Afleveringen
-
Why do we spend so much on defense?
Opening Scene â Key West, 1948
[Sound Design: Waves crashing, seagulls squawking.]
Narrator: Itâs March 1948, and the tropical heat of Key West, Florida, presses against a group of men in khaki uniforms and dark blue service caps. They sit around a long table in what was once a naval officersâ club, now repurposed for one of the most important meetings in US military history.
This is where the fate of Americaâs post-World War II military structure is being decided in a meeting known as the Key West Agreement.
Before this meeting, President Harry S. Truman had signed the National Security Act of 1947 into law. It came into effect on September 18, 1947. Among other directives, the act created the Air Force, separated the Marine Corps as its own service, and merged the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force into one big, happy Department of Defense family.
Except they were all unhappy.
At the head of the table sat the first-ever Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal. He was tasked with bringing order to the growing tensions between the military services. Thereâs no official transcript of this meeting, but Forrestalâs message was clear. He wasnât here to debate; he was here to decide.
Forrestal (Actorâs Voice): âGentlemen, this nation cannot afford inefficiency in its military forces. The roles and missions of each service must be clearly defined, or we risk wasting taxpayer dollars on duplicative efforts. The President expects solutions today, not another fight over who controls what.â
Narrator: It was a polite way of saying, âStop the infighting.â The war was over. The Soviets were the new enemy. And America needed a plan.
The Fight Over Military Roles
Narrator: The stakes couldnât have been higher. World War II had ended just three years earlier, and now, the services were battling over bureaucracy.
The Air Force, freshly carved out of the Army in 1947, wanted exclusive control over air operations, strategic bombing, and nuclear weapons.
Furious at the idea of losing its aircraft carriers, the Navy fought to keep its fleet air arm.
The Marine Corps wanted no part of being absorbed into the Army.
The Army, which had spent the war defining large-scale land combat, was now struggling for relevance in a world obsessed with air power and nuclear bombs.
[Sound Design: Ice clinking in glasses, the scratch of pens on paper.]
Military Officer (Actorâs Voice): "Mr. Secretary, how do you want to handle this?"
[Sound Design: Chair creaks. A brief pause. Papers being folded shut. Silence hangs for a moment, then quiet murmurs of dissatisfaction.]
Forrestal (Actorâs Voice): âThe Air Force will control strategic bombing and nuclear weapons delivery. The Navy retains control of aircraft carriers and fleet operations. The Armyâs role remains ground warfare and land-based air defense. The Marine Corps will not become part of the Army.â
Narrator: Forrestal had one goal. He intended to divide responsibilities before the inter-service feuding weakened Americaâs military effectiveness.
This was the compromise. The Navy kept its carriers and agreed not to pursue its own strategic air force. The