Welcome back to the Rational Policy Podcast for Episode 59! Join your intrepid hosts and as we break down the news of the past week, touching on stories in the realms of national security, partisan politics, congressional oversight, and media. We start with the biggest news of the day, the rapid fall of NVIDIA co-founder and CEO Jensen Huang after revelations of multiple affairs, including at least one with a subordinate and another with what is most likely a Chinese spy. We delve into this issue, breaking down the plethora of national security, economic, corporate, and technological ramifications that will stem from these stories. We explain why NVIDIA is such a critical company for America’s future, how China is attempting to bypass us in the AI race, and the potential counterintelligence aspects of this whole brouhaha. Next, we talk about the attempted impeachment of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, discussing why it failed (Everyone Hates Thomas Massie), what it might signal about the coming battles inside the Democratic caucus, and the best way to approach investigations and impeachments. We also hold a brief debate over whether Congress should change the name of our core military bureaucracy from the Department of Defense to the Department of War. Finally, we praise Ross Douthat’s incredible 60 Minutes interview of Donald Trump from this past weekend. We touch on how his line of questioning was tough but fair, how he got the most out of a notoriously tough interviewee, and the most important question asked to an American president in years.

Share

Check it out, follow us on Twitter/X (Mike / Art), and share the podcast with anyone you think might appreciate it. Thanks for listening. We’ll be back next week with more news and views. Until then, go watch some hockey; it’s been a great season so far.

Subscribe now

I was back again on the Break It Down Show yesterday with my friends Pete Turner and Dr. Amber Brittain-Hale to talk about all the news of the past week, especially the continuing fallout from the midterm elections. We hit on the internal recriminations within the Trump administration, including how different factions like MAHA are battling others for influence and power during the lame duck half of the second Trump term. We also discuss communication styles, Ross Douthat’s magisterial interview of Trump on 60 Minutes, the potential legislative and political moves of the next two months before the new Congress is sworn in, and how we all have much more in common as Americans, across political ideologies, than we think. Finally, we expound on the anti-data center psyop and its deleterious effects for the American future.

Subscribe now

Check it out at the embed above and be sure to visit the BIDS YouTube page for more great content. Enjoy!

Share

“I’d rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who believe in the principles of freedom than 60 who don’t believe in anything.”

That quote, from then-US Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), came in the midst of the rising 2010 Tea Party wave that overtook the Republican Party and swept into Congress on promises of radical change. DeMint’s purism seemed to pay off in the immediate term, with the GOP surging to a 6-seat gain in the Senate behind Tea Party-linked politicians like Marco Rubio (FL), Rand Paul (KY), Pat Toomey (PA), Mike Lee (UT), and Ron Johnson (WI), cutting the Democrat lead in the senior chamber from 59-41 to 53-47. That success bred hubris, presaging defeat not only in the 2012 presidential contest, but also in that year’s race for control of the Senate, with Democrats gaining two seats. Fatally flawed Tea Party candidates – notably Todd Akin (MO) and Richard Mourdock (IN) – contributed heavily to that avoidable loss. DeMint and his fellow travelers assumed that 2010 was a mandate for the total defeat of the Obama presidency, but this proved to be a bridge too far for most voters.

DeMint stepped down from the Senate shortly thereafter, taking the job at the helm of the Heritage Foundation and proceeding to launch that venerable institution’s slow, but inexorable slide into the abyss. The 2012 defeat, premised at least partially on the Tea Party’s overreach and poor candidate selection, allowed President Obama to work with a pliant Senate during the first two years of his second term, confirming judicial and executive nominees in significant numbers. In that case, the quest for purity led to an unnecessary defeat and very real, lasting political consequences; most right-of-center Americans would probably have preferred control of the upper body of Congress with a few squishes or ‘RINOs’ (Republicans In Name Only) in the caucus to two more years of Obama with a friendly Senate.

Subscribe now

There is a lesson to be learned in that anecdote about sacrificing the good at the altar of the perfect and causing meaningful harm in the process, but it does not seem like that the supporters of the latest fad to take over the American right – MAGA – have internalized that lesson. Instead, they have lived through two more iterations of the same hubristic cycle in 2022 and now 2026, failing to learn a single thing in the process. They forced out ‘RINOs’ to make way for Trump’s handpicked MAGA candidates, nearly all of whom have failed miserably and lost otherwise winnable races. We have had Kari Lake and Blake Masters in Arizona, Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania, Herschel Walker in Georgia, Ken Paxton in Texas, Darline Graham in South Carolina, and more. All competitive races that were lost because the vaunted ‘base’ and the online influencers who front-run it desired purity over victory and loyalty to Trump over actual electability.

And now they’re ramping up to do it all over again, centering their preexisting grudges as the cause of the 2026 midterm wipeout and focusing on ideological purity (a.k.a. hewing to their conception of what the Right should be) over pragmatic winning. Instead of forcing a reckoning with the consequences of a broadly unpopular president and an agenda of overreach and alienation of key 2024 constituencies, they’re doubling down on what brought them low, blaming either phantom ‘neocons’ and the Iran War, squishes who stymied the president’s ambitious America First agenda, or impossible levels of fraud and Democrat malfeasance for their historic rout. Some are celebrating the eviction of the ‘RINOs’ as a major silver lining of the loss, with thoughts that these seats will all be won back by hardcore America First candidates in 2032 after Republican victories in the next elections. This is fantastical in the extreme.

Some of these lost seats are in states that are trending blue or were represented by an outgoing moderate, notably Maine and North Carolina. Others are seats that likely will not go red anytime soon, like Minnesota and Michigan. Yet more are up for grabs given the Democrat lean of major metropolitan areas, such as Texas and Georgia. These are not gimmes in 2032, even if the overall environment is theoretically favorable for Republicans. Nominating unpalatable hardliners who embrace unpopular policies and a Trumpian legacy that has been directly repudiated by the majority of American voters is political suicide going forward. That applies to 2028 and 2030 as well, two cycles with less favorable maps for Republicans than 2026/32.

And yet the MAGA/New Right contingent is fixated on evicting ‘RINOs’ who have already shown electoral and institutional success in exchange for ideologically ‘pure’ candidates who are more polarizing, less electable, and more likely to lead to greater, not lesser, Democrat control of Congress. Influential figures in the movement are more focused on the supposed existential risk of John Thune (R-SD) retaining an internal caucus leadership position than they are the actual reality that a still-unpopular left just beat the tar out of them a week ago, with voters largely rebelling against MAGA’s favorite policies. For a crew that repeatedly claims that the ‘establishment’ GOP only does “principled losing,” they sure seem to like lashing themselves to the mast of unpopular principles and going down with the ship.

Share

Unless and until this counterproductive virtue signaling – and yes, that is exactly what this purity test culture is – is banished from the Republican Party and the broader political right, the left will undo everything positive about the Trump era and forge forward with their long march through American life, much to the detriment of conservatism. But rejecting this failed approach is eminently doable. Majorities in Congress are achievable with the right candidates and the right policies, ones that appeal to the majority of voters, not just to the insatiable perfectionists of the vaunted ‘base’. Winning elections is about finding the right person for the right race, not trying to jam a square peg ever-harder into an unchanging round hole. Moderates or <gasp> ‘RINOs’ may be the only sort of right-leaning candidate that can win in blue or purple states and districts. They may have to compromise on certain positions to do so, making the future caucus more ideologically heterogeneous and fluid. Still, actual durable incremental positive change in a conservative direction is far preferable to being a principled, yet perpetual, minority that can hold fast to its radical views because it has no chance whatsoever of enacting them into law.

If the MAGA New Right contingent would rather be a small minority faction that complains about the left and ‘RINOs’ 24/7 on TV and social media, while allowing said left to run roughshod over the country, they can certainly choose that fate. But they surely can’t claim it’s something novel that has never been tried. And if we’re in the business of recycling old ideas, I, for one, would take ‘zombie Reaganism’ over ‘zombie DeMintism’ any day of the week.

Subscribe now

Share

The Rational Policy Podcast is back with Episode 58! In this show, we recap the midterm elections, discussing the absolute annihilation of the Republican Party at all levels of government and the complete and utter repudiation of Donald Trump by the American electorate. This historic trouncing had a plethora of causes and will have myriad effects – and your hosts and are here to break it all down. We talk through our immediate reactions to the election, how the national environment turned so hard against Trump just two years after his victory, why voters punished the GOP across the board for the sins of the administration, and what the key issues in the loss were. From there, we discuss the recrimination cycle currently overtaking the political right and how the fractures it represents will spell doom for the MAGA coalition. We also explore what these results say about the future of both parties, from the actions of a Democratic Congress for the next two years to the 2028 race for the White House, pulling no punches whatsoever. This one is a real gem, folks.

