4%. Any earnings beyond $168,600 are exempt. Advocates for this approach claim if higher earners pay Social Security taxes on earnings above $168,600, it could boost the funds available for the program. Critics say raising or eliminating the tax cap illegitimately increases taxes on a population that won’t see a proportional increase in their benefits. This creates tension between the goals of funding Social Security and maintaining a balance in tax equity.

As another example, instead of saying we need to cut benefits, you can say we should increase the retirement age. This approach means individuals would need to work longer before becoming eligible for benefits. By raising the age threshold, the proposal would reduce the total amount paid to beneficiaries over their lifetimes, as they would have fewer years to draw benefits. Advocates of this idea argue that it reflects increased life expectancy, aligning the system with modern demographics. Critics highlight that the life expectancy for the bottom half of earners has not risen since 1983, and they are the individuals who need Social Security the most.

Of course, fully funding Social Security is a systemic problem with no silver bullet solution. We need to compromise on both ends of the spectrum. But we should still consider new ideas.

I propose we consider something other than the proposals we commonly hear. Instead of focusing on cuts or caps, we should address the root cause of the issue: stagnant wages.

Higher wages directly increase Social Security revenue through larger payroll tax contributions.

Higher wages reduce the need for Social Security and other social programs. They make individual workers more financially resilient if we do have to cut benefits. Further, fewer taxpayer dollars are funneled through the bureaucracy, which means less waste.

Higher wages empower individuals to achieve greater financial independence. This fosters long-term economic stability for workers.

First, let’s look at how we can increase revenue by raising wages.

Higher Wages Increase Social Security Revenue

Raising wages directly increases Social Security revenue by increasing payroll tax contributions. Employers match worker wages dollar for dollar. These funds are the primary source of Social Security revenue.

Social Security taxes represent a percentage of earnings. When workers earn more, they contribute more to the program.

Let’s consider the non-starter idea of raising the minimum wage across the board. An Economic Policy Institute fact sheet from 2021, titled “Why the U.S. needs a $15 minimum wage,” identified raising the minimum wage would “lift pay for 32 million workers—21% of the U.S. workforce.” We can address why this idea is a non-starter in a minute, but let’s consider the financial impact on Social Security.

If 21% of the workforce earned higher wages, an immediate effect would be a significant boost to Social Security payroll tax contributions. The Institute estimated that a $15 minimum wage would generate $107 billion in higher wages.

12.4% of worker wages goes to Social Security, 6.2% from worker wages, and 6.2% from employer contributions. 12.4% of $107 billion is $13.26 billion.

Social Security’s shortfall was $41 billion this year. Raising worker wages to $15 an hour would reduce the shortfall to $28 billion.

However, raising the minimum wage is a non-starter because businesses can’t raise wages without increasing revenue. Taking broad action, such as raising the minimum wage to a federal standard for all areas, threatens business vigor and viability nationally, making this approach politically untenable.

For example, a $15 federal minimum wage might be too low in high-cost-of-living areas, viable in some areas, and overwhelm small businesses in lower-cost rural areas. Businesses must generate sufficient revenue to support higher wages, and a one-size-fits-all mandate doesn’t account for regional differences. Even if it’s a potential solution, it’s not achievable if we can’t gain consensus.

Instead of mandating raising the minimum wage, we need to increase small business revenue and incentivize businesses to pay higher wages. We could reduce the tax burden for small businesses that prove they pay wages above social program levels. This approach would help businesses generate the revenue to pay higher wages, reduce the national need for poverty programs, and increase funding to shore up Social Security.

Beyond increasing Social Security revenue, raising wages has a compounding effect on the broader economic system. When workers earn more, their reliance on government assistance programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) decreases. This reduces the financial strain on taxpayers and minimizes the inefficiency of funneling the American people’s money through the bureaucracy. Let’s look at how higher wages decrease the need for social programs and drive efficient use of public resources.

Higher Wages: Financial Resilience and Reduced Government Waste

Let’s establish a fundamental truth: the government owns no assets. It has no money of its own. Every dollar spent by elected representatives or government workers is an asset of the American people. When government officials spend money, they allocate resources that belong to the citizens they serve.

Social programs, then, pass money from one individual to another through layers of bureaucracy that waste at least 30 to 40 percent of those resources. We should inherently oppose a system where half of American families rely on this inefficiency to survive. Even though we can’t love our country and not our countrymen, this system reflects a failure to achieve financial resilience across society.

Workers who earn livable wages achieve financial resilience and don’t need government assistance programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). One immediate benefit is that more financially resilient workers can better absorb cuts if they are necessary. Financial resilience means workers have the capacity to adapt to unexpected costs.

Further, raising wages reduces reliance on social programs, which means less of the American people’s money is funneled through the bureaucracy. Less taxpayer money eaten by the government means less waste and more efficient use of public funds.

For example, EITC is designed to supplement the incomes of low-wage workers, effectively subsidizing employers who pay below livable wages. By increasing wages, fewer workers qualify for EITC, reducing government payouts while businesses pay true labor value.

The money not spent on social programs could then be redirected to fiscally responsible efforts, such as balancing the budget, paying off the national debt, and strengthening social security.

Let’s consider the drastic impact this proposal could have on national finances. In 2023, on just these two programs, the nation spent $57 billion supplementing worker wages through EITC and $112 billion supplementing low wages through SNAP. $169 billion combined.

If higher wages led to only a 20% reduction in reliance on these programs, $34 billion of American taxpayer funds would be available to help balance the budget. This figure exceeds the necessary funds to eliminate the Social Security shortage for the year, albeit in a different money bucket. If we could reduce social program expenditures by half, we could save $85 billion annually.

Opponents of this approach argue that workers need to justify their higher wages with more productivity. This is a valid point. Some jobs and employees generate higher revenue for their employers and inherently command higher wages.

But we should consider—even if it’s true that some jobs pay low wages, does that mean it’s the taxpayer’s responsibility to pick up the tab? There’s no valid argument to justify any employer offloading labor costs onto the taxpayer. Use any example you would like—dishwasher, janitor, burger maker. Even if a business thinks it’s a low-wage job, under no circumstance should it be a taxpayer-funded one. If a business doesn’t think a janitor is an important job, they should go a month without one and see if they change their mind. When businesses pay wages below social program thresholds, those jobs become taxpayer-funded.

Beyond saving taxpayer dollars, higher wages allow Americans to escape the cycle of government dependence and build financial resilience. When individuals can rely on their earnings to meet basic needs and save for the future, they gain stability and resilience in their personal lives and can contribute to the broader economy.

Higher Wages Foster Financial Independence

Higher wages enable workers to build greater financial security and resilience. Workers can save more for emergencies, invest in their future, and rely less on safety nets.

How would we reduce the reliance on programs like Social Security without paying workers livable wages that enable them to put food on their tables, heat their houses, and save for the future?

When they don’t make livable wages, workers go to the lower-cost grocery store to put food on their tables. Except there isn’t one. They go to the same grocery store as everyone else and use SNAP benefits.

To find a house to heat, workers might move their family into a cheaper apartment. Except those don’t exist, either. Those are government housing units.

If workers can’t put food on their tables and heat their houses without government assistance, how would we reduce their dependence on Social Security and other safety nets?

If we don’t address the root cause—low wages—programs like Social Security will remain essential as a retirement benefit and a lifeline for daily survival. Reducing reliance on Social Security means ensuring workers can build financial security through livable wages, personal savings, and access to private retirement options.

We need to set conditions enabling workers to be independent from government programs to meet basic needs. Workers must be able to afford food, housing, and utilities without inefficient taxpayer-funded government assistance. Livable wages create the foundation for financial independence. With higher wages, workers can save more for emergencies and strengthen their retirement options on their own.

Some doubt higher worker wages would achieve these goals, but Universal Basic Income pilot studies prove them wrong. Americans aren’t irresponsible with money, lazy, or stupid. They use extra money to gain skills and get better jobs, move into safer neighborhoods, buy shoes and coats for their kids, and heat their houses. They go back to school and get degrees and certifications. They work MORE with the extra funds, not less, and the work they do is more meaningful.

Americans with enough money live stable, productive lives and can save money for their futures. They are less dependent on Social Security and all other social programs.

In Sum

We need to shore up Social Security funding. We have few choices: increase revenue, cut benefits, or expand the working population.

I propose we consider something other than the proposals we commonly hear. Instead of focusing on cuts or caps, we should address the root cause of the issue: stagnant wages.

Higher wages directly increase Social Security revenue.

