THE TERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE

The Territorial Imperative is the title of a book by Robert Ardrey that shows how male animals, especially the alphas, are compelled to establish and defend, or even extend, their territory. Something along these lines appears to be stirring in the White House when it comes to places like Canada, Greenland, Panama, and Gaza. 

Of these, Canada is most compelling, provided of course that the Canadians are amenable to it. But offering to make the 51st state out of a territory so large is woefully inadequate. If we were to consider this seriously it should be on the basis of statehood for each Canadian province. That would yield ten new states (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec) along with three territories (Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Yukon). 

This would make the combined country the largest territory in the world, and provide a continuous line in the Arctic from Alaska to Greenland, another potential territory. Given that most Canadians live along the border with the USA in a narrow continuous strip, the whole process could be seamless. However this is not something that is going to come about unless the Canadians themselves want it, and pressure will only increase resistance. If anything the initiative for union should come from Canada, pursuant to advantages that might accrue by combining with the USA. 

On the other hand there is no particular reason why friendly countries cannot maintain independent, but closer relations. It would behoove us and our allies to move closer together, allowing more free movement and trade, while reducing, not increasing barriers. Unfortunately at the moment we appear to be headed in the latter direction. While things are moving well in Washington now, this is one area where reservations are in order. We share a common western civilization that should be fortified for our mutual long-term interests. 

The map of the world is not static, and changes virtually every year. It is sometimes due to the territorial imperative, often via war. One of the biggest problems arising with it is that extreme nationalists in every country think that their country should be at the maximum extent it was in the past, which obviously leads to conflicting overlapping visions of what borders should be, as well as chronic instability, if taken seriously.  But empires wax and wane, so that if every country sought to replicate their height of power and territory there would be endless conflict. 

This is reflected in the Russia-Ukraine war. Putin would like to restore the Russian empire to its greatest extent, and Ukraine is a historic and essential part of it. A case could be made that a common history makes this obvious, except for one thing: the Ukrainians clearly do not want it. Whatever was common in the past is in the past. Divergence has given contemporary Ukrainians a keen sense of their own identity and that cannot be undone. 

Such territorial claims can also be conflicting as we see in  the Middle East. But turning Gaza into a beach resort while displacing the native population is no solution. It is wrong to consider “Arabs” as interchangeable so that they can easily be resettled. For the Palestinians are not Arabs but consist largely of the indigenous population that was conquered by Arabs. There are people there whose origins go back to the Philistines, whose displacement would be morally indefensible. But it is true that a Palestinian state consisting of Gaza and the West Bank separated by Israel is simply not viable. Gaza should be an independent city-state initially under international supervision and the Palestinian state proper should be confined to the west bank.  

It is one thing to engage in much-needed disruption to reform the government of the USA, and something else to tamper with a far more complex world order. For the latter will come with unanticipated consequences and events beyond anyone’s control. Let the macho instincts be confined to domestic affairs. 

 

HOW REPUBLICANS STOOD MARX ON HIS HEAD

If you ever wanted to make an argument for economic determinism, the recent election results provide fertile grounds for it, based upon voting patterns. There was a clear divide between the wealthiest segment of the population and everyone else. A majority of those making over $100,000 per year voted one way, while those earning less that $50,000 as well as everyone else, voted another way. Marxists argue that economic factors determine political attitudes, so that the well-,off vote for conservative candidates, while the lowest earners vote for the Left. This has been the case in countries around the world (until recently), so that the wealthy favored the Republicans while the common people voted for the Democrats. 

But the recent election completed upended this dichotomy. Although these groups aligned according to income predictably, who they voted for did not. The wealthiest segment voted left, i.e. Democrat, while virtually every other segment with lower incomes voted right, or Republican. The Democrats raised more money from their wealthier base than the Republicans, especially in down-ballot contests for congressional seats, where the disparity was greatest. 