Share

Check it out, follow us on Twitter/X (Mike / Art), and share the podcast with anyone you think might appreciate it. Thanks for listening. We’ll be back next week with our regular fare. Until then, join me in welcoming our new Democratic overlords.

Subscribe now

Last night was an absolute wipeout for the Trumpian MAGA Republican Party. It lost the House, it lost the Senate, it lost most governor’s mansions, it lost statehouses, it even lost Texas, Kansas, and (probably) Mississippi. This was easily one of the biggest landslide elections in modern American midterm history, at least since 1974 – the election that immediately followed the Nixon resignation and Watergate. It was a total repudiation of everything the Trump administration has done over the past 2 years, if not the entire movement he has led for a decade.

There will be a great deal to say about this over the coming days, weeks, months, and years, but here are some of my first thoughts on this truly historic result.

Share

It Wasn’t Just About Iran (or Israel)

The recriminations over this staggering loss have already begun, and they’ll continue for a very long time. But right now, we have seen a very clear trend as to what, and who, is to blame. What the majority of the online New Right/MAGA influencers – including the sitting Vice President, who seems more interested in engaging in Twitter beefs than he is in helping to run the country – are hyperfixated on as the convenient scapegoat for this defeat is the Iran War and the country they believe forced us into it (Israel, naturally). The war has indeed been unpopular and it has spiked gasoline prices, both things that militate in favor of this view. But this is only a portion of the real story here. The biggest issue with the war is not that it was started, but that the New Right folks, led by Vance, forced a counterproductive ceasefire that did not improve gas prices or make the president and his party more popular. Instead of winning the war, the administration chose to pause it and negotiate. This was a catastrophic choice. Still, if this was the issue that really turned the tide, the proponents of this approach would be more right than wrong. But that’s not at all the case.

If you look at exit polling, Trump’s approval rating over time, or the actual factors causing broad price increases – exactly the issue Trump was elected to fix – the picture becomes a lot muddier. The Iran War was a factor in voting results, but a smaller one than corruption, affordability in general, and immigration enforcement were. The turn against Trump, and therefore Republicans in general, on the handling of the economy came after the announcement of universal tariffs and their implementation. The generic ballot shows the exact same timing, with Republicans falling behind Democrats once the ridiculous tariff war against the rest of the world was launched. Tariffs remain very unpopular among voters, and they said as much in exit polling. The Vance-ites never mention this reality, as it would indict their preferred policies as a proximate cause of this astounding defeat. Instead, they prefer to place the entirety of the blame on the war against Iran (while saying nothing at all about how they would have handled the rapidly growing nuclear threat from Tehran), bringing Israel into it for good measure. The inclusion of Israel is an interesting thing, as it was essentially a total non-issue in the election outside of particular precincts (Michigan being the notable one). Once again, this speaks not only to deflection but to a deliberate misstatement of the causes of this electoral defeat, intended to craft a narrative that the New Right was right all along. In reality, the New Right has been a major force in this administration, failing all along the way and alienating voters in the process. They own this as much as anyone else, surely more than the phantom “neocons” they blame for everything.

This profound a defeat was necessarily multivariate in nature. No one thing caused a loss this devastating and total. But if you look at the data, it is clear when the worm turned against the GOP: after the imposition of tariffs. That is when the economic message of the administration – once again, the major issue it got elected to solve – became unpopular. Everything else since then has merely exacerbated this preexisting issue. Ignoring the original sin in favor of more recent issues that amplify the existing concern is a cynical attempt to preserve the political future of a movement that has very clearly failed.

Trumpism is Dead

Donald Trump is a lame duck president. He already was, given his status as a term-limited politician who has sky-high personal unpopularity numbers, but this election sealed the deal. He will accomplish precisely nothing durable outside of foreign affairs without the cooperation of Democrats who despise every fiber of his being. Everything he has done, is doing, or will do in the future will be investigated by Democrats in Congress, slowing progress to a halt and tying up the administration in lengthy and complicated legal battles. And that’s before the inevitable impeachments.

Given those indisputable facts, combined with the cult of personality that is Trumpism/MAGA, the movement is either dead or mortally wounded. Trump’s endorsement was less than helpful to his preferred candidates; indeed, it was the kiss of death for many. Trump is simply not the kingmaker he has been for a decade. The electorate repudiated him and everything tied to him, in a quite aggressive manner. The policies pushed by MAGA have largely failed, and the brash and uncompromising style of the movement didn’t help sell them to persuadable voters who pulled the lever for Trump just 2 years ago. The coalition that brought him back to the Oval Office has collapsed and the politicians it supported have been drummed out of Washington (and states like Texas and Georgia). Trump is essentially radioactive now, something that will likely stain anyone associated with this administration going forward.

The long decade dominated by Donald J. Trump is over. What comes next is unpredictable and unsettled.

Subscribe now

2028 Will be a Trip

And that brings us to the next election. (Yes, I know this one just ended, but that’s how politics works in 2026, folks!) The 2028 presidential contest is the first wide-open slate for both parties since 2016, and it comes with a president who is rapidly tanking in popularity, making him a liability for potential candidates of his party. That means that both sides of the aisle are going to face internal battles over their ideological, stylistic, and geographic futures. The reason for the Republican clash is obvious: Trumpism is a spent force and, if the current online recrimination cycle is anything to go by, the battle for what comes next is going to be an absolute slobberknocker.

But before we dive into that, this blue tsunami will also create or exacerbate potential fissures in the Democratic Party, pitting moderates against progressives/leftists/socialists. The big majority will be nice, but it will do two things to increase these tensions: 1) allow the introduction or passage of bills that will inevitably be vetoed, but will prove to be signaling measures for base voters (think gun bans, wealth taxes, Medicare for All) and 2) set the potential Democrat president in 2029 up to have a large governing majority in Congress with which to pass major legislation. These will drive intra-Democrat feuds that will play out in what will likely be an extraordinarily crowded field of candidates.

But the Democratic infighting is nothing like what we will see (and are already seeing) on the other side. The clash to establish the next regnant iteration of the American right is going to be a bloodbath. Not only are the ideas diametrically opposed – free trade versus protectionism, international strength versus isolationism, bigger government versus smaller government, populism versus conservatism – the people driving the movements are, let’s say, not exactly the best of friends. The tenor of the vitriol is intense, mirroring the passion of the underlying political arguments. Trump’s unpopularity will only make this fight more important and thus antagonistic. He will not be able to put his thumb on the scale, and association with his administration may end up being disqualifying for potential candidates like Vance and Rubio. This opens up a whole new avenue for outsider candidates, whether literal (governors like Brian Kemp (GA), Ron DeSantis (FL), and Glenn Youngkin (VA)) or figurative (businessmen, celebrities, Tucker Carlson). Ideological combat will be at the heart of the campaign, and a great deal of that will be fought out online, in the pages of the right-leaning press, and in visual and auditory media. Which means you’ll be seeing a lot of that fight right here, as I surely do not intend on leaving the arena just when things heat up.

Buckle up, it’s going to be a hell of a ride.

Nothing in Politics is Permanent

I’ll conclude with this: the only constant in American politics is change. Elections ping-pong between parties almost every cycle, especially in the 21^st century and the age of social media. But even when things were a bit less mercurial, like when Democrats controlled the House of Representatives from 1955 to 1981, change was still in the offing. (And Democrats did indeed lose control under Reagan.) Ideological, geographic, and coalitional shifts still occurred. Politics in the US swings like a pendulum, often driven by the party in power declaring a “mandate” and overreaching on policy. Now is no different.

America is not dead and buried. Nor has it fallen to a communist takeover, a plague of foreigners, or Islamic fascism. This was not the most important election ever, nor will it be the last one ever. The fate of the world, or of the American experiment, or of your own family was not decided by this vote. (Yes, I’ve seen all these takes online since Tuesday.) Doomerism is both silly and unbecoming. The sun will rise tomorrow. The next election will happen. Democrats will assume that this election was a mandate for their most radical ideas instead of a repudiation of Trump and naturally overreach. And Republicans will have a chance to capitalize on their error – if they can get their own house in order.