Higher wages reduce the need for Social Security and other social programs. They make individual workers more financially resilient if we do have to cut benefits. Further, fewer taxpayer dollars are funneled through the bureaucracy, which means less waste.

Higher wages empower individuals to achieve greater financial independence. This fosters long-term economic stability for workers.

Fixing Social Security is achievable, and higher wages directly address the root cause of the issue.

May God bless the United States of America.

Last week, I analyzed Air Force Captain Lacie Hester’s Silver Star to highlight a contradiction. We can’t claim to value the military’s ability to achieve decisive effects while categorically excluding women from combat roles. I concluded that if we intend to value results over diversity, we should be ready to welcome any capable individual—male or female—who can help achieve efficient violence in support of national objectives.

This week, I’m pushing that logic a step further. If women belong in combat roles, do they also belong on the most elite and demanding ground combat teams? Let’s test our commitment to results-based standards and challenge ourselves to rethink how we select, train, and deploy our nation’s most specialized warfighters.

If the central premise is that results matter more than diversity, then the standards driving ground combat roles must be no exception. If a woman can meet those standards and enhance mission success, excluding her would weaken, not strengthen, our ability to achieve decisive effects. At the same time, forcing either men or women into ground combat positions without the qualifications to succeed directly threatens our ability to achieve national objectives.

Let’s explore.

Captain Marsh and a Cup of Coffee

In 2008, I was an Air Force Captain attached to 1st and 2nd US Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF and II MEF) under the Multi-National Forces West command structure in Iraq.

My role in Iraq was to enhance combat capability with special technical tools. My bosses were Marines, and my customers were primarily the Marines and Special Operations Forces (SOF) Task Forces. I developed strong relationships with my customers, identified technical tools they needed to support their missions, and integrated them into their operations. We developed some tools in-house and integrated others with support from national agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA).

My work area was tucked away behind some armed Marines who kept watch day and night over the area, and it was right next to the SOF Task Force coordinator. The Task Force coordinator was a US Navy Sea, Air, and Land Captain (commonly known as a Navy SEAL). For those unfamiliar with different service ranks, an Air Force Captain is a relatively junior officer rank, while a Navy Captain ranks just below Admiral, a senior officer rank. No matter, though, he and I had a good relationship. Let’s call him Captain Marsh.

Captain Marsh had an attraction rarely found in the area—he had acquired a coffee maker and had some supply of ground coffee. I didn’t want to overstay my welcome, but I did need to determine when the Task Force might need support. So, every so often, I would tell my small team that I was “going to talk to the SEALs.” Captain Marsh would fill me in on relevant upcoming operations, and I might have a cup of coffee.

Captain Marsh’s coffee pot attracted more than just me. Other senior officers would visit, and I would hear snippets of their conversations. On one of these visits, a Marine Corps Colonel and Captain Marsh shared insight that challenged my assumptions.

Their conversation centered around the role of women in ground combat. Captain Marsh mentioned that Muslim women couldn’t freely talk with men. In many traditional Muslim societies, culture and religion restrict interactions between unrelated men and women. These norms dictate that women avoid direct communication or physical proximity with men who are not family members. For women in conservative communities, speaking with male strangers is inappropriate and brings social repercussions.

These cultural differences posed significant challenges during military operations, particularly when teams needed to gather intelligence or conduct searches. Without female team members to bridge the gap, mission-essential information from local women was inaccessible.

If a team needed to question a woman, they needed a woman to do so, which drove a requirement for women on ground combat teams. Later I learned that as a result of this requirement, the Marines established Task Force Lioness, which attached women to ground combat teams to provide support.

Five years later, at a training event in San Diego, I heard more to the story. The Navy SEAL commanding officer at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado also brought up the value of women in ground combat roles in Iraq.

This second story was that when women were attached to SOF teams, they couldn’t be decorations just because they were necessary for intelligence gathering—they had to be active team members. Female team members provided perimeter security during operations. The women were armed and applied lethal force when necessary. They also played a crucial role in stopping runners, going so far as to crash their vehicles into escaping vehicles to ensure mission success.

Both commanding officers emphasized the extraordinary bravery the women demonstrated. The women often put their lives and health at immediate risk, sometimes more than the men, to achieve objectives. In critical moments, their decisive action proved integral to mission success. The respect the officers had gained for the women was evident.

If asked, in the context of the environment we operated in at that time, whether women should be on SOF teams, I know the answer they would give. Both senior leaders shared the same opinion.

Still, regardless of operational needs or cultural advantages, inclusion in ground combat teams hinges on meeting the grueling physical and mental standards required of every member. The first and most fundamental of these is the individual physical requirement.

Individual Physical Requirements

There are domains of society in which there are absolutely no gender barriers. Only results matter. In these areas, individuals succeed or fail based solely on their ability to achieve results.

Due to the physical requirements, the National Football League (NFL) is a prime example that is not so dissimilar to Special Operations Forces (SOF). In the NFL, winning and money are the only outcomes that matter.

Women are not barred from playing in the NFL, but there are no female players. If a woman could compete and win at the necessary level, an NFL team would sign her to a contract. While women are not prohibited from playing, the competitive nature ensures that only those capable of performing at the highest level make the cut—regardless of gender.

The same principle applies to ground combat SOF teams. The stakes are higher than a football game, but the premise remains: meeting the standard matters more than who is meeting it. If a woman can perform to the required level—carry the same load, endure the same physical stress, and contribute to mission success—there is no logical reason to exclude her.

At the same time, just as there is no reason to add a player to an NFL team who doesn’t contribute to winning games, there is no reason to force the integration of women into specialized ground combat roles. Books like Kill Bin Laden: A Delta Force Commander's Account of the Hunt for the World's Most Wanted Man vividly depict the grueling conditions SOF operators endure in war. Very few men can survive and operate in these conditions; the vast majority cannot. It’s possible that some women could likewise survive and operate. But forcing either men or women into these positions without the qualifications to succeed directly threatens our ability to achieve national objectives.

The inherent tension arises from the Department of Defense's (DoD) integration of women into combat roles, which officially started in 2013 and has continued for the past 11 years. Last month, the new nominee for Secretary of Defense stated women have no place in combat. Critics worry that as we adjust to accommodate women, we chip away at the qualities that make America’s ground combat units extraordinary. They fear a loss of unit cohesion, a decline in physical performance, and a less capable fighting force. In their view, when we soften the edges to expand eligibility, we erode the team’s razor-sharp ability to operate under the harshest conditions.

They cite a 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, which concluded that putting women in combat risks the lives of entire units for the sake of career opportunities. It found, “Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.”

They further highlight a 2015 Marine Corps Force Integration Plan assessment that found all-male units conducted movements faster and were more lethal than mixed-gendered units. They further had healthier, more physically resilient Marines. That study found differences in individual performance. For example, “When negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top.”

They posit that since the DoD directive to integrate women into combat roles, senior officers have reduced individual standards to increase participation. This view is supported by a mass email titled “Careerism, Cronyism, and Malfeasance” in the US Army Special Warfare Center and School sent through Special Operations Command in 2017.

These findings and fears are real. Many of them are rooted in firsthand studies and historical assessments. Still, they don’t capture the entire picture. While effective operations demand brute strength and raw speed, they also hinge on capabilities like cultural insight, intelligence access, and specialized skills that women can bring to the fight. In complex irregular warfare environments, overlooking these advantages means missing critical opportunities to achieve decisive effects.

So There’s the Rub

Direct accounts from SOF operators confirm that decisive action by women has proven integral to mission success. In some environments, their participation is essential. Not every combat role demands the rare physical endurance required for months-long operations in remote mountains. Perimeter security, intelligence gathering, and other specialized tasks are equally vital.

Further, if some missions require female operators, women must consistently train and serve alongside men, developing the trust and cohesion that define effective teams. While women may not meet the grueling physical demands required of some ground combat roles, the same is true for most men. What matters is finding those who can excel—whether they pilot AC-130 gunships, crew CV-22 Ospreys, or secure a perimeter as part of a SEAL team. These are combat positions. Some of these are ground combat roles.

At the same time, if throwing a pack over a Marine Corps wall obstacle translates into faster, more lethal units, we should add that and other necessary requirements to the positions in question. After reassessing what matters for mission success, we should train and hold both men and women to that standard. Those who qualify earn their place.

Rather than making blanket rules that exclude women from ground combat roles, we need policies that prioritize lethal effects. That means defining standards based on actual mission needs, not arbitrary quotas, and applying those standards evenly. Anyone who meets them should be welcomed.

If we intend to value results over diversity, we must follow through. Our standards must reflect what it takes to achieve national objectives, and we must embrace those who can meet those standards—regardless of gender.