Nevertheless there was economics involved in these choices, only not based upon wealth but rather prices. Inflation and the economy were the prime reasons the voting public moved right. Although most people thought the country was moving in the wrong direction and that the economy was not good, there were at least some who thought otherwise, because it was working for them.  These were people who were better off, with higher incomes, and were the only group to do well under the Biden administration. 

There were sharp differences in perception as to the state of things. People with higher incomes barely noticed supermarket prices. With more disposable income,  inflation did not affect their affluence the way it affected everyone else. Thus while economic concerns were paramount in the minds of voters, the prevailing notion of what outcomes this would produce were diametrically opposite to expectations regarding political behavior. Republicans have been transformed by this populist strain, finally becoming a true “peoples party.”

 

A HOSTILE TAKEOVER

There have been instances in the past where a new regime has come to power vowing to reform government, reduce spending, and reign in the bureaucracy. The incoming Trump administration is unusually strong in its determination to achieve these goals. They may well succeed, but the historical record is not encouraging. 

When an outsider takes the reins of an agency they are flying blind. They are immediately dependent upon the existing bureaucracy they have set out to reform for information, and hence are limited or compromised from the outset. In addition, the status quo exists because various interests are satisfied with it. Change under these circumstances is extremely difficult. I have seen this pattern time and again, with the bureaucracy almost always keeping the last word. The passing of Jimmy Carter brings recollections of an attempt during his presidency to implement efficiencies via “zero-based budgeting” as authored by my late cousin Peter, who worked on it at the time but, as with other attempts, the status quo resistance was too strong. 

But now we have something different;  akin to a hostile corporate takeover. It is quite possible that the Trump team may prove to be the exception, much in the same way the man himself is. It is true that the Trump team recognizes this problem and so they have come up with a series of cabinet nominees that are largely, and deliberately antithetical to the entities they are to control. They bring a sort of revolutionary fervor. Perhaps they will succeed, but the task is daunting unless they have someone with inside knowledge of the organization who is programmatically on the same page. They might do better with cadres who independently monitor the agency for adherence to the goals set by the administration, or some equivalent kind of compliance unit. The Musk-Ramaswami DOGE group may fulfill this function. 

Some of the nominees chosen thus far possess a good deal of critical fervor but may lack the necessary knowledge to get very far with it. Others have different problems. RFK Jr. may assume office and move on his health concerns, but the other part of that agency, human services, is likely to be on the chopping block, including programs he might be sympathetic to. It is quite possible that he, or others,  might wind up resigning in frustration after a few months. The most successful are likely to be those concerned with energy, natural resources, and the economy; all areas of Republican concern and expertise. 

Cutting back has become necessary owing to the vast body of government bloat and expanding national debt. This has come about because all entities seek growth and expansion, i.e. the enlargement of their domain, which parallels the pattern of power distribution. Every other segment of society has limitations, such as business competition, supply and demand, or customer numbers.  Government faces no such restraints, so it continually expands.

When things become so stultified the only fix is revolutionary- taking departments apart and reassembling them from scratch. Routine must be replaced by radical change in order to provide renewal, greater efficiency, and functional competence. The tasks for the new administration are daunting, but not impossible. The incoming government may not be able to go this far, but the closer they get to it, the better.

A LEGITIMATE PRESIDENT

Ever since Donald Trump first began seriously pursuing the Republican nomination for President eight years ago, the media and the constellation of left-controlled institutions has done everything possible to de-legitimize his candidacy, and then his presidency. Every conceivable obstacle was thrown at him, from the phony Russian collusion hoax conjured up by the Hillary Clinton campaign, to two impeachment attempts, to endless politically-motivated lawsuits designed not just to destroy him politically but personally. Lesser men might have folded, but he, almost miraculously, managed to remain standing. 

While in office they refused to accept his legitimacy as President and did everything possible to undermine his administration, attacking not only him but anyone who disregarded their boycott and had the audacity to cooperate with his presidency. Prominent people were vilified for even trying to attend White House conferences on legitimate national concerns. So complete was the level of contempt that even his family was was targeted, notably Melania Trump, a former model, who never appeared on magazine covers under their control, unlike every other first lady. 