That is the work that starts now for those of us on the right. We need to reset, restart, and rebuild a new coalition backed by better ideas, better policies, better rhetoric, and better people. All is not lost unless we allow it to be. So buck up, take your lumps, and get back in the saddle. It’s time to start anew.

Onward.

Subscribe now

Share

I was back on the always enjoyable Break It Down Show today with my friend Pete Turner, this time to discuss the generational wipeout faced by Republicans in last night’s midterm elections. We recapped the results, discussed their historic nature, explained why things shook out this way, and talked about what might come next. We broke down how this result might impact both foreign and domestic policy, the inevitable death of Trumpism as an electoral phenomenon, and the broader issues with American politics writ large. Tune in for all of that, plus some political philosophy, including discussions of Burke, Hayek, Tocqueville, and the Founders. As always, it was a great conversation jam-packed with information and nuance.

Subscribe now

Check it out at the embed above and be sure to visit the BIDS YouTube page for more great content. Enjoy!

Share

Welcome back to the Rational Policy Podcast for Episode 57! We somehow have made it all the way to the end of October, which means that election season is coming to a climax. (And thank God for that; I have just about had enough of the constant campaign mailers.) That means it is also time for our MIDTERM ELECTION EXTRAVAGANZA! After covering the results of the Israeli and Brazilian elections, including the predictable inconclusiveness of the former and the wild aftermath of the latter, hosts and dive into rank punditry on our own domestic electoral politics. To set the stage, we discuss the overarching themes of this election season, where things stand today in terms of broad public polling, and the current makeup of Congress. Then we get into the weeds of the race for control of the House of Representatives, agreeing on the likelihood that Democrats take the lower congressional body, as well as what that outcome could mean for the next two years. We spend the bulk of the time, however, previewing the senatorial election slate, hitting 14 states that range from leaning one way to being a total toss-up. We talk about the controversies in Michigan and Alaska, the potential for Democrats to flip surprising Midwestern states, and whether Susan Collins can remain seated atop her throne of opposing skulls up in Maine. We also debate the coming radicalism (or not) of the Democratic Party and how these races may impact the real Big Kahuna: the 2028 presidential contest.

Share

Check it out, follow us on Twitter/X (Mike / Art), and share the podcast with anyone you think might appreciate it. Thanks for listening. We’ll be back next week with another great episode. Until then, have a happy Halloween!

Subscribe now

My work has returned to the digital pages of Providence Magazine once again, this time with a review of Nigel Biggar’s 2025 book Reparations: Slavery and the Tyranny of Imaginary Guilt. The reparations debate may seem like ancient history here in the US, peaking in the George Floyd moment of 2020-21, but it is alive and well overseas, especially targeting the former British Empire. The United Kingdom has been inundated with claims that it is responsible for all the evils of the transatlantic slave trade - now considered by the UN to be history’s greatest crime, absurd as that sounds to anyone who knows history - as well as the poor economic development of former slave-centric colonies in Africa and the Caribbean. But this couldn’t be further from the truth. And Biggar’s book does yeoman’s work explaining why, all backed by concrete evidence. It’s a masterclass that is well worth the read, particularly so given its brevity.

Below is an excerpt of my review, but you can read the whole thing here.

The early chapters of Reparations describe the actual history and context behind the transatlantic slave trade, Britain’s involvement in enslavement and, more importantly, abolition, and the complex post-abolition economic histories of the reparations-seeking nations. All of the facts, figures, and analyses that Biggar musters in this section form the real meat of the book and serve as ready-made counters to many of the most commonplace pro-reparations arguments. He explores the broader historical phenomenon of slavery, bringing to bear plenty of evidence that shows it to be a sadly-universal institution across cultures and epochs, certainly not one particular to the empires of Western Europe, even when it comes to trafficking in Africans. The most enlightening examples presented to bolster this point are ones that reparations activists intentionally ignore.

One such counterpoint is the existence of the Arab slave trade, which lasted for centuries longer and probably trafficked far more Africans than did Europeans (though precise counting is impossible for long-term historical phenomena like this), only ceasing when threatened with the British Empire’s military and economic might. Another is the complicity of Africans themselves in the capture, trade, and exploitation of slaves – a controversial claim, but one that is heavily supported by the primary sources. Biggar assembles a great deal of this proof, showing how the arrival of European slavers merely provided a new and profitable market for a pre-existing trade, as well as how many African rulers and societies fought against abolition. This context serves as exculpatory evidence against the claim that Britain’s involvement in the slave trade was uniquely pernicious.

Britain did have a unique role in the history of the global slave trade, however: ending it. This is the context most commonly and cynically shorn from the pro-reparations narrative, and understandably so: Britain’s abolitionism was far more important and historically unique than was its role in enslavement. Biggar does yeoman’s work bringing to bear significant support for this position, detailing how Britain was at the very forefront of the abolition movement, driving the cessation of the global slave trade even at significant economic and geopolitical cost to the empire.

When Parliament ended the slave trade in 1807, London’s strategic fortunes were at a low ebb; Napoleonic France was in control of the majority of the Continent and was about to attempt to cut off all British trade to Europe, making the slave-centric colonies all the more crucial. And yet London voted to fight its greatest foe with the equivalent of one hand tied behind its back, handicapping itself economically and even dispatching its wartime navy to suppress the trade. That the full emancipation of slaves across the empire took another three decades and was done in an incremental and conservative fashion, including by compensating slaveowners and creating a brief post-slavery apprenticeship program, does not undercut the fact that emancipation came early and was successful. It also does not change the reality that it was British thinkers, politicians, and theologians who led the charge in fighting for abolition worldwide, against the societal and civilizational currents that had been present for thousands of years.

But Britain did not stop in the 1830s when it freed the slaves living under the empire; it spent the next several decades going around the world to halt both the slave trade and slavery as an institution, by force of arms if necessary. This moral crusade, fondly remembered by the contemporary British statesman Lord Palmerston as “the achievement which I look back on with the greatest and purest pleasure,” was historically exceptional and extraordinarily costly. Britain’s immense naval might was marshaled in service of this noble aim – during the mid-1800s, up to 13% of its global fleet was stationed off West Africa for this purpose alone – and was regularly used to interdict ships, blockade ports, and even attack coastal fortresses. The empire also utilized its skilled soldiers and experienced bureaucratic corps to end this evil practice worldwide. Abolition was centered in all of the empire’s diplomatic overtures to slaving polities, even when it created problems for other core British interests, while several new colonies, mostly unprofitable, were established so as to enforce local emancipation.

The economic cost of these impressive and dedicated efforts was not small. Expert estimates put the present-day cost of suppressing the transatlantic trade alone at between £1.4-1.7 billion per year for half a century, in an era when government spending was a minuscule fraction of what it is today. Other economic historians taking a broader view estimate that the full cost of British anti-slavery efforts, including price impacts, direct costs, and loss of business, amounted to 1.8% of national income from 1808 to 1867, a figure which nearly matches total modern-day UK defense spending. That this amount was spent on a purely moral and ideological project across 50-plus years is a major argument against the reparations narrative. It is no wonder they studiously avoid it.

Subscribe now

Share

The last two weeks have seen a major turn in the Trump administration’s geopolitical outlook. No, we haven’t gone back to war against the Iranian regime – although that may be coming sooner than one might think. We haven’t changed our posture toward the defense of Taiwan, nor have we toppled the Cuban government, nor have we stopped slapping arbitrary tariffs on every slice of land from Toronto to Timbuktu. What the Trump administration has done, however, is turn against Ukraine in its righteous defensive war against Russian belligerence.

In just the past fortnight, Trump and several of his minions have gone after Ukraine as the issue in resolving this conflict, attacking Kyiv and Zelenskyy rhetorically and lambasting the Ukrainian cause as unjust, counter to US interests, or simply not our problem. During that time, Ukraine has seen a reduction in early warnings of missile strikes, the throttling or disabling of Starlink/Starshield satellite guidance systems, the waiving of bipartisan economic sanctions on Moscow, the delay or halting of Patriot missile transfers to Ukraine, the labeling of Vladimir Putin as a “humanitarian” by US envoy Steve Witkoff, the repeat claims that Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy needs to be replaced, and the assertion that Ukraine must stop attacking Russian energy infrastructure – a highly effective tactic – because it might hurt Trump in the midterms. Some of these actions remain shrouded in confusion as to their specifics – who pushed the Starlink slowdown and why, did early warning systems malfunction, are Patriot missiles needed elsewhere – but they all form an undeniable pattern of increasing hostility to the Ukrainian cause.