May God bless the United States of America.

This Week’s Theme: Unenforceable Ideals

This week, we explore three unenforceable ideals—situations where two conflicting truths can’t coexist.

First, we draw parallels between Prohibition and illegal immigration, highlighting the government’s struggle to control the demand for goods and services.

Second, we examine the logical inconsistency of supporting stricter climate change regulations while opposing overturning Chevron deference.

Last, we address the contradiction of prioritizing military effectiveness while excluding women from combat roles.

Let’s begin with the story of Mabel Walker Willebrandt and her fight to enforce Prohibition.

The First Lady of Law

In 1921, President Warren Harding appointed Mabel Walker Willebrandt to the office of Assistant Attorney General of the United States. The appointment made Mabel the highest-ranking woman in the US government in the 1920s. Among her other duties as Assistant Attorney General, Ms. Willebrandt was charged with enforcing the Volstead Act, or National Prohibition Act. Congress passed the Volstead Act to enforce the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which attempted to ban the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors.”

Ms. Willebrandt recognized that enforcing Prohibition through raids on speakeasies and small-time bootleggers was ineffective. She described this as “like trying to dry up the Atlantic Ocean with a blotter.” Instead, she enforced the Volstead Act with a two-pronged effort: addressing tax evasion and targeting major criminal enterprises.

Her first effort, addressing tax evasion, was successful. During her service, Willebrandt argued more than 40 cases before the Supreme Court. One of the most decisive was United States vs. Sullivan (1927). In that case, Willebrandt argued, and the high court agreed, that illegal income was taxable. Because illegal income was taxable, failing to declare income from illegal operations was tax evasion and a felony offense.

Since illegal alcohol sales generated untaxed income, US vs. Sullivan gave the federal government the authority to investigate and prosecute these operations under tax laws. This effort weakened the finances of organized crime. Willebrandt used the precedent set by US vs. Sullivan to prosecute powerful gangsters such as Al Capone for federal tax crimes.

Her second effort, targeting major criminal enterprises, was less effective. It required coordination across multiple federal and state agencies, which often lacked resources and cooperation. Criminal networks adapted faster than enforcement efforts, developing new smuggling routes and distribution systems that outpaced government responses.

Willebrandt’s second effort failed because Prohibition lacked broad public support. In other words, Americans wanted to drink, and no effort by the federal government was going to reduce the demand for alcohol. Although the government found some success in raiding production facilities and intercepting smuggling operations, these initiatives amounted to a game of Whac-A-Mole. As soon as one network was dismantled, another rose in its place.

The failure of Prohibition enforcement is a story about human behavior and governance: government attempts to restrict supply without addressing demand fail. Banning alcohol supply didn’t stop demand; it fueled a thriving black market. Speakeasies became social hubs, and even law-abiding citizens began to view Prohibition as government overreach, fueling resentment toward enforcement.

If we can’t turn off the demand for an item, no government effort to restrict supply will stop it.

This concept also applies to undocumented immigration. Addressing illegal immigration is a complex challenge that, like Prohibition, requires coordination among federal, state, and local agencies, each with competing interests and limited resources.

The most significant hurdle is the strong demand for undocumented labor. Many immigrants risk their lives to come to the United States because they believe they can find employment opportunities. Some employers hire undocumented workers because they may accept lower wages and work under conditions that others refuse.

If businesses face real consequences for hiring undocumented workers, the incentive to cross the border illegally would diminish. By enforcing laws that require employers to verify legal residency, we address the demand side of the issue.

Attempting to control illegal immigration solely through border enforcement is like playing a game of Whac-A-Mole—without reducing the demand for undocumented labor, these efforts are unlikely to succeed.

We can’t advocate for removing undocumented immigrants while opposing requirements for employers to hire legal residents. Turning off the demand for undocumented labor is a critical first step toward resolving illegal immigration.

Alternatively, we have another option. We don't have to shut off the immigrant pipeline for businesses. By expanding immigrant work programs and accepting more legal immigrants, we can align immigration policies with the economy's labor needs. This approach addresses the demand for workers legally, supporting businesses while upholding the rule of law.

The second unenforceable ideal from this week is the inherent logic fallacy of supporting stricter rules for climate change while opposing overturning Chevron deference.

The Second Unenforceable Ideal: Climate Change and Overturning Chevron Deference

Let's consider the inherent contradiction of supporting stricter climate change regulations while opposing the overturning of Chevron deference.

On November 25, 2024, the New York Times “The Morning” email discussed climate change regulations. Advocates for robust environmental regulations push for limits on pollution from automobiles, power plants, and factories. They support expanding access to renewable energy and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Opponents are concerned about the economic impact of stringent regulations and favor a more measured approach.

That morning’s email posited the new administration plans to repeal pollution limits on automobiles, power plants, and factories and expand access to federal oil and gas drilling land. Many of these regulations were established through federal agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes—a process enabled by Chevron deference.

This discussion isn’t about the merits of specific climate policies. It’s about governance and how laws are made and enforced.

The decisive juncture is not the potential repeal of these regulations. It’s Chevron deference, which the Supreme Court overturned on June 28 of this year. Established by the Supreme Court in the 1984 case Chevron USA vs. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Chevron doctrine held that courts should defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that the agency administers.

Under Chevron deference, federal agencies had been empowered to interpret vague or broadly written laws, effectively creating law without direct congressional approval. The judiciary then deferred to these interpretations, limiting its role in checking executive overreach, alignment with congressional intent, or constitutional principles. While this allowed for faster policy implementation, especially in complex areas like environmental regulation, it also concentrated legislative power within executive branch agencies. The practice bypassed the legislative process, blurred the separation of powers, and weakened constitutional governance.

This violated the Constitution. Article I, Section 1 states that all legislative powers reside in Congress. Allowing agencies to legislate through regulation concentrated power in the executive branch. Chevron deference undermined the legislature’s responsibility to fulfill its constitutional duty.

Article III outlines the judiciary as the independent interpreter of the law. Further, in the precedent case Marbury vs. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall established, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Chevron deference stripped the judiciary of its authority to conduct checks and balances.

America owes allegiance to no king, and this principle of divided power is fundamental to American liberty.

Overturning Chevron requires Congress to pass meaningful bipartisan legislation rather than the watered-down ambiguity that federal agencies use to create de facto laws.

Again, this isn’t about climate change regulations; this concept applies to all regulations. When the executive branch changes, the country shouldn’t drastically change directions. Federal agencies need to adhere to Congressional legislation, and overturning Chevron deference helps restore the nation to constitutional footing.

We can’t oppose overturning Chevron deference while resisting a new administration’s ability to change agency rules. When agencies have broad interpretive power, regulations change dramatically with each administration, leading to policy instability. Upholding the constitutional separation of powers ensures that laws remain consistent unless altered by Congress.

To achieve lasting and effective climate policies, we should support legislative action that clearly defines regulations and goals. This approach respects the Constitution and provides stability, regardless of changes in the executive branch.

Our final unenforceable ideal this week is the inherent contradiction in claiming to prioritize the military’s ability to achieve decisive effects while excluding women from combat roles.

Viper 72 is ‘Winchester’

On April 13 of this year, Iran launched a series of missile and suicide drone attacks against Israel. Iran’s attack was an operation designed to overwhelm Israel’s air defenses. The US condemned the attack and assisted Israel in shooting down the vast majority of missiles and drones.

The nation awarded Major Benjamin Coffey and Captain Lacie Hester the Silver Star for their actions as ‘Airborne Mission Commanders’ that evening. As the command team aboard their F-15E Strike Eagle, they led their squadron that evening to shoot down 70 Iranian drones and three ballistic missiles headed towards Israel. The award is especially significant for Captain Hester, who became the Air Force’s first woman and the tenth woman in the Department of Defense to win the Silver Star.

The Strike Eagle is a complex weapons platform that delivers precision firepower while operating in demanding combat environments. Its advanced systems integrate radar, electronic warfare capabilities, and air-to-ground or air-to-air munitions. The Strike Eagle is a cornerstone of modern air superiority and interdiction missions.

Captain Hester is a weapons system officer (WSO) on the platform. Aboard the Strike Eagle, the pilot and WSO have some interchangeable capabilities. The pilot’s primary duty is to fly the jet. The WSO primarily manages the complexity of coordinating with other assets, identifying targets, and selecting suitable munitions. A WSO’s role is critical to the platform’s mission success. They operate the advanced radar, sensor, and targeting systems that guide the aircraft’s weaponry, enabling precision engagement of air-to-air and air-to-ground threats. They are the tactical brains of the operation.