The media in particular not only relentlessly attacked him, but acted in concert to suppress news that was unfavorable to their side, such as the Hunter Biden laptop, or the senility of Joe Biden. But in spite of all of this, in the end it was the media that lost legitimacy, not Donald Trump. Public confidence in the dominant media has collapsed as a result, undermine the veracity of what they are reporting. The ideological slant is obvious now to everyone outside their bubble, for rather than exert influence as intended, they have instead raised the consciousness in opposition to their intent, especially on the part of working people. 

Yet despite all that was done to undermine him, and contrary to his supposed “authoritarianism” the truth is that while in office Donald Trump did not do a single thing to pursue his opposition. He did not use the mechanisms of government to abuse his power and attack his enemies. Ironically that is what was done to him, when out of office he was subjected to partisan “law-fare,” seriously damaging our legal system. It is nothing but their own heart of darkness that is at the root of the constant claims that he is obsessed with pursuing enemies while in office, when the only obsession in play is their own. 

His decisive victory, including winning the popular vote, seriously inhibits further attempts to undermine his presidency this time. As long as he is judicious in the use of power and does not fulfill the Left’s worse nightmares there is little basis, or public sympathy for hysterical opposition. Democracy has worked again. 

This election result was not so much a defeat of Kamala Harris as of the Left itself, which was unwisely empowered by Joe Biden without any public demand or support. Years of inflationary spending, rising prices, broken borders, weakness abroad, and certainly the imposition of “woke” policies alienated vast segments of the public, which finally found expression in the election results. 

The Democrats, in a general sense, are going to have to get with the program and move back to the center. To do so they need to stop catering to the radical left, which has mistakenly been considered their “base.” But in reality there are nowhere near enough of them to provide a base for a major party and it is time to jettison their undue influence. This is basically a center-right country and it is also time for elites to adjust to this reality with some common sense. 

Trump’s solid election victory now makes it impossible to continue treating him as an oddity, a menace, or an extremist. These election results have finally mainstreamed Trump and his party. They can no longer continue to deny his legitimacy, given such widespread public support. 

Thus, fortunately for the American people, we should see a return to normalcy in the sense that no questions regarding the election result could possibly change the outcome. The media and related institutions will be compelled to treat the incoming administration as legitimate, and Donald Trump as a clearly legitimate president.  

ALLIES ARE NOT ADVERSARIES

Although Trump is right on most issues and reflects majority opinion so thoroughly that the Harris campaign has flip-flopped to mimic these positions,  there is one glaring exception when it comes to foreign policy. Treating allies the same as adversaries is counterproductive and just plain wrong. We share a common civilization with Europe and ought to be moving closer rather than further apart. 

While some still lag on military expenditures, it is important to note that the Europeans contributed troops to Afghanistan throughout the conflict and suffered significant casualties. Despite that, they weren’t even informed in advance of our disastrous withdrawal. We have done most of the heavy lifting beginning with World War II, but it is for that very reason that we should continue to honor the sacrifices our predecessors made to give us the world we have today. 

It is one thing to place tariffs on China, and something else to do so on our allies. We need to look at the big picture. If you combined the entire population of the USA and Europe, we would still be less than the population of China or India. That suggests a serious long-term competitive disadvantage on our part as well as the Europeans. It is in our best interests to have a common policy with Europe, and rather than diminishing them we ought to be working towards closer ties and synchronization. That will enable the West to remain competitive and continue to lead in the long-term. 

Our adversaries are far better at long-term geopolitical thinking than we are. It is time we broadened our approach to facilitate our allied common interests. A renewed, more comprehensive Atlantic Alliance that facilitates the movement of goods and people through mutual preferences would enrich our societies. Our economies are already seriously integrated. It is surprising to note how many household brands we think of as American are actually European in origin, and vice versa. Thus, this could come about with minimum disruption. 

I hope that Trump’s criticisms directed at Europe are nothing more than tactical bluster. Overall and for the benefit of posterity across the Atlantic it is time to begin discussing closer ties, not deeper division.  