Subscribe now

There have been moments of antagonism in the relationship between Washington and Kyiv before, notably the Oval Office blowup in February 2025, but rarely have they been this meaningful or public. Although some members of the administration are less hostile than others – and few are as hostile as Elon Musk seems to be – the overall picture is becoming clear. Calling this ‘switching sides’ is a bit too much, as we are acting in a nominally ‘neutral’ manner; the problem is that this switch to ostensible neutrality (often more favorable to Russia) necessarily means the cessation of the preexisting US support for Ukraine. Despite the badness of this choice, it certainly isn’t the work of a Russian asset, a claim that has once again come a-cropper in the online discourse. There are absolutely levers that Trump could pull that would harm Ukraine more gravely, yet he has demurred; a literal Russian asset would have no reason to do that, especially as a lame duck in the final stages of his second term. Could those more serious moves still be made? Sure, but jumping the gun is unhelpful and counterproductive.

Even though this situation could be worse, that does not mean that it is not bad right now. The anti-Ukraine decisions made by the Trump team in the past few weeks are, put together, a despicable act of cowardice and betrayal – not only of Ukraine, but of American interests. Let’s start with the ground truth here: Russia is our enemy. They are antagonistic to our interests, seek to dominate many of our allies, have attacked America both indirectly and directly, and partner with our other inveterate foes in a quest to overthrow the US-led world order that has secured our historic peace and prosperity. Russia has hacked our companies and governments, it has malignantly interfered with our politics, and it materially supports our gravest foes. Threatening America and attacking our interests have been the business of the Russian regime under Vladimir Putin for going on two decades now. Nothing has changed that and nothing is going to change that for the foreseeable future.

At the same time, we are stronger than Russia – by a massive margin. The late, great John McCain once called Russia no more than a gas station with nukes. In that, he was largely correct. Russia’s economy is very poor for its size and natural wealth, its standard of living is disastrously bad, it relies massively on exporting fossil fuels, and its politics is one of personal dictatorship. Its military and society are hopelessly corrupt, it cannot even execute the invasion of a much weaker neighboring country properly, and its naval might is practically nonexistent. It does, however, retain nuclear weapons (lots of them) and a large energy sector. Although Ukraine has even damaged those, destroying a segment of Moscow’s strategic bomber fleet and carrying out devastating assaults on Russian energy infrastructure. The idea that Russia can defeat us or should otherwise be worth pacifying is nonsense. It remains a threat, but one we should focus on deterring, not appeasing. We are the strong horse in this situation, and we are joined in it by European allies who, despite their manifest issues, are still in better shape than Russia. There is simply no need for conciliation on our part.

This is not a war we are fighting directly. It is a defensive war against naked Russian aggression that we are supporting with intelligence, logistics, materiel (through European partners), and diplomacy. We have no troops fighting on the front lines. We are not attacking Russia directly or indirectly. And through these efforts – imperfect though they have been – we have been successful in achieving what should be our aim: degrading the Russian threat, distracting it from expansion elsewhere, and aiding the Ukrainians in their righteous nationalist defense of hearth and home. For the money, material, and effort we have expended here, the return is spectacular. This is an example of getting immense bang for the buck in geopolitical terms.

Share

When it comes to ending this conflict – one that has been raging for nearly 5 years unabated, was presaged by the 2014 Russian invasion, and has been flaring up on and off for a millennium – there will be no tidy solution. There is simply no negotiated agreement to solve the issues on the table that will either be acceptable to both sides or faithfully implemented by them. Russia’s war aims are total in nature. They seek to “de-Nazify” Ukraine, which is, given Russia’s cultural hyperfixation on its WWII victory (after being on the wrong side for years), an aim only satisfiable by the total elimination of the Ukrainian government and its wholesale replacement. They do not believe Ukraine is a country, nor a different people, and wish to end its existence as an independent sovereign nation-state. They want to destroy the Ukrainian language and culture, going so far as to forcibly kidnap and relocate Ukrainian children deep into Russia for ‘re-education’. On the contrary, Ukraine wants to continue to exist as an independent country, desires the end of the illegal Russian occupation of its territory, seeks security guarantees and closer partnership with Europe and the West, and wishes to live in peace within its own borders.

These are not things that can be rectified in a diplomatic settlement. They are mutually exclusive by their very nature. There is no mere gap to be bridged; it is a chasm. And one set of these demands is clearly immoral, evil, and wrong. Yet we are pretending at neutrality – realistically, a slide against Ukraine – in this conflict. Not because of a hard-nosed realist case on the basis of core American interests, but seemingly in a fit of pique over diesel prices before the midterm elections. This is, to put it mildly, complete idiocy.

There are no real benefits we receive from this change, yet the costs are immeasurably immense. It tells our allies around the world not only that we are an unreliable partner when the going gets tough and political realities come to bite, but also that we are willing to use relatively underhanded means to undermine our former partners. It signals to our enemies that we are inconstant and will back down in the face of bellicose rhetoric, ephemeral promises of ‘business opportunities’, or intense flattery. It continues a trend of politically ping-ponging major aspects of our foreign policy in an age where our foes are increasingly aligned, assertive, and stalwart in their aims. This sort of thing will make American defense products seem untrustworthy, hurting our ability to export our wares and link our allies deeper into our security architecture. It is also, ironically enough, likely to cause more conflict than it will end. It runs counter to our global interests, gives a key foe a much-needed lifeline for no good reason, and seems completely arbitrary. An absolute shambles all around.

And yet people support this abhorrent choice. Many – hell, most – are not worth engaging. They spout Kremlin talking points, are invariably anti-American in the sense of despising American power, and usually erect various strawman arguments that they then commence to beat into oblivion. Others are merely Trump sycophants, who will follow along with and praise anything the president does. Yet more are on the political fringes, both right and left, who align more with Moscow than Washington. Some, however, are worth debating because their arguments contain a nugget of truth. These (often tacit) defenders of the president’s new approach use comparison to excuse him. To them, the Europeans – far closer at hand geographically, more directly threatened by Russian revanchism, and the biggest talkers on the issue – have behaved far worse, sending as much money to Moscow via energy purchase as they have to Ukraine in aid. Other, more hawkish, figures might argue that Biden was just as ineffective, constraining Ukrainian action against targets in Russia and promising big aid deliveries, but constantly delaying them over bogus fears of Russian escalation. These arguments each ring true; the EU and the Biden administration both have failed Ukraine despite their lofty rhetoric to the contrary. But two wrongs don’t make a right. And the bad actions of others do not excuse the bad actions of Donald Trump.

Subscribe now

There is a silver lining to all of this, though. In spite of the contemptible reversal from the Trump administration, Ukraine will live to fight another day. Its future is not being made in Washington, nor will it be decided from Moscow. It is being created and defended every single day by the brave men and women of Ukraine, from Kyiv and Kharkiv to Odesa and Lviv, from the drone factories to the front lines, from doctors and nurses to soldiers and airmen. Ukraine has proven itself a nation, and a powerful and resilient one, at that. In that way, it has won this war already, showing Putin’s entire worldview vis a vis the country to be based on false premises. It will continue the fight, costly though it may be, because there is no alternative. This is truly existential.

Other nations see that, too. And they see how the fight for Ukrainian national existence against a revisionist Russia that seeks to craft a new Tsardom impacts them directly. So even if this Trump turn is a permanent one that lasts beyond this administration – something not widely supported by the American public – Kyiv will not be friendless. It will not even be isolated and without help if pro-Russia populist leaders take charge in nations like France and Germany. In fact, they will likely get even more assistance, from nations far closer to the front. The nations of Eastern Europe – Poland, the Baltics, Finland, Romania, and others – were under the Russian (Soviet) yoke within living memory; they do not wish to repeat that experience. They are already some of the most heavily armed and well-trained militaries on the continent; the Russian threat gives them all the more reason to double down on that approach. If they can keep Moscow at bay in Ukraine, they can preserve their own security while dealing a historic enemy a painful blow.

All is not lost. The Ukrainian nation is steadfast and strong. It has built one of the most impressive and technologically-capable militaries in the world, constantly innovating in the face of mortal danger. Its foe is larger and more resource-rich, but it is demotivated, degraded, and decrepit. It is stagnant, while Ukraine is dynamic. And it is ruled in a personal capacity by a septuagenarian paranoiac with undisclosed health problems and a megalomaniacal streak the size of the Volga – not exactly a recipe for stability and future-oriented growth. When the bastard in the Kremlin dies, Russia will be plunged into chaos (men like Putin don’t often do a great job of orderly succession planning). But Ukraine will remain ready. And when the opportunity presents itself, they will be there to seize it and reclaim what is rightfully theirs. One can only hope we are once again by their side when that glorious day comes.