That’s just Captain Hester’s role on her own platform.

As Airborne Mission Commanders, Major Coffey and Captain Hester take on responsibilities beyond their platform. They are the squadron mission lead, coordinating an entire air mission in real-time. They oversee multiple aircraft, synchronize their actions, and ensure every asset is in the right place at the right time to achieve mission objectives.

Major Clayton Wicks was monitoring a command and signal frequency that evening. Of the event, he said, “A message comes across that just says … Viper 72 is ‘Winchester,’ which means they are out of missiles. They have no bullets left. … That was the first time I was like, ‘Oh my gosh. Command and control can’t keep up with the amount of missiles that are being shot and things that are happening. And that’s the only message they got across.”

In the middle of the chaos, Captain Hester was the tactical brains for the squadron to achieve national objectives.

In addition to the challenges, Coffey and Hester’s platform that evening expended all missiles, engaged suicide drones with their guns at “extremely low altitudes,” and landed with a live, still dangerous missile that had failed to launch.

Coffey and Hester demonstrated what the military values: decisive effects. Achieving efficient violence under extreme conditions is the essence of operational success. Captain Hester’s actions were groundbreaking not because of her gender but because they exemplified leadership in combat.

Some women, like some men, are not suited for combat roles. If we need to strengthen requirements for service members to serve in some units, we should do so. There are men who won’t meet those requirements either. But blanket rules stating that women are not suited for combat roles do a disservice to America. If the military’s mission is to achieve decisive effects, then disqualifying half the population from contributing at the highest levels undermines that mission.

We can’t claim to care about the military’s ability to achieve decisive effects while excluding women from combat roles. The contradiction subverts our claim that we value results over diversity. If we are to value results, we need to value results. We don’t need to make special rules to select women for decisive positions. When given the opportunity, they rise to the challenge. But if we make rules that exclude them, we weaken our ability to achieve decisive effects.

Unenforceable Ideals

Unenforceable ideals are contradictions in which two things cannot be true at the same time.

We can’t be ‘for’ taking action to remove undocumented immigrants while at the same time ‘against’ requirements for employers to hire legal residents. Turning off the demand for undocumented labor is the first step to resolving illegal immigration.

We need to support employers’ requirements to hire legal residents. Or we could approach the solution from another direction. We could help businesses, expand work programs for immigrants, and accept more legal immigrants.

We can’t oppose overturning Chevron deference while also opposing a new administration’s ability to change the rules. If we support limiting presidential power as outlined in the Constitution, Chevron deference is incompatible. When the executive branch can use Chevron deference to make laws, those laws will change with every new administration.

We need to support the premise that the people’s representatives make the law, not federal agencies.

We can’t claim to care about the military’s ability to achieve decisive effects while excluding women from combat roles. The contradiction subverts our claim that we value results over diversity. If we are to value results, we need to value results.

We need to value the ability for the military to achieve results. That means maintaining rules that enable women in combat roles.

May God bless the United States of America.

Should we deport illegal immigrants en masse? What options do we have?

Situation

On November 21, 2024, Dara Lind, a Senior Fellow at the American Immigration Council, wrote a fantastic piece published in the New York Times titled, What ‘Mass Deportation’ Actually Means. Ms. Lind superbly outlines the legal and logistical challenges of such a venture. She states:

“Deporting one million people a year would cost an annual average of $88 billion, and a one-time effort to deport the full unauthorized population of 11 million would cost many times that — and it’s difficult to imagine how long it would take.”

There are several severely complicating factors. There aren’t enough beds or departing flights to achieve mass deportation. Few other nations will accept deportation flights from the US. Past efforts to deport illegal immigrants have been good for political publicity but largely unsuccessful.

Further, all persons in the US, not just citizens, have rights. The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution provides protections to all persons in America, not just American citizens. It states:

No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

In addition to Constitutional protections, there are other additional legal considerations. The US is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. This agreement obligates signatory members to provide asylum to individuals fleeing persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, ratified by the US in 1968, strengthens these protections.

Last, section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act outlines that eligible persons physically present in the United States or at a port of entry may apply for asylum.

Illegal immigrants have the right to present their asylum argument to an immigration court. Nearly 4 million immigrants are waiting for the courts. These courts are insufficiently resourced.

In short, every state in the union agreed that immigrants have rights. Edmund Burke, the philosophical father of conservatism, asserted that a nation has a solemn duty to uphold its agreements, honoring them across generations. This commitment to personal and national responsibility is a cornerstone of America.

Edmund Burke and Honoring Our Agreements

Edmund Burke, Irish statesman and philosopher, was born on January 12, 1729. He is the father of conservative philosophy. His ideas and writings during the American and French Revolutions significantly influenced the development of conservative thought in both America and Europe.

Burke emphasized personal responsibility and respect for tradition and established institutions as cornerstones of his philosophy.

Burke believed traditions and institutions evolve naturally over time, carrying the collective wisdom of generations. These institutions are essential for stability and continuity and should be preserved and respected. This respect for tradition shaped his skepticism of abrupt, radical change and his belief in the importance of gradual reform. His ideas have had a lasting influence on conservative thought. They highlight the value of continuity, historical context, and careful, incremental progress in societal norms.

In American conservatism, principles like originalism in judicial interpretation demonstrate Burke's respect for tradition. Similarly, the focus on protecting Constitutional rights aligns with Burke’s commitment to preserve established freedoms and the institution that upholds them.

The Constitution’s choice of the word “person” and not “citizen” in the Fifth Amendment underscores the framer’s intent to extend protections to all individuals under US jurisdiction.

Burke would view this amendment as part of the collective wisdom of our founders. Due process protections embodied in the Fifth Amendment align with his belief that laws and institutions are shaped over time to reflect enduring principles of justice and fairness.

Conservatives and progressives alike have offered immigrants the opportunity to move to or stay in America legally. At the same time, no Congress and President has supported open borders. There is no national agreement to support open borders because undocumented immigration leads to abuse of immigrants and strains community resources, including healthcare, education, and law enforcement.

Interim Summary

Mass deportation of illegal immigrants has been largely unsuccessful. These efforts are hugely expensive. We have a Constitutional obligation to honor immigrant rights to due process of law. However, there is a political desire by politicians and voters alike to deport illegal immigrants en masse.

So, what can we do? Let’s think through some options.

Option 1: Do Nothing

Our first option is to maintain the status quo. We could allow undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States without significant changes to current policies. Before we write this option off as untenable, we need to think about it.

This approach would rely on existing immigration laws and enforcement to address undocumented immigration on a case-by-case basis. It has some positive aspects. Proponents advocate that it avoids the massive costs of mass deportation and saves billions in taxpayer dollars. It prevents overburdening already overwhelmed immigration courts. It supports human rights, aligns with the Constitutional protections of due process, and reflects our commitment to international treaties. It maintains economic stability as immigrants contribute to various sectors of the economy, particularly agriculture, construction, and service industries.

Critics argue that failing to address illegal immigration undermines the rule of law and sows distrust in the government’s ability to enforce immigration laws. Undocumented immigration strains communities that continue to face challenges related to healthcare, education, and law enforcement. And this option fails to enable comprehensive immigration reform, leaving millions in legal limbo without a clear path to citizenship.

Let’s be clear—this option has strong advocates. The American Immigration Council outlines that instead of spending $88 billion every year on mass deportation efforts, we could “Build over 40,450 new elementary schools…and construct over 2.9 million new homes in communities around the nation.”

However, this argument is a fallacy. The comparison misleads us by framing deportation costs as a trade-off with other priorities. It implies that federal funds are interchangeable. But federal spending doesn’t work like a household budget. Money from one category can’t be redirected to another. This oversimplification ignores how government spending and resource allocation work.

Frankly, the biggest problem with pursuing this option is the perception that voters told their representatives to do something, and the representatives didn’t. It would look like the name of the option—doing nothing. It would leave a foul taste in the mouths of many Americans.

In sum, this option risks destabilizing institutions and eroding public trust. Doing nothing fails to address the underlying causes of undocumented immigration, perpetuating current challenges indefinitely. It kicks the can down the road for future generations, leading to longer-term challenges. It widens political extremes, creates gridlock, and polarizes public opinion.

All considered it may not be the best choice. Let’s move on to another.

Option 2: Efficient Enforcement and Employer Accountability

Our second option is efficient, targeted immigration enforcement to safeguard the nation while addressing the root causes of undocumented immigration. This approach would combine targeted enforcement of threats, streamlined immigration processes, and stronger accountability for employers who exploit undocumented labor.