WE DON'T NEED A POLITICAL "DONOR CLASS"

In the current Democrat anguish over the fate of Joe Biden certain “donors” have threatened to withhold funding unless he leaves the ticket. This was hyped by the media, which has gone so far as to assign these donors an interest group slot, equivalent to all the others, such as identity groups, etc. that make up the Democrat’s coalition. They are also referred to as the “donor class,” as if they constituted a permanent segment of the political universe, or as the “megadonors.” So ubiquitous are they that the USA is the only country in the world with a coterie of progressive, left-wing billionaires. Indeed there are now more of them on the Democrat’s side than the Republicans. 

So what do these big donors want or get? (They usually want more than they actually get). It isn’t particularly policies that favor “the rich,” but rather ego-satisfying access to address their fixations even more than their interests, such as climate change, etc. More than photo-ops, which are for the little guy, they want policy input. Big money gets them a sit-down with the candidate and chances to air their favorite notions about how things ought to be. Often enough it isn’t even their own money they are providing but an ability to make others, i.e. associates, customers, etc. cough up, so that “bundlers” get equal status.

What you essentially have is people who have been successful at one thing who are full enough of themselves to believe that their expertise translates into other areas, such as running the country. So multi-talented are they that leading politicians listen to them, at least as long as the money keeps coming. Mutual status boosting always occurs. Yet their opinions have no more intrinsic value than anyone else’s, and to the extent they are given more weight it is undemocratic. One of the most depressing things I’ve encountered is  personally meeting a politician about something only to hear their main focus being about fundraising, or see how much in awe they are of money and money people.

Yet politicians are not really to blame, given the system they have to operate in. They actually hate asking people for money yet have to spend an awful lot of time doing so. But that being the case they ought to be amenable to changing the process given how unpleasant it is for them. That is the best hope for reform- when they become so disgusted with what they have to do they try and change it. 

I don’t begrudge the rich for their wealth, but do draw the line at influencing government. As for the megadonors who fancy themselves more knowledgeable about how to run things, let them run for office or just shut up. 

THE ALLURE OF POWER

King George III called Washington the “greatest of men” for surrendering power after two terms. Only the not-so-great Franklin Roosevelt* broke that precedent, deciding that no one but himself could do the job. (The constitution was amended to prevent a recurrence of this). The American presidency in its present incarnation draws enormous egos  able to expend four years running for office in an insane unending campaign. The British just had an election with a campaign that lasted all of six weeks and power was transferred almost immediately. Our campaigns now never end, and despite the efficacy of a very  “democratic” process. Yet after all is said and done we are faced with two candidates a majority of the people do not want. This has to change to restore any kind of normalcy to the United States. 

At this moment it appears that Joe and Jill intend to hold on to power to the bitter end. Unless Jill lets go the administration will continue and a mixed bag of largely radical staff will continue to run the country, much as they have for some time now. The trappings of office are too powerful an elixir to easily surrender. The 25th Amendment is unlikely to be invoked in this instance and ought to be revisited. Does it make any sense for a VP to start a process that will lead to replacing the President and then become President (in this case) herself?  

It will take a large, possibly even a majority of Democratic representatives to broach the subject and right now most are sitting on their hands. It will take a fraught, monumental effort to displace Joe Biden. One of the characteristics of people with dementia is that they don’t know they have it by the time their mental state starts to decline. Consequently it is unlikely that Biden can be persuaded to step down unless there is overwhelming majority pressure, and/or Jill changes her mind. But neither she, nor more importantly, the senior staff want to surrender power. 

It is imperative that we change the electoral system or we shall devour ourselves just through rancor. To get better candidates we need a better system. As far as I am concerned the best president would be someone who doesn’t want to be president and who is not consumed by pursuit of that office. 