Share

Subscribe now

I once again had the pleasure of going on the fantastic Break It Down Show today with my friends Pete Turner and Dr. Amber Brittain-Hale for another geopolitical discussion. On the livestream, we covered numerous topics that are have been in the international news, as well as some domestic economic talk. We started with the latter, lambasting Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) blatant economic illiteracy, specifically her comments around a potential monopoly in the spices and hot sauce sectors (no, I’m not kidding). Next, we got into the meat of the discussion, which centered on Ukraine and the seeming Trump administration turn against supporting it. We talked over the most recent events, exploring the details of each, and how they fit into a broader picture of the conflict. We explain the potential rationale behind this new policy, how it may not be the best choice for America today, and what could happen next. From there, we discuss the future (and present) of warfare in space, how hard it is to navigate the public/private dimensions of that theater, and what we must do to secure American primacy in outer space for the foreseeable future.

Subscribe now

Check it out at the embed above and be sure to visit the BIDS YouTube page for more great content. Enjoy!

Share

Episode 56 of the Rational Policy Podcast is live! Join your intrepid hosts and for another discussion of the week in news, focused on the rapidly evolving international landscape. (Don’t worry, we’ll have a full US midterm election preview next week!)

We start by talking about the biggest story in the world right now: the massive riots engulfing the great nation of France. We discuss the background of these chaotic demonstrations, explain why they’re certainly not about conditions in schools, explore the malignant alliance between leftists and Islamists that is driving the surge in violence, and recap the latest developments since we last spoke on the topic. We also hit on the anti-French nature of these protests, how they will impact the upcoming national elections, and the real goal of the far left: overthrowing the Fifth Republic and inaugurating a Sixth, one that will revolve around communistic notions of governance and society. Next, we swing down to Israel to preview that nation’s complicated election season, which begins with next week’s voting for members of the Knesset (parliament). We explain how Israeli elections and politics work (quite confusingly, as a matter of fact), discuss the likeliest outcomes of the vote, and describe that, no matter who forms the next government, Westerners who dislike Israel will have no reason to change their mind, as Israelis simply are not going to elect a leader who is friendly to a Palestinian movement that launched and celebrated the October 7 pogrom. Finally, we jump back to Europe to touch on the Trump administration’s rapid shift against Kyiv and in support of a pro-Russian conclusion to the war that has ravaged Ukraine for going on 5 years now. (We covered this topic in our live show, but events have progressed since the weekend.) We try to understand how this change may impact Ukrainian warfighting, where Kyiv can look for alternate support systems, why cozying up to Moscow is an act of immorality and idiocy, and what might come next. We also debate the age-old question: is Donald Trump a Russian asset? (No.)

Share

Check it out, follow us on Twitter/X (Mike / Art), and share the podcast with anyone you think might appreciate it. Thanks for listening. We’ll be back next week with another great episode. Until then, enjoy the rare moment when all four major US sports are playing simultaneously. Cheers!

Subscribe now

Welcome back (kind of?) to the Rational Policy Podcast! In this special LIVE installment, hosted on Twitter/X Spaces, your hosts and break bread on a number of topics from the absurd to the serious. This free-flowing conversation (eventually) focused on the situation in Ukraine and how American policy toward that country’s war against Russian aggression has changed for the worse. We discussed why supporting Ukraine is in our national interest, how the sanctions waivers adopted by the Trump team are bad for us and Kyiv, and why Russia is actually an enemy of the United States, despite the protestations of very dumb people on the internet. Be warned, this is a far more informal discussion than even our usual attempts - but that makes it all the more fun.

We’ll surely be doing more of these in the future, so be sure to follow us on Twitter/X (Mike/Art) for any updates and to listen (and participate!) live.

Subscribe now

Check out the recording here.

The Rational Policy Podcast has returned with Episode 55! After a week off due to illness, your hosts and are back to cover all the important news of the past fortnight. Instead of focusing on the domestic political situation (boring!), we’re taking a trip overseas and hitting a wide variety of international topics (interesting!).

We start off discussing some of the endemic problems in Europe, as demonstrated by two recent events: the removal of US strategic bombers from British bases and the ongoing riots in France. The first story reveals serious rot within the UK’s security and political establishment, with the country being either unwilling or unable to protect its own domestic military installations against foreign (in this case, Iranian) threat. For a long-time partner, this is disturbing. Even more disturbing is that they are choosing not to rectify the issue. Things aren’t much better across the Channel, though, as France is consumed with yet another round of violent rioting (must be a day ending in -y). This time, the chaos ostensibly revolves around poor school conditions, but it is actually driven by a far more complex stew of factors, ranging from leftist politics and Islamism to youth culture and a looming fiscal crisis. These riots, as well as the background forces driving them, are empowering radical political movements in the country that will cause even more chaos in the future. Next, we shift east to talk about Ukraine and the latest developments in the righteous defensive war against Russia. We discuss the status of the conflict, how it has fundamentally altered how militaries must fight (and defend their own assets) going forward, and why Kyiv might be better off today than it was a few years ago, despite the lack of direct US aid. We also talk about Ukraine’s recent strikes on Russian economic targets, including energy infrastructure and large data centers, as well as the Trump administration’s cowardly and counterproductive ‘deal’ to buy diesel from Moscow. Finally, we travel south to hit the Middle East. We discuss the 3^rd anniversary of the October 7 pogrom, explaining how, in spite of the PR war against it, Israel is winning the actual conflict with its enemies and has come out far stronger than it was before. We also touch on new developments in the long-running Yemeni civil war, why the Saudis are so bad at warfighting, and whether the US can or should get involved.

Share

Check it out, follow us on Twitter/X (Mike / Art), and share the podcast with anyone you think might appreciate it. Thanks for listening. We’ll be back next week with another episode. Until then, enjoy some classic fall activities and warm apple cider!

Subscribe now

** This is the ninth in a recurring series, in which I offer some modest proposals – in the venerable tradition of Jonathan Swift – for American and international politics. **

Capital punishment has been all over the news in America lately, with two major stories involving the death penalty getting significant traction in media and online. First was the botched execution of Christa Pike, where the woman convicted of the heinous 1995 murder of Colleen Slemmer was given a lethal injection that turned out to be not so lethal after all. Instead of being the first woman executed in the state of Tennessee in 200-plus years, she became the first person to be administered purportedly-lethal drugs and survive. At this point, it is unclear whether Tennessee will attempt to put her to death again, but this is not the first time that a ‘lethal’ injection procedure was bungled. The other big story revolves around the upcoming military execution of Nidal Hasan, the Islamist terrorist and former Army major who murdered 13 people at Ford Hood in 2009, which Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth has said will be made public and livestreamed online. Naturally, this has been less-than-favorably received among most of the public, given the widespread aversion to public executions, despite the overall favorability toward capital punishment.

These stories have reinvigorated the debate over the death penalty and have clearly shown the highly uncomfortable side of the practice, even for its advocates. Most Americans would rather avoid looking at the deed directly, even if they find it necessary for public order or otherwise justifiable. There just aren’t that many people out there in the mainstream clamoring for public executions.

But my modest proposal is this: if we’re going to be in the business of execution, why shy away from reality? Why try to sanitize it? Why not lean into it? Why not make it fun?

Subscribe now

There simply is no need to pussyfoot around the issue: the State is taking a life, in non-exigent circumstances, for punitive and deterrent purposes. So why are we trying to pretend that this isn’t what is happening? Why the euphemism, the hiding, the attempts to make death comfortable for the vilest criminals in our society? Instead of obfuscating the truth of the matter, we should embrace it. Enough with the carefully administered drug cocktails intended to eliminate pain in death. Enough with the decades spent on death row awaiting the inevitable. Enough with the closed-off, ‘private’ means of doing the public’s business. We’re choosing to take a life as punishment for a horrific crime. We should stop trying to muddy that.

Drop the overcomplicated lethal injection nonsense. It is not only ridiculously costly and hard to source; it is an unbecoming way to kill someone who has earned that fate via their own criminal actions. There are plenty of ways to end someone’s life, most of which are guaranteed to work. Firing squad, electric chair, hangman’s noose, impaling, burning at the stake, drawing and quartering, beheading (via Madame la Guillotine or otherwise), dropping an anvil on the head, burying alive, crucifixion, and exposure all work like a charm and have a long, storied history of effectiveness. Unorthodox methods would surely work as well. Drowning, catapulting, explosion, animals (both marine and land-based), robots, total vacuum, launching into outer space; basically, anything you can come up with. If you’re lacking inspiration, may I suggest watching some classic cartoons?