The keynote of this approach is efficient enforcement. There are 330 million people in America and an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants. That means undocumented immigrants make up around three percent of the total population in America. These immigrants are not all in the same place.

So, finding undocumented immigrants by searching for them is inefficient and costly. We will not achieve efficient enforcement by looking for undocumented immigrants.

Rather than spending huge resources looking for all undocumented immigrants, this option would focus resources on removing individuals who pose security threats or commit serious crimes. The biggest difference between this approach and the “Do Nothing” option is what we won’t do.

We won’t sweep employers to search for illegal immigrants. We won’t bog down the legal system with immigrants who don’t commit violent crimes and don’t pose security threats. We will avoid broad, indiscriminate methods of searching for undocumented immigrants who don’t pose problems to the nation.

Instead, we will emphasize removal of individuals who pose security threats or commit serious crimes. We need to rush these individuals to the front of the legal line, conduct their hearings to meet our Fifth Amendment obligations, and deport them. Focusing on genuine security threats and due process demonstrates accountability, restoring public confidence in immigration enforcement.

This approach allocates resources more effectively. It avoids the immense costs and logistical challenges of simultaneously searching for and deporting millions of individuals.

At the same time, we need to address the root causes of undocumented immigration. Immigration courts need more funding and staffing to handle the nearly four million pending cases. Tools like remote hearings and other digital solutions could help expedite case processing while ensuring due process to honor our obligation outlined in the Fifth Amendment. Expanding immigration court capacity could help streamline the process.

And we need to toughen enforcement on employers who hire illegal immigrants. If immigrants can’t find work, this will reduce the demand for many to come to America. To achieve this goal, we need steeper fines and criminal charges for repeat offenders. We should conduct public awareness campaigns to remind businesses of their legal obligations and the consequences of ignoring them. Finally, we need whistleblower protections with robust enforcement to encourage employees to report illegal hiring practices without fear of retaliation. To address potential labor shortages, industries could work with policymakers to create or expand visa programs that legally fill gaps in sectors like agriculture and construction.

This option has downsides. Some political factions may view targeted deportations as too lenient, pushing for broader, more visible enforcement actions. Strict employer enforcement of hiring undocumented immigrants could lead to labor shortages in agriculture, construction, and hospitality. Business interests and lobbying groups may oppose stricter accountability. Increasing funding for immigration courts and conducting workplace audits would require substantial investment.

But overall, it’s a tenable option. Let’s consider another.

Option 3: Conduct Mass Deportation of Undocumented Immigrants

Our third option is to pursue mass deportation of all undocumented immigrants in the United States.

This approach would require an unprecedented scale of enforcement to locate, detain, and deport the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants across the country. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other agencies would need to significantly expand to conduct large-scale raids, workplace inspections, and community sweeps. We would need massive investments to house individuals awaiting deportation.

We would have to pay for transporting millions of individuals to detention centers, court hearings, and eventually to their home countries. We would need to dramatically expand immigration courts to process cases quickly. This would likely require thousands of additional judges, attorneys, and support staff.

All told, these requirements drive the reason for the $88 billion annual price tag.

Proponents advocate that this option demonstrates a firm commitment to enforcing immigration laws and addresses illegal entry. If successful, it could reduce demand for public services like healthcare and education in some communities. Proponents support this option because it’s visible. The sight of raids, detentions, and removals implies a perception of strong leadership and accountability. It signals to voters that the institution is upholding immigration laws.

Opponents cite the staggering annual costs. This option also faces the logistical impossibilities of beds, transportation, and cooperation from other nations. These factors make deporting 11 million people impractical, even with expanded resources.

The biggest downside of this option is simple: the government just isn’t good at getting things done on this scale. Even if the most efficient military subset had all the legal protections and resources to fight a known enemy hiding in the population, they couldn’t do it. We tried in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq for 48 years combined and couldn’t achieve it. What makes us think we can achieve it here?

Mass deportation would require unprecedented coordination across federal agencies, state and local governments, and international partners. The sheer logistical complexity—finding, detaining, processing, and deporting 11 million people—is far beyond what the government has successfully managed in the past.

Immigration courts are already overwhelmed with nearly four million pending cases, and detention facilities are stretched thin. Adding this burden would lead to drastic inefficiency, mismanagement, and massive delays.

In short, expecting the government to execute this option effectively is unrealistic.

Those who say that we should deport as many undocumented immigrants as possible are missing a huge point—the immigrants we can find at their workplace and home aren’t the problem. The threats are hiding elsewhere. And if we tie up our resources with the immigrants trying to make an honest living, we are going to miss the dangerous criminals and security threats. This option is dangerous for America.

All told, this doesn’t seem like a good option. Let’s move on.

Option 4: Expand Asylum Opportunities

Our fourth option is to focus on asylum as a legal pathway for law-abiding, non-threatening undocumented immigrants. This option emphasizes the humane and lawful treatment of individuals seeking protection.

This approach involves strengthening the asylum system to address legitimate claims while simultaneously reducing the strain on immigration courts and other resources.

This option may seem like a throwaway, but it is not. The last president to offer undocumented immigrants asylum while toughening requirements for employers was President Ronald Reagan.

Reagan and the 99th Congress of 1986 offered legalization to undocumented immigrants who had entered the country illegally. Of that event, Wyoming Senator Alan K. Simpson noted that President Reagan “knew that it was not right for people to be abused,” and “anybody who’s here illegally is going to be abused in some way, either financially [or] physically. They have no rights.”

We could increase funding and staffing for asylum officers to handle cases more efficiently. We would need dedicated asylum courts to address claims separately from other immigration cases, reducing the overall backlog. We could strengthen initial screening processes at the border to ensure that we identify individuals with valid asylum claims early.

The biggest downside of this option is that many voters would perceive it as a betrayal. Expanding asylum would be viewed as prioritizing undocumented immigrants over enforcing immigration laws. Voters who demanded stricter enforcement would feel ignored or even deceived. Voters who expect visible actions to reduce undocumented immigration would see this option as leniency disguised as reform. It would fuel distrust in government promises and policies.

For this reason, this viable option is likely untenable.

What’s Our Best Option?

None of our choices is perfect. Option 2: Efficient Enforcement and Employer Accountability, seems to be the most suitable.

It’s politically acceptable, as voters could hear the stories of the US deporting criminals and security threats. It’s the most achievable. It doesn’t represent a huge financial expenditure to achieve our goals.

Of course, any option needs to be combined with efforts to strengthen border security and reduce the demand for undocumented immigrants to come to America while at the same time supporting legal immigration.

We’ve already spent considerable effort discussing improving border security. First, we need to set conditions allowing for the legal and orderly movement of goods and people across the border. This will create unambiguous indications that other movement across the border is illegal. There’s a high likelihood these illegal movements are human traffickers, weapons smugglers, and drug runners.

We need enhanced security measures, political will, and continual commitment on the border itself.

Further, we’ve already considered how to reduce the demand for undocumented immigrants to leave South America. We need a Plan Colombia approach that strengthens economic partnerships while avoiding excessive militarization or human rights concerns. This adapted Plan Colombia approach must include regional cooperation among Latin American countries, not just bilateral partnerships with the US. Initiatives that foster collaboration on cross-border issues can address trafficking, migration, and economic integration.

In Sum

Should we deport illegal immigrants en masse? What options do we have?

We covered four distinct options.

Doing nothing risks destabilizing institutions and eroding public trust. It fails to address the underlying causes of undocumented immigration, perpetuating current challenges indefinitely.

Conducting mass deportation of all undocumented immigrants is prohibitively expensive and unachievable. Further, if we tie up our resources with this group, we will miss the dangerous criminals and security threats. This option is dangerous for America.

Offering expanded asylum, as President Reagan did, would alienate voters who expect visible actions to reduce undocumented immigration. They would see this option as leniency disguised as reform. It would fuel distrust in government promises and policies.

All told, our best option is efficient enforcement and employer accountability.

It safeguards America by focusing on reducing criminal activity and security threats. It’s politically acceptable, as voters could hear the stories of the US deporting criminals and security threats. It’s the most achievable. It doesn’t represent a huge financial expenditure to achieve our goals.

It’s the option we should pursue.

May God bless the United States of America.

If we are going to have meaningful discussions, we need to realize that there are legitimate points on both sides of issues.

I advocate for dissenting points of view in operational and leadership matters. Dissent drives innovation. Even when we disagree with a position, failing to present it drives groupthink. Groupthink stifles growth.

Discussions about military governance and leadership have to balance civilian oversight with the military’s singular purpose: to protect the nation by achieving national objectives through precise and purposeful application of force.

Should the President dismiss senior military officers who have served honorably?