*Although routinely rated "great" by left-leaning historians, apart from clinging to power Roosevelt also mishandled things that he is usually given credit for solving. Modern economic research now shows that his policies actually prolonged the depression. When it comes to World War II if the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had occurred in the face of today's media, would there not be scandalous inquiry?  I am not suggesting that America's role in the war was at all bad, but rather that it could have gone differently without Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt was determined to get into the war and did everything possible to provoke the Japanese, especially by cutting off oil. But that being the case, and that being the intent the nation, should have been fully prepared for war beforehand rather than being caught by surprise. Roosevelt was succeeded by Harry Truman, whom everyone thought of as just a common man. Nevertheless he ended the war and generally rose to the position of President, hence proving that no one is indispenable and that there was no necessity for Roosevelt serving two additional terms. The only indispensable man was Washington, but such a man only comes along over a few thousand years. 

THE OLD GUYS AREN'T GOING AWAY

Implicitly there is a sense that once this election is over we won’t have two old guys running for president anymore and younger people will take over. The problem with this is that there are many people at 75 or 80 who are more like 50 or 60 year olds used to be. You can see this in almost any old movie or newsreel. People look older than they do now.  

What is elderly has been rapidly changing as modern medicine and better health practices have increased lifespans. Those who demonstrate this are still “outliers” and more fortunate than others, but their numbers are increasing as a population segment. At the same time we have young people in their 20s who now seem to be experiencing prolonged adolescence. 

Clearly something has changed, as the stages of life seem to have revised significantly for many people. Thus, we may expect more older active lives, still contemporary and no longer perceived as elderly despite the years. With the “baby boomer” generation this population will be larger than ever. We can only hope that the wisdom that used to come with age is not a casualty of this increased dynamism. 

WHITHER THE DEMOCRATS?

JOE BIDEN’S “FIRSTS” ARE PUTTING AMERICA LAST

A few months ago Biden proudly proffered yet another “first” in the person of the first woman to head the US Navy, despite resistance from his own officials. This individual might well be qualified, but we’ll never know. For as with all such appointments, being selected in this way creates a lasting stigma. Due to blatant and unashamed policies being served up  based upon attributes rather than competence, any pretense of a merit system, fundamental to our way of life, no longer exists. 

But the consequences of this kind of policy are disastrous not just in performance of duties but in recruitment as well. There are good reasons why white men are not signing up for the military in ways they traditionally have.The message is clear to them, and it would be folly to join under this regime. Why does that matter?  War casualties and deaths have disproportionately been white. These tend to be people from small towns and suburbs still imbued with an older patriotism, who sign up for frontline duty and hazardous assignments in significantly higher numbers than any other group. If you don’t have frontline troops in sufficient numbers you can’t win a war, and pray that we don’t wind up in one under this government. 

THE TRANS DEMOCRATS

That may finally begin to change, as Joe Biden, Maker of Firsts, has really outdone himself this time. Incredibly, he has proclaimed this Sunday, Easter Sunday of all days, as “Trans Day of Visibility,” complete with color displays on national monuments. Buildings once adorned with crosses for Easter will instead now be adorned with this identity display. This tone deafness isn’t satire. It is real. Insanity is now official policy. 

Democrats are expert in demography. They are a transactional party, with the message being, vote for us and we’ll give you stuff. They create and combine interest groups into “coalitions” that can win elections. But what have they done here? Church attendance and formal religion may be in relative decline, but this is still a country that has an overwhelming Christian majority. Like others who aren’t very religious I find this highly offensive as well. Throwing Christians under the bus in favor of Trans people has to be one of the dumbest missteps of all time. This is what happens when radical ideologues control the institutions and set the agenda. 

Trans people, on the other hand, are a tiny minority the left is obsessed with. I recall an early Trump State of the Union speech in which he touted economic progress and things that matter to ordinary people. The Democratic response at that time was to put up a goofy Kennedy kid who began talking about the problems of trans children, and so forth. This left a lot of the audience scratching their heads and wondering what the hell he was talking about. 