You could even turn it into a game show akin to the classic 1987 film The Running Man, but with a predetermined outcome – it’s not like we’re going to just let a death row inmate out because he won a contest. You could even go further back in popular culture for inspiration, all the way back to ancient times. We already have enormous football stadia – the modern equivalent of the Colosseum – scattered across the nation; why not utilize them to stage gladiatorial games? Donald Trump could play the role of the emperor, giving the apocryphal ‘thumbs up’ or ‘thumbs down’ to decide whether convicts could live another day. (I’m sure he’d actually love that idea, so please, nobody tell him.)

As for the public aspect, we should similarly lean into it and end this ridiculous habit of hiding what our government is doing in our name. Livestreaming the Hasan execution is child’s play; we should have it plastered on every major network, if not celebrated with a series of primetime specials. Public gladiatorial shows surely fit this bill as well, as would any sort of televised reality competition, whether The Running Man or a rigged version of Survivor. America has plenty of remote wastelands into which we could drop some sorely unprepared convicts, filming their eventual demise via drone for ease and public broadcast. It would probably be more interesting and novel than recent iterations of the real show, anyway. But not every execution will be a national spectacle. Some will be decidedly more local. After all, the vast majority of death row inmates are in state prisons, not federal ones. So let’s bring the entertainment to the masses, and what better way to do that than to stage these judicial killings at the state fair?

Share

State fairs are a longstanding American tradition, showcasing the best that every state has to offer, from cultural and culinary traditions to prize-winning livestock/produce and entertainment for all ages. Almost every state has its own dedicated fair, with the others either banding together to put on an annual regional fair (New England) or doing it intermittently (Hawaii). People travel from across the state – a big job in places like California and Texas – and around the country to visit these fairs and experience the slice of Americana that they represent. You know what else fits the bill for state fair Americana? Public executions! They use firearms (we love those), are a huge public spectacle (we really love those), and involve someone getting their comeuppance for an evil deed done against a fellow American (if 1980s action movies are anything to go by, that’s as American as apple pie). It could be the capstone of the whole fair, perhaps even including audience participation – with the signing of a 100-page-long waiver, of course.

Some would argue that staging public executions at the state fair is a terrible idea guaranteed to traumatize fairgoers. (Spoilsports.) But watching a firing squad operate is not close to the most traumatizing thing one might see at a state fair. Have you seen the things they deep fry? The creepy uncanniness of extremely large vegetables? I mean, just look at what happened at the Texas State Fair this past Saturday; surely, watching #1 Texas lose to unranked Oklahoma in the Red River Rivalry is more upsetting than seeing justice be done. Would Texans rather watch Arch Manning launch inaccurate passes that end up being intercepted or watch gunslingers with some actual accuracy hit their intended target? Hell, you could make it a win-win by having Oklahoma’s death row prisoners be executed in Texas and have Texan murderers killed by Oklahoma! Then everyone comes out happy. Well, almost everyone.

As I’m sure you can see, there really is no reasonable case not to wholly embrace what we’re doing here – ending a life at the hands of the State in retribution for a heinous crime – and go all-in on capital punishment. Swap the lethal injections for firing squads and electric chairs. Trade the secrecy for spectacle. Exchange euphemism for frankness. Stop trying to pretend that this isn’t called the “death penalty.” Lean in. Don’t just Make Capital Punishment Great Again, make it fun!

And if that makes you uncomfortable, maybe we shouldn’t have the State kill inmates.

Share

Subscribe now

Exactly one thousand and ninety-six days have passed since the worst mass killing of Jews after the end of the Holocaust in 1945. Three whole years have elapsed since the world watched Palestinian terrorists invade southern Israel, livestreaming themselves maiming, raping, torturing, burning, stabbing, shooting, blowing up, beheading, and kidnapping thousands of innocent Israelis, including women, children, and the elderly. Their heinous murder streak was well-planned and organized by terrorist armies like Hamas, yet it also relied on the willing, active, excited participation of ordinary Gazans, who relished the opportunity to engage in the orgy of antisemitic violence and provided detailed maps and plans of the kibbutzim in which they were previously welcomed as guest workers. Villages were burned to the ground, often with whole families still inside their homes, forced to choose whether to die via immolation or the depredations of the Palestinian murderers gleefully awaiting them outside. Children were tortured and murdered in front of their parents. Concertgoers – at a festival explicitly dedicated to fostering peace between Israel and the Palestinians – were brutally slaughtered, with the women often subjected to rape beforehand. Foreign guest workers, many of whom were Thai, were killed, with at least one of their bodies beheaded by farm implements.

Gazan terrorists carried out their wicked deeds with immense pride and joy, taking their time to eat food from their victims’ pantries and elatedly call their parents with the good news that they killed Jews with their bare hands. They also brought back ‘trophies’, both living and dead. Two hundred and fifty-one people, ranging in age from Kfir Bibas, an infant of just nine months, to Shlomo Mansour, aged eighty-six, were forcibly taken into Gaza. (Both Bibas and Mansour were murdered.) There they were held captive in egregious conditions – primarily in underground dungeons within the sprawling Hamas tunnel network – with little to no food, water, or light. Most victims were sexually assaulted or otherwise tortured, whether psychologically or physically. The majority were held by terror groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, but some were forced into slavery in the households of ordinary Gazans. Eighty-seven of the captives died, while some of the survivors were forced to remain in a situation approximating Hell for seven hundred and thirty-seven days.

Subscribe now

There was widespread celebration of these horrendous atrocities in the Islamic world, and even in the West, both among radicalized domestic Muslim populations and leftist progressives whose antipathy for Israel knows few bounds. The paragliders that were used by Hamas to assault the Nova music festival became symbols of righteous “resistance,” even being plastered on posters by major national student groups, just days after the massacre. Posters of hostages, on the other hand, were constant subjects of vandalism, further insulting the families of the victims. Marches in support of the Palestinian terrorists were organized before the bodies were cold, while terrorists were still rampaging across southern Israel. They conveniently found themselves right in front of Jewish cultural and religious institutions, shouting genocidal slogans and menacing patrons. Jews across the West have been attacked, accosted, and sometimes even killed, solely for the crime of their faith and ethnicity.

And despite all these egregious actions, the vast majority of worldwide media, global institutions, and the vaunted “international community” has come down heavily in support of the Palestinian cause. Israel has been smeared as a genocidaire, despite the majority of those killed in the complex and intense urban warfare campaign being combatants. Israel has been blamed for atrocities that never happened. It has been charged with bogus war crimes by the International Criminal Court. It has been sanctioned, boycotted, and ostracized by major European nations, including some former friends. Its citizens have been turned away from public accommodations, its supporters declared Nazis, and its leaders threatened with arrest.

But Israel isn’t losing. It is winning. And it is winning so profoundly that it might completely reshape the entire Middle East for decades to come.

Wars are not fought on the Internet. They are not fought in the media. They are not fought in the elite precincts of international organizations. They are fought on the battlefield. And, folks, the battlefield has been tilted so heavily in Israel’s favor that it is hard to imagine a more triumphant outcome.

On October 7, 2023, Hamas and its Palestinian brethren rampaged through the Gaza Envelope, Hezbollah activated its forces for a massive rocket and artillery barrage in the north, and the Iranian regime marshaled all of its strength to push Israel to the brink of total destruction. Yet, Israel survived. It thrived. It turned the tables and has now defeated or degraded every last one of those threats. Hamas is a shell of itself, with most of its fighters killed, the remainder on the run, and its underground terror infrastructure obliterated. Its weapons caches have been raided, its leaders blown to smithereens, and the threat it poses to Israel diminished to the point of near-irrelevance – all while Israel secured the release of every last hostage, living or dead. Hezbollah has seen its pre-war arsenal annihilated, its fighters taken out in a mass surprise attack, its forces pushed miles back from the Israeli border, and its mountain fortresses raided and captured. Even the official government in Beirut has made noises about disarming, defanging, and excising this Iranian cancer on the Lebanese body politic. The Houthis have been smacked so hard by Jerusalem that they stopped even trying to sink Israeli ships, tacitly suing for peace. Bashar al-Assad lives in exile in a Moscow dacha, his regime collapsing without its Iranian and Hezbollah backing, thus ending Syria’s status as a base for the Iranians to besiege Israel. Iran itself has been beaten like a rented mule, with Israel establishing air dominance over the country and destroying whatever it pleases, whenever it pleases. Alongside the US, Israel has turned Tehran from a budding regional hegemon to a pitiful rump unable to fund or supply its vaunted proxy network, with a collapsing economy and leaders too afraid to leave their bunkers. It has ceased attacking Israel, fearing the response – justifiably so given the action thus far.