A “Warrior Board” to Recommend Removal of Unfit Officers

On November 12, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an exclusive article titled, Trump Draft Executive Order Would Create Board to Purge Generals. The Journal received an advance copy of the draft order from an undeclared source. If signed, the order intends to focus military brass “on leadership capability, strategic readiness, and commitment to military excellence.”

The proposed executive order would create a board of retired senior military personnel to review three—and four-star officers and recommend the removal of any deemed unfit for leadership.

On November 13, the WSJ Editorial Board wrote an opinion piece titled Why Trump Wants Hegseth at Defense. The piece rightly identified the nation’s legitimate security issues and stated that military brass needs to be able to focus on their responsibilities and not their political allegiance. The Editorial Board flatly stated the order “would be a mistake that smacks of politicizing the officer corps.”

Critics worry that the order could lead to uncertainty among high-ranking officers. They are concerned that political or ideological alignment would overshadow merit as the criterion for leadership. The same day as the editorial, military.com quoted an unnamed 3-star Army General, who stated, “It could be very hard to do our job if we have to constantly be making sure we're appeasing someone on a political or partisan level.”

This concept of a board to identify and remove unfit leaders isn’t without precedent. Supporters of the draft order point to General George C. Marshall’s plucking boards in 1940. Those boards aimed to streamline leadership and prepare the Army for the high demands of World War II.

Marshall’s approach was driven by his conviction that effective leadership could make or break the Army’s ability to face a global conflict. It was controversial but ultimately successful.

General George C. Marshall and the US Army 1940 Plucking Boards

The great General George C. Marshall became Chief of Staff of the US Army in September 1939. On his first day in office, Germany invaded Poland to kick off World War II.

Twenty years earlier, during World War I, Marshall had observed professionally unfit officers command units with poor results. Military historian Forrest Pogue wrote that Marshall was “haunted by recollections of the droves of unfit commanders” (George C. Marshall, Memoirs of My Services in the World War, 1917-1918 (Boston, 1976), 175-76). Pogue further wrote that Marshall believed he was preparing the Army for war and that it was his duty to the nation to select the right officers for the job. He needed to reform the leadership cadre and ensure the Army was ready for World War II.

Marshall’s plucking boards consisted of six retired officers. They were intended to eliminate officers unfit for command and high rank. He believed swift action was necessary to promote a dynamic set of leaders that would innovate and handle the scale and technology of modern warfare. He recognized that the quality of commanders was crucial as the Army grew and faced more complex missions.

Marshall’s controversial approach prioritized capability over tenure. It aimed to instill a merit-based system that could better adapt to the urgency and unpredictability of wartime demands.

The newly promoted officers played crucial roles in World War II and contributed to American success. The “plucking board” initiative created a more lethal fighting force. Marshall’s boards promoted officers who would go on to shape history. Among them were Dwight D. Eisenhower, the future Supreme Allied Commander Europe and 34th President of the United States; Joseph W. Stillwell, who later commanded all US forces in China, Burma, and India; Omar N. Bradley, the commander of US ground forces during the D-Day invasion at Normandy; and Carl A. Spaatz, the future commander of Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific and the first Chief of Staff of the Air Force.

As Army Chief of Staff, General Marshall conducted his boards using authority delegated by Congressional legislation and existing military regulations. The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 included provisions that allowed for the rapid expansion and restructuring of the Army as the nation prepared for involvement in World War II.

Advocates for a modern plucking board note the success of Marshall’s approach. Marshall’s review boards retired some senior officers early and selected junior officers with great potential to lead their units to achieve national objectives.

The success of Marshall’s boards highlights how effective civilian oversight, exercised through delegated authority, can transform military leadership. This authority is enshrined in the Constitution, which mandates a framework for civilian control over the military.

The Constitution and Civilian Oversight of the Military

The Constitution establishes civilian control over the military through multiple provisions. These ensure that the armed forces remain accountable to elected leaders rather than independent military authority.

Article II, Section 2 designates the President, a civilian official elected by the people, as the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” This gives a civilian elected official the highest military authority and ensures that the military is subordinate to the civilian government rather than acting independently.

At the same time, the Constitution seeks checks and balances. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to raise and support armies, declare war, regulate military forces, and “to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.”

Congress exercises this power through its legislative authority by enacting nearly all laws now codified in United States Code Title 10. These laws serve as the framework for organizing the Department of Defense and each branch of the Armed Forces—the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force. Additionally, Congress oversees the Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security during peacetime and can be transferred to the Department of the Navy during wartime or by presidential direction. These laws cover a comprehensive range of military operations, including pay grades, enlistments, commissions, promotions, retirements, training, education, recruitment, and honors. This legal structure underscores the essential role of civilian oversight in guiding military standards, ensuring accountability, and keeping the Armed Forces aligned with the nation’s democratic principles and strategic goals.

This framework supports a democratic republic by placing military authority under civilian oversight, preventing military dominance over the government, and protecting against potential abuses of military power.

As Commander in Chief, the President certainly has the authority to direct or conduct boards to review senior officer promotions. The President further has the authority to delegate the conduct of these boards to the service chiefs.

At the same time, Congress has the Constitutional responsibility to control the environment in which officers are raised to senior positions.

Through its structure, the military serves the people as an instrument of national capability directed by civilian leaders. This alignment preserves our democratic republic by ensuring military influence is a part of the elected government and our principles.

With this understanding, the military’s ultimate purpose is to protect and defend the United States, our Constitution, and its people while supporting national interests. The Constitution demands a lethal military under civilian control.

A Continuation of Policy With Other Means

In On War, Carl von Clausewitz famously described war as “a continuation of policy with other means.” Clausewitz was Prussian, and wrote ‘mit anderen Mitteln’ in the original German. He elaborated that we conduct war to compel the enemy to submit to our will. War combines military force simultaneously with other influences, such as diplomacy, to attempt to achieve political objectives.

In short, wartime operations are diplomacy combined with violence.

Military units do not conduct diplomacy.

Therefore, military officers and the units they command aim to achieve efficient violence in service to national objectives.

Since military officers and their units are tasked with achieving efficient violence in service to national objectives, any review of an officer’s conduct must prioritize their capability to fulfill this mission. Other considerations, such as schools attended, advanced academic degrees, and administrative marks, should be secondary. Military leadership should be assessed based on alignment with the Constitution’s mandate to achieve effects supporting national security goals under civilian direction. Military leaders must ensure their units apply force with precision and purpose.

1940 and President Franklin D. Roosevelt

There’s one more question we should ask regarding the proposed boards: Why did President Franklin D. Roosevelt choose to stand aside and not participate in General Marshall’s plucking boards?

FDR didn’t write about the boards, but he trusted General Marshall explicitly.

Roosevelt recognized that diplomacy was not the military component of influence, and he needed to focus on diplomacy. Separating diplomatic and military responsibilities avoids politicizing military decisions while maintaining strategic focus.

FDR focused on diplomatic efforts worldwide, leaving the Army in Marshall's competent hands. Roosevelt engaged in navigating the US response to the growing threat of World War II. He prioritized diplomatic efforts to support the Allies (such as the Lend-Lease program) and prepare the nation for possible involvement in the war.

Roosevelt trusted Marshall to manage the Army's internal restructuring. FDR respected Marshall’s expertise and gave him considerable autonomy to prepare the military for the growing global conflict. Marshall convened the plucking boards under existing Army regulations and legislation, making them a professional and administrative matter rather than a political one.

By allowing Marshall and his boards to operate independently, Roosevelt ensured the process focused on military effectiveness rather than politics.

In Sum

General Marshall’s plucking boards were controversial but successful. They were instrumental in preparing Army leaders for World War II.

The Constitution establishes civilian control over the military. As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to review and dismiss officers for poor performance. At the same time, Congress is responsible for passing legislation supporting an environment that raises officers to be who the nation needs.

Military officers and their units have a mandate to support and defend the Constitution by achieving efficient violence in service to national objectives.

The military’s strength lies in its unity of purpose, where everyone focuses on the mission. Political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic should never distract from the ultimate goal: to apply force with precision and purpose in service to our nation.

Senior officer review boards could make sense if they focus on enhancing military effectiveness, ensuring leaders are equipped to support national objectives through precision, readiness, and lethality in the profession of arms. To best achieve this goal, the President should delegate the authority and responsibility of conducting the boards to the service chiefs and leave the task of diplomacy for themselves.

May God bless the United States of America.