Now however, having been subject to constant bombardment from the establishment, the public is more aware and not at all happy with it. How on earth can a party that stresses “women’s issues” be so bent on destroying women’s sports? This ideology represents no one, yet the rotten elite across the board are all in with it. Repression and fear are the tools that keep hapless institutional employees from expressing themselves, but many are chafing under this regime and may yet express it at the ballot box. That’s assuming, of course, that opposition has the presence of mind  to connect the Democratic Party directly with what they have wrought. Where are all the rational liberals, people who should know better but have allowed themselves to be steamrolled by radicals? 

I truly loathe dividing us into phony groups but that is what the Democrats have done with incessant identity politics. Yet despite the high level of unpopularity of “woke” policies, they have paid no price and gotten away with it. That is because most of the public has not connected all the weirdness directly to the Democrats. The left loves things like “consciousness raising,” and have done quite a job of it here, only not the way they intended. They have in fact primarily raised the consciousness of people who find these things objectionable and are reacting accordingly. If this carries over to the ballot box the Democrats are in big trouble, and deservedly so. 

THE KING'S SPEECH

Our government is a national embarrassment, across the board, and beyond partisanship. This ought to be apparent to anyone with any sense of decorum or dignity who watched the State of the Union address tonight. It came across in a circus atmosphere complete with your elected officials taking selfies like tourists in the place where they supposedly work. They jostle to get into pictures with bigger fish in front of the television cameras, and walk away beaming if, say their president, deigns to momentarily chat with them. 

He in turn walks down the aisle like the highest potentate in the world, giving and withholding acknowledgements as he sees fit. You have Democratic women again behaving ridiculously in common white dress, while a few on the other side engage in “colorful” political theater as well. The President gets to the podium, having been juiced with something to make him appear sufficiently aware so as to be able to make a forceful speech, which he does with a little too much force in an effort to prove he still a virile, vigorous leader. He has accomplished that much of his goal insofar as his party acolytes and the media are reassured that he is fully in command, but coming across as a kind of angry old man to most other people, I suspect. 

What is disturbing about all of this, regardless of who is playing the role, is the fact that the scene much too closely echoes that of the collapsing Roman Republic and the rise of Caesarism. He says “I” an inordinate number of times; how “I” have given you this, “I” am going to do this, “I” am the one holding all the cards, and “I” am the one who will dispense benefits to you from my unlimited resources. The problem is that this is not, in fact, a king, not an emperor with command of vast resources, but rather a very ordinary man purporting to “give” you things that are paid for by you in the first place; in other words with your own money.

Would you not rather be able to spend your money the way you want rather than the way someone else thinks it should be spent, based upon the notion that they reflect the public interest and know better how to appropriate it?But they don’t know better. They know far less than they claim to, which is why their best efforts usually wind up making everything worse. 

But even with this imperial spectacle they have to provide a “common” touch for ordinary people, so we have the usual gallery of special guests that are pointed to in the course of the speech. I truly wish Reagan had never started this, or at least that it didn’t get picked up by less gifted people going forward as a new tradition akin to pardoning turkeys. I think it diminishes the seriousness and solemnity of purpose that ought to accompany such events. 

Yet, then again, these are not serious people.They are like children playing musical chairs and jockeying for position. The problem is that they are charged with serious matters that entail enormous power. This effects the lives of everyone else, but they are simply and chronically not very good at it. That is why things seldom work well, or worse, are totally dysfunctional. This is what happens when you assign great power without the equivalent wisdom, restraint, humility, and competence that must come with it. That is why power should be located primarily in the the most basic simple social units, beginning with the individual and family, then the community, the county or city, the state, and lastly the federal government. Not top down but bottom up, but today that pyramid has been inverted, if not perverted. 

It was not always so. This began as a deliberately modest republic, where humility and probity were prized, and where men at least formally aspired to the highest level of virtue in serving the public. They didn’t always achieve it, but they did take it so much further than their descendants that they come across almost as god-like giants followed by increasingly diminished men, eventually yielding us the mediocre midgets of today. They never presumed to legitimate vast power in the hands of a few over the many. If Washington could so gracefully surrender power, ever cognizant of its potential abuse, how can we now bestow so much on the lesser people who now occupy the city bearing his name?