Share

Yahya Sinwar died like a dog while trying to flee Gaza. Ismail Haniyeh was assassinated by a bomb hidden in his Tehran guesthouse. Hassan Nasrallah was detonated in his underground lair by a massive ground-penetrating munition. Hezbollah fighters were maimed and killed by exploding beepers. Iran’s Supreme Leader was killed by Israeli bombs, alongside the majority of his top military officials. Over 80% of the October 7 attackers have been systematically hunted down and killed. The ties between Israel and the UAE are as tight as ever. Israeli and Lebanese leaders met and signed agreements for the first time in decades. Israeli military technology has proven incredibly effective, as have its armed forces and intelligence services. Israel is about to fight a contentious election, and some of the key issues are completely unrelated to the nation’s security – something nigh-unfathomable three years ago.

The past one thousand and ninety-six days have shown the war started by Hamas and Iran – one intended to end the state of Israel and kill every last Jew living there – to have been one of history’s greatest geopolitical blunders. It has backfired completely, with every single one of Israel’s enemies being brought low by the conflict they willingly launched. This spectacular reversal is quite easily the most serious in my lifetime, matched only in modern times by the Pearl Harbor attack and Hitler’s invasion of Russia. And this generational beatdown isn’t even through yet; the Houthis are embroiled in their toughest fight in years against a Saudi-backed Yemeni government making significant advances, Hezbollah continues to weaken, Hamas remains a shell of itself, and the Iranian regime may yet collapse entirely under the ever-increasing weight of total economic warfare. If those outcomes are indeed achieved, Israel will be safer than it has been in its entire history, the diplomatic picture of the region will shift in Jerusalem’s direction – the Arab world is always notorious for going with the strong horse, and Israel will look like a prime stallion – and the Iranian people may finally be free from half a century of repression.

Yahya Sinwar, Hamas, and Iran decided to launch a war on October 7, 2023 with the express purpose of destroying a nation. They were successful in that quest, just not in the way they expected. The moral of the story, three years on, is a timeless one: be careful what you wish for.

Share

Subscribe now

I had the pleasure of joining guest host Dr. Merrill Matthews (filling in for Kerby Anderson) on Point of View Radio today to discuss my recent article for The Dispatch, “The Greenland Deal Is Good, Actually.” The interview was livestreamed online and could be heard on a wide variety of syndicated stations around the country. In the 30-minute segment, which starts about an hour into the video embed above, we spoke about the geopolitical importance of Greenland, the history of American involvement there, and the specifics of the prior security agreement between the US, Denmark, and Greenland. I explained why the new deal was necessary and how it solves several of the issues vis a vis Greenland that have arisen in the 21st century, especially the polar push by our Chinese adversaries.

Share

For more, check out the show page here. Thanks for listening!

Subscribe now

Welcome back to the Rational Policy Podcast! In Episode 54, your stalwart hosts and break down the week in news and politics. Much has happened since our last sojourn into the realm of foreign affairs, so we start there.

First, we revisit our Greenland discussion from last week in light of Mike’s piece on the subject for The Dispatch, discussing some of the criticism of the new security deal and why it is missing the forest for the trees. Next, we jump into an update on Iran, but no ordinary update; this one focuses on two foiled terrorist plots linked in varying degrees to the Islamic Republic. We, of course, detail the incredible story of the attempted hijacking of a FlyDubai flight from the UAE to Israel and the courageous and quick-thinking actions of Israeli passengers and the Emirati pilot to counter and subdue the terrorist. This whole thing was straight out of a movie, but it was all too real; thankfully, the hijacker was stopped before he succeeded in his malign aims. We also discuss the aborted attack on an American military base in England by Iran-linked terrorists who sought to create a makeshift truck bomb and destroy critical American aircraft and other military assets. We talk about what Iran’s new approach says about the state of the war, how Islamic terrorism is still a live issue, and why trying to take down a plane full of Israelis is probably a bad idea.

Afterwards, we transition to domestic issues and take a look at the state of American politics a month out from this year’s midterm elections. We handicap the biggest races, discuss the predictive power (or lack thereof) of polling, and explain why the Republicans may face a major wipeout in November. We also touch on some of the key issues of the cycle, how elections today are over-nationalized, and what sorts of reforms would help boost trust in the system and counter common misperceptions about how it works. Lastly, we return to the topic of online right-wing racism against Indian-Americans, going after the clowns who push these noxious ideas, as well as the cowards who purport to be ‘just asking questions’ about them.

Share

Check it out, follow us on Twitter/X (Mike / Art), and share the podcast with anyone you think might appreciate it. Thanks for listening. We’ll be back next week with another fantastic episode. Until then, go Yankees!

Subscribe now

I am once again quite excited to be back in the pages of The Dispatch, this time delving into an issue that I have become something of an expert on: Greenland. In the piece, I argue that the new deal struck between Copenhagen, Washington, and Nuuk is a good one that repairs a lot of the issues inherent in the prior 1951 agreement, including removing it from the NATO orbit, centering American homeland and hemispheric defense concerns, granting the US broader basing, transit, and military rights, and giving us a permanent and total veto on any non-NATO presence on Greenland. That last item is the real victory here, as it allows us to ensure that no Chinese project gets approved on the island without our say-so; given China’s history of weaponizing dual-use projects for gray zone warfare, this is a major win. I also aver that the deal itself could have been struck in a friendlier manner far sooner, but that the counterproductive bluster of the president did not derail it, nor permanently damage trilateral relations.

Below is an excerpt, but you can read the whole thing here.

Unfortunately, our Danish and Greenlandic friends are ill-equipped to deal with these new geopolitical challenges and opportunities. But the United States is. Neither Denmark nor Greenland has a direct interest in maximizing the hemispheric defense potential of this Arctic landmass. But America does. The Danes and Greenlanders may wish to better secure the territory, but only the U.S. has the ability to do so. America has a population 57 times larger than that of Denmark, lies much closer to Greenland geographically (about 1,200 miles versus approximately 1,800 miles), and spends more on defense in a week than Denmark does in a year. Greenland’s population would make it only the sixth-largest city in Idaho, but it is tasked with controlling a territory three times the size of Texas—the mismatch is obvious. Washington, however, is well-equipped to handle the defense of Greenland, particularly against the gray-zone warfare commonly used by our adversaries, as well as maximize its utility as a bulwark for hemispheric and homeland security.

The problem we face is that the long-term structure of the trilateral U.S.-Denmark-Greenland security relationship was ill-suited to the challenges posed by our modern adversaries. The 1951 agreement that governed our current security relationship was built for an entirely different world. That deal foreground Danish sovereignty and granted America rights only at the sufferance of Denmark. It said nothing about American homeland defense, nothing about economic rights or sensitive dual-use sectors, and nothing about what would happen to the agreement if the NATO status of any signatories fundamentally changed. Given the rapidly changing threat picture, the salience of Greenland to U.S. homeland defense, and the importance of maintaining a Greenland free of malign foreign influence in accordance with U.S. interests, the existing arrangement needed updating. And that is exactly what this new deal achieves.

Denmark did not sell us Greenland. It did not give up its sovereignty over the land. America did not invade the island militarily, nor did we make it the 51^st state. All of that was unfortunate bluster, mostly from the president himself. But what we did achieve was perhaps more meaningful and certainly less costly than a purchase and annexation would be. This new deal, the text of which was released last week by the White House, gains us significant new advantages and rights. It certainly is not a mere repeat of the 1951 agreement and includes many necessary updates to help secure Greenland and U.S. interests well into the 21^st century.

One of the most important changes in this new agreement was to make it permanent and separate it from the related NATO treaties that were initially incorporated into the 1951 agreement. The prior agreement lasted “for the duration of the North Atlantic Treaty,” tying America’s ability to pursue its own security needs in Greenland to the existence of NATO. The new deal remains operative even in the case of Greenlandic independence, a party leaving NATO, or the end of the Atlantic alliance altogether. Ideally, NATO will remain intact in perpetuity, but planning for contingencies is highly useful, particularly when it comes to such a vital security interest.