I believe in America— Conceived in liberty, Born at war, Founded on the promise that we are all created equal. Endowed by our Creator with the gifts of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We pledged to each other Our lives, Our fortunes, Our honor. From the beginning, the Almighty declared, “In the sweat of your face, you shall eat bread.” By the work of our hands, we shape the means To warm our homes, To fill our tables, To keep the promise of plenty. And though— If we were angels, We’d need no government, We are not angels. We need governance that holds justice close, That shields the weak, And serves the people it protects. Joel K. Douglas

What an emotional week for the country—and not just because of the election. This week, I talked with some fired-up cattle producers who believe federal agencies overstepped their authority. May we all be gracious in our interactions.

Many Americans fear for their ability to forge the means to achieve heat in the house and food on the table. There’s no quick fix for this systemic problem. Systemic problems require systemic solutions. Over the last year, we spent almost half of our effort thinking about how to improve the economy for families across America. This was the decisive effort of the year. We need governance to serve the people and set conditions that enable individual Americans to work and succeed.

Some fear for the security of our borders. At the same time, we recognize the benefit and talents legal immigrants bring to America. Even if we disagree with the premise that drastic changes are necessary to secure our borders, the perception of doing nothing leaves a foul taste in the mouths of Americans. We spent an entire month posing a multi-pronged approach to address border security in an efficient and respectful manner.

Some fear for their liberty or the liberty of others. If we give the government the power to take individual liberty away from any group, we give the government the power to take away our liberty. Inherent in the inalienable right to life is the right to make decisions about ourselves. We may have opinions and personally disagree with others’ choices, but government interference with individual choice violates liberty. No legislative body can support liberty better than stating that men and women of able mind have the right to make their own healthcare decisions. We must protect each other’s rights to ensure our own.

Some fear for the integrity of the institution that is our democratic republic. Few attain the privilege of swearing an oath to the Constitution, and we need to hold those who violate their oath for personal gain accountable. Government exists to serve the people. Any leader who serves themselves is a disgrace to the nation. Too many serve proudly and take this oath as almost a condition of their lives to allow us to water down the commitment of others.

If we were angels, we would need no government

These challenges are not new. Principal framer of the Constitution and later President James Madison outlined the inherent difficulties of governance in Federalist 51.

He addressed setting conditions for governance to secure liberty and justice for Americans.

He helped establish a system of separated powers, ensuring each branch holds the others accountable. The premise is that individual Americans must have the liberty and justice to succeed on their own merits. Government has two aims: securing liberty and justice for individuals and then controlling itself.

Liberty is the freedom to choose how you will live and act, within a framework that respects the same rights for others.

Justice is fairness, ensuring that social and economic structures benefit everyone, even the least advantaged, while correcting wrongs under the law.

Madison famously wrote, ‘If men were angels, no government would be necessary.’ He emphasized our duty to prevent one group from oppressing another. Stated another way, we need to set conditions enabling individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds to have the same opportunity to achieve prosperity as those from privileged ones. This is the essence of justice. Madison verbatim states we must “guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other.”

Our fears today reflect the same fundamental concern: how to preserve liberty and justice when human nature is flawed.

The fundamental bedrock of America is that we are conceived in liberty. No matter our group, we must protect each other’s rights to ensure our own. America demonstrates she will go to war for liberty.

The ambitious promise of America is justice for all. No matter our upbringing or whether we live in urban or rural America, we need to have heat in the house and food on the table. Individuals need to be able to achieve these necessities through the effort of their work.

In sum, the government exists to ensure liberty and justice for all.

I believe in America. Some are worried about our future, but I am not.

The “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison, expressly stated the primary purpose of the document was first individual liberty and justice, and then control of the government. America bows to no king.

The system Madison and others put in place is resilient.

America will continue to strive for liberty and justice. Just as America was born at war, fighting for liberty, Americans will rise against any group that threatens their inherent rights.

Our challenges today are of liberty and justice, but again, I don’t fear for our future—I know we will overcome them.

May God bless the United States of America.

Did the American Founding Fathers support the Electoral College?

Days at elk camp are long. We rise in the wee hours of the morning and hike with headlamps through the mountains in the dark to be where we think elk will be at first light. At the end of the day, we wait where we think the elk will be at last light and hike out with headlamps. We meet at camp at night to share our experiences, food, and drink. Success in the field probably means your group is the last to return to camp, but no one sleeps until everyone returns.

Over food and drink, we catch up. Several camp veterans won’t have seen each other in a year or more. We share pictures of kids and talk about life changes.

We chat generally about anything. We rarely talk about religion, but we talk about God and existence. And we talk about politics.

We don’t all agree on every topic, and there are some strong disagreements. But we accept each other's views, communing over beer and food. We know that the next day, the person you share your disagreement with will help you carry out a heavy load, and they’ll wait for you to return to camp to go to sleep.

A topic at camp this year was representative government. One of the hunters lives in a rural area in a populous eastern state dominated by city politics. He expressed frustration because the city negates the state's interest in the rural area.

The issue at hand is a critique of “winner-take-all” state election systems. In a winner-take-all system, the candidate who receives the majority of the popular vote in a state wins all of that state's Electoral College votes. If cities vote differently than rural areas, the city still dominates the state’s electoral choice. States prefer this approach as it gives their preferred candidate the maximum advantage. In 1800, only two states had a winner-take-all system. By 1836, all states except for South Carolina used a winner-take-all system. Today, all states except for Maine and Nebraska use a winner-take-all system.

For all the critique of the Electoral College, a winner-take-all system equally undermines the democratic principle of one person, one vote. It distorts the national popular will. Those who argue that “land doesn’t vote, people do” often still support a state winner-take-all system, negating the rural influence in their own state. The result of both winner-take-all and the Electoral College is to amplify the power of swing states.

Because there’s nothing new under the sun, this issue has been hotly debated since America was born at war and by none other than the brilliant primary framer of the Constitution and later President James Madison.

August 23, 1823. A letter from James Madison to US District Judge George Hay

James Madison was the primary framer of the US Constitution and a driving force behind the 1787 Constitutional Convention, which created the structure of the American government. His detailed notes from the convention are the most complete of any delegate.

Following the convention, Madison wrote 29 of the 85 Federalist Papers to explain the Constitution and convince states to ratify it. When the states refused to ratify the Constitution without explicit protections for American individual liberty, Madison was the primary author of the Bill of Rights. These amendments protect the liberty of citizens and states.

In short, Madison was central to the creation and ratification of the Constitution. He served the nation as a Congressman, Secretary of State, and was later the fourth President of the United States, serving in that capacity from 1809 to 1817. He was a staunch advocate for states' rights and a rational pragmatist. He recognized that while a states’ rights approach has strong merits, there are practical limits that sometimes necessitate federal intervention.

At the Constitutional Convention, Madison recommended using the national popular vote to decide the office of President. He stated that "the people at large was…the fittest" to choose the executive. But his perspective changed over a lifetime of national service.

In an 1823 letter to George Hay, Madison discussed a potential Constitutional amendment: district-based voting to select Presidential Electors instead of the current Electoral College system. He reflected on the 1787 Constitutional Convention's difficulty in determining a method to elect the President. He acknowledged the compromise that led to the Electoral College system, which was influenced by the need to balance the interests of small and large states and strongly influenced by slave states. He mentioned that the compromise agreement became necessary due to time pressure and the long deliberative process.

Madison suggested that the Electoral College was an imperfect solution.

Towards the end of the letter, Madison outlined his proposal:

Electors should be chosen by districts… If no candidate achieves a majority… the President should be chosen by a joint ballot of both Houses of Congress

Madison’s proposal identifies that each voting district should cast its own vote for the president. Instead of the winner-take-all system or the current Electoral College system, voting districts should each have their vote counted.

In the letter, Madison also doesn’t explicitly discuss the concept of a direct national popular vote for electing the President. Instead, he focuses on the mechanics of the Electoral College and the potential benefits of district-based voting. Madison critiques the current Electoral College system, particularly emphasizing the shortcomings of the winner-take-all approach and the disproportionate influence it can grant to smaller states or individual electors.

Madison’s discussion is more about improving the representational fairness of the Electoral College rather than advocating for a shift to using the national popular vote directly for electing the President. He suggests reforms that would make the Electoral College better reflect the diverse preferences across different regions of the states, aligning Electoral College outcomes more closely with popular vote distributions within those states. His proposal aims to balance the representation of smaller and larger states and address the issues that arise when a few electors or a small number of densely populated areas can determine the majority of electoral votes for an entire state.

As a strong supporter and advocate of a democratic republic and states’ rights, Madison grew to recommend not abandoning the flawed Electoral College but making the system more closely represent the vote of the populace.

So, Why do we have the Electoral College?