Similarly, removing the idea that this agreement was part and parcel of the parties’ NATO responsibilities allows for a greater focus on specific American security interests that may not fall directly under the aegis of the Atlantic alliance. The security of the American homeland is not directly mentioned in the 1951 treaty, only obliquely referenced. The focus is instead on collective security for NATO members and the implementation of “NATO plans” as agreed by the whole of the alliance. The new deal explicitly foregrounds the security needs of “the American continent,” putting it on equal footing with the direct security of Greenland as well as the aforementioned North Atlantic Treaty area. This is a meaningful alteration that preserves for Washington the right to act in our own domestic and hemispheric security interests, without any reference to joint NATO decision-making or planning. Increasing our sovereign ability to act unilaterally in our own interests to protect the homeland is a major step forward that helps solve many of the potential issues inherent in the older agreement.

On top of that, America’s freedom of action has been improved in other ways. The U.S. can, by right, establish and control two renewed defense areas without additional consultation with local or Danish authorities. We are able to establish future defense areas ourselves, only interfacing with the Danes and Greenlanders on implementation. We have slightly greater freedom of movement for personnel, weapons systems, military vehicles, and materiel than we did under the prior deal, and we’ve also gained undersea transit rights—a must for Arctic security going forward. In multiple instances in the new deal, the word “shall” replaces the word “may,” which might seem like a minor change, but does in fact grant us the ability to do things by right that may have required advance consultations in the past. Other useful changes include the incorporation of unmanned systems in the treaty, the direct inclusion of the planned “Golden Dome” domestic missile shield project, and language dealing with counterespionage cooperation. These are all meant to bring our defense situation in Greenland up to date and modernize the controlling language in the agreements so as to embrace technological change and account for the basic shifts in the threat picture both toward Greenland and the American homeland.

Finally, and certainly most important, the new deal plainly excludes America’s biggest rivals, notably Russia and China, from establishing any sort of meaningful Greenlandic presence, whether military or economic. This is the biggest win in the agreement for the U.S. and was, according to the adminstration, the primary reason for seeking to alter the status quo. Still, some may suggest that directly prohibiting non-NATO bases or investment in strategic economic sectors—a term this agreement defines fairly broadly—is unnecessary given that it has not happened yet and, in the minds of these critics, would not happen in the future. It seems quite obvious that Russian involvement in Greenland would be a non-starter in Copenhagen, but Beijing is a different animal entirely, especially when it comes to economic power. China has successfully pressured nations far stronger and more populous than Denmark and Greenland, it has used investment in strategic sectors to gain inordinate influence and forward CCP ends, and it often camouflages nefarious intent behind ostensibly neutral activity. This deal presumes to exclude outside influence, requiring active agreement between all parties that the proposal in question does not “constitute a threat to national security or public order.” This is tantamount to a total exclusion of nations like China from any meaningful role in Greenland in perpetuity. Ensuring that Washington has this permanent veto over any Chinese involvement in Greenland is an enormous win for American homeland defense.

Subscribe now

Share

The Rational Policy Podcast is back with Episode 53! In this installment of the show, your hosts and spend the duration talking about the United Nations General Assembly and all of the foreign policy happenings that are taking place alongside it. We discuss the overall utility of the UN – spoiler alert: it has none – and how it would be better off if they just relocated to a villainous underwater lair. That would certainly be more in character for that dastardly organization than is its current home in midtown Manhattan. We talk about some of the logistical and security challenges of hosting such a huge international event, as well as the absurdity of the idea that America lets our enemies come here unmolested to rail against us from a podium we largely paid for.

After those pleasantries – we love ragging on the UN here at Rational Policy! – we dive into the meat of the matter and talk about all the big developments and meetings occurring on the sidelines of UNGA. We talk about the Trump-Xi meeting and how the best-case scenario is an unfruitful, ideally angry, discussion, as any concessions to China are bad for the country. Then we break down the latest news out of Greenland, exploring the new security deal agreed to by all parties and explaining how this is not only a significant change from the previous 1951 agreement, but an absolute boon to American domestic and hemispheric security. We shift after that to the Middle East, where we go into an Iran update and talk about how Iranian leaders should never have been allowed into the US for UNGA. Finally, we travel to Europe, where we talk about the progress of the Ukraine War, explore the Russian way of combat, and discuss how Putin may escalate to save his own bacon.

Share

Check it out, follow us on Twitter/X (Mike / Art), and share the podcast with anyone you think might appreciate it. Thanks for listening. We’ll be back next week with another great episode. Until then, go watch the classic James Bond film The Spy Who Loved Me. I promise you won’t regret it (and you’ll get all of our references). See you next time!

Subscribe now

** This is the eighth in a recurring series, in which I offer some modest proposals – in the venerable tradition of Jonathan Swift – for American and international politics. **

If there has been one dominating story over the past few weeks, especially online, it has been the mainstreaming of AI doomerism, a movement that argues for varying degrees of restriction on the development of artificial intelligence so as to preserve the future of humanity. The story has been driven by recent “whistleblowers” who left companies like OpenAI and Anthropic due to their supposed concerns for safety protocols in the industry. These former employees, now often either working directly with or receiving funding from progressive NGOs, have been on a media blitz, talking about how they believe that this technology has a greater than 10% chance to “kill all humans” “within the next decade.” Their rhetoric around this issue has been positively apocalyptic, presaging absolute doom for mankind and the total annihilation of all human civilization. They prophesy Armageddon, with rogue superintelligences roaming a world fully depopulated of people, ending tens of thousands of years of human progress in one fell swoop. It will really be the end of the world as we know it.

These predictions of utter and complete devastation are made with extreme, almost performative sincerity, yet come with few details as to how we get to there from here. How does an AI go from hallucinating fake court decisions to killing 8,000,000,000 human beings? How does it go from making halfway decent photoshops – if prompted correctly1 – to eliminating the human race? How does it jump from being a better version of Google to destroying civilization? Nobody has ever really laid out the pathway via which the current version of artificial intelligence – primarily large language models (LLMs) – gets access to anything that would have the chance to actually end the world. Would they get control of nuclear weapons, biological agents, or drone swarms? Would they set off EMPs, weaponize connected devices, or ruin crop yields, causing famine? How would this work?

Subscribe now

And if this is actually what these people believe – including the founders, programmers, and safety teams of the companies on the forefront of AI development – why aren’t they acting like it? Why are they seeking greater funding, whether from capital markets or private and institutional investors? Why are they pushing IPOs and new debt issuances? Why are they seeking to incorporate their products into every business and sector under the sun, including government? Why are they trying to make their products mainstream and bring them into most aspects of daily life? Why are they constantly pushing their models forward and innovating new capabilities? Why are they seeking regulation from the federal government and international authorities instead of simply shutting down their companies? Why are they still doing this?

Well, it could be because they’re incredibly stupid, but I find that highly unlikely. What is more likely is that they don’t actually believe what they’re selling the public and are choosing to push this narrative forward for other reasons. Those could range from incumbents seeking regulation to entrench their advantages over newcomers to agents of foreign influence trying to give their own countries (cough, China, cough) a leg up over America in the AI race. But whatever the motivation, the core here is that, by and large, the AI doomers are not living as though they believe the hype.

My modest proposal is to change that. We should make them live as though what they are saying is true.

Share

The AI doomers should exchange their lavish lifestyles in America’s largest and most vibrant cities for spartan living off-grid in the remote tundra of the Alaskan Arctic. They should shut down their companies and exile themselves to a place where they cannot create further world-ending technologies. They should work the land, husbanding their resources for the inevitable apocalypse they claim will come in the near-future. They should create entirely self-sufficient communities that cannot be destroyed by rogue AI, operating outside of the high-tech world we live in today and foregoing the advances of the future. That means not using anything AI-related whatsoever, whether directly or indirectly. No using medications that were developed with AI. No using delivery services that use AI for routing assistance. No eating food that was harvested or planted with the aid of AI. No banking, no investing, no using payment systems that utilize AI. Nothing at all.

Let them live as though they actually think we will all die in a decade. Don’t let them push this cataclysmic narrative without putting their money where their mouth is. If they really think AI – a technology they are still developing as we speak – is an existential risk to mankind and human civilization writ large, make them act like it. No more development. No more profit. No more investment. No more fame. No more technology. No more easy living. Embrace your doomsaying and live like you are preserving yourself from the end times.

And if you would prefer not to do that, you should probably just shut the hell up about it.

Share

Subscribe now