Slavery shaped the structure of the Electoral College during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 due to the significant political and economic divisions between slave-holding and free states.

Slave-holding states were concerned about their political influence under a direct national popular vote system. The South had large populations, but a significant portion of those populations were enslaved individuals who had no voting rights. In a popular vote system, these states would have less voting power than the more populous free states if the president were elected purely by the popular vote of free citizens.

To reach a compromise, convention delegates agreed on the Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted three out of every five slaves as people for congressional representation and taxation. The Electoral College agreement gave Southern states more electoral power than they would have had if slaves were not counted at all.

The Electoral College was also a means for Southern states to influence presidential candidates. Under the compromise agreement, these states could push candidates to consider Southern interests, particularly the preservation of slavery, to seek support from Southern electors.

Right or wrong, the Electoral College helped maintain the union of the states by giving each state—regardless of North or South, large or small—a proportionate influence in the electoral process. It also perpetuated slavery.

Did the American Founding Fathers support the Electoral College?

The American Founding Fathers supported a democratic republic and representative government.

At the Constitutional Convention, James Madison himself recommended using the popular vote to determine the president. But the Founding Fathers could reach no such agreement. The Electoral College was a compromise that became necessary for slave-holding states to agree to the method of selecting a President.

Madison had a different recommendation after serving as Congressman, Secretary of State, and President.

We should keep the Electoral College districts, but instead of a winner-take-all system that disregards the one-person, one-vote principle, we should tally each voting district’s vote individually.

It's a compelling idea from one of America’s greatest leaders, who dedicated his lifetime in service to the nation.

May God bless the United States of America.

What does it mean to vote?

You voted for me to go to war in Iraq

A little more than ten years ago, I had a conversation with a woman who strongly opposed the war in Iraq. By then, the war was hugely unpopular. Iraq wasn’t a threat to American sovereignty. They didn’t have weapons of mass destruction ready to rain down on our allies. They maybe didn’t need a new form of government and certainly didn’t want America to help them get there.

Since I had carried a rifle in Iraq, I thought she could cut her lecture short. After some more minutes of lecture, I got frustrated. I should have kept quiet, but I made the situation worse by saying, “You voted for me to go to war in Iraq.”

Of course, that got her going again. Not everyone appreciates that I’m a truth-teller. But it was absolutely true.

Voting in our democratic republic is a willful act to transfer our personal autonomy to a representative.

At the individual level, voting on Election Day is our attempt to choose representatives to whom we delegate further choices. We may or may not vote for our chosen candidate, but a candidate will win. At the end of the vote tally, we know our elected representatives.

That elected representative will then assemble and cast further votes on our behalf.

Because we delegate our vote to an elected representative, their vote becomes ours.

You voted for me to go to war in Iraq because our delegated representatives in the House and Senate passed the Authorization of the Use of Military Force for Iraq in October 2002. Even if your preferred candidate didn’t win, you still have an elected representative. Even if your elected representative voted against using military force in Iraq, the House and Senate still passed the measure.

The choices our elected representatives make become our choices. Since we are accountable for the outcomes of our choices, it is our duty to hold our leaders and power structures accountable for their character and decisions. We may delegate our authority, but we can’t delegate our responsibility.

Representation and voting are a central premise to our democratic republic. They are so crucial that America was born at war, fighting for the right to representation.

Thomas Paine and the American Revolutionary War

The Revolutionary War wasn’t just a fight for independence from British tyranny. It was a fight for representation. In the Declaration of Independence, American founders identified several disputes with British rule related to representation. These included…

King George III refused to approve laws in the public's best interest. He refused to pass laws that would give more people representation in government, even though we were willing to give up other rights in exchange. He suspended colonial legislatures and declared he had the power to make laws for them. He dissolved representative assemblies that opposed his policies. He refused to call new elections after dissolving assemblies, leaving the people without representation.

In short, we fought for our right to decide our future through elected representatives.

In 1776, at the dawn of the seven-year war that we fought for independence and representation, British-born philosopher, writer, and revolutionary figure Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense. Paine had moved to the American colonies in 1774 and penned ideas central to the debates surrounding independence from Britain.

Common Sense advocated giving people the power to elect their representatives. Paine saw voting as the core of a new social contract—an idea that resonated with the American colonists who were denied representation in British governance.

This new social contract included a government that derived its authority from the consent of the governed rather than from hereditary monarchy or divine right. His social contract redefined the relationship between the people and their government. It advocated for government based on the people's will, established through free and fair elections. It required representation, wherein elected officials act on behalf of the citizens.

Unlike monarchies, where rulers are not accountable to the people, Paine’s social contract promoted the idea that all citizens are politically equal and government officials are accountable to the electorate. It rejected hereditary rule and argued that no one has a natural right to rule over others simply by birth. He called for breaking these systems and establishing a republic where people chose leaders based on merit and public trust.

Last, he viewed government as a safeguard for liberty and believed the role of government should be to protect the liberty of its citizens. He viewed the government’s role as safeguarding individual freedom rather than imposing control or oppressing the populace.

When we vote, we exercise a fundamental right to shape our government based on our choices. Voting is our opportunity to hold our government accountable. Today, voting is a modern form of delegating decision-making to a representative—a concept that aligns with the principles Paine advocated for in Common Sense.

Paine would remind us that just because a system has been in place for a long time doesn’t make it right. He would challenge us to hold our leaders and power structures accountable and urge us to vote to prevent abuse, ensure accountability, and secure the freedom and security he believed were the ultimate purpose of government.

Paine and the American Revolution laid the foundation for our right to representation, but the story of personal freedom doesn't end there. Let’s fast forward to the 20th century and Jean-Paul Sartre, who logically joined individual liberty and personal responsibility.

Paine advocated for our right to choose our government. Sartre challenged us to embrace the weight of those choices in an indifferent universe. Though separated by time and context, both thinkers converged on a sobering idea: our actions—or inactions—define ourselves and our society.

Jean-Paul Sartre, Radical Freedom, and Personal Responsibility

The existential philosophy of radical freedom by Jean-Paul Sartre reverberates with the act of voting.

Sartre believed in radical freedom—the idea that individuals are free to make their own choices in an indifferent universe without a predetermined purpose. He famously said we are "condemned to be free" because our freedom comes with heavy personal responsibility.

Every person defines themselves through their actions. We can’t blame external forces for our choices and outcomes—we are entirely responsible.

Tied to this notion of personal responsibility, voting in our democratic republic directly means we are accountable for the outcomes of choices our representatives make on our behalf. We delegate our authority to elected officials, but we can’t delegate the responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.

This philosophy is starkly relevant in the context of modern voting. Let’s consider some examples. First, a disillusioned voter who decides not to vote. They might think their single ballot won't make a difference. Sartre would argue that the choice to withhold their vote is still one for which they're entirely responsible. By choosing to refuse to vote, they accept any outcome as their choice because they gave up their voice and power to influence change.

Then there’s the individual who votes strictly along party lines without holding their own party accountable. Defaulting to the status quo is still a choice we make. Elected officials swear an oath to the Constitution; some violate their oath. We're responsible for the consequences of electing leaders who subvert their oath to the Constitution or don’t align with American values.

Individuals create meaning through their actions, and we shape the future of our society through the choices we make at the ballot box. We are responsible for those choices.

Voting, then, is more than just a right—it’s an exercise in radical freedom. We are condemned to it and responsible for the leaders we elect and their policies. While heavy, the burden of that responsibility is essential to the functioning of a free society.

In sum

Representation is so essential America was born at war over it. At imminent peril, we pledged to each other our Lives, Fortunes, and sacred Honor for the right to vote.

I don’t believe in political parties. I believe in America.

Individual liberty and personal responsibility are the foundation of the nation.

Liberty is the right to participate in choosing our representatives. The choices our elected representatives make become our choices.

With liberty comes responsibility. Since we are accountable for the outcomes of our choices, it is our duty to hold our leaders and power structures accountable for their character and decisions.

You are accountable for the choices of your elected representatives.

I am accountable for the choices of my elected representatives.

As an American who swore my oath to support and defend the Constitution for nearly my entire adult life, including days carrying a rifle on foreign soil, I will vote for the Constitution.

As a daughter's father, I will vote for her future to have the individual liberty and personal responsibility that comes with making her own healthcare decisions.

I believe in individual liberty. I will vote for the right of states to protect their interests. I will vote for the right of states to have their votes counted. I will vote against any measure that threatens the individual liberty of any American.

I believe in personal responsibility. I will vote for leaders who uphold the rule of law and against any leader who does not.

May God bless the United States of America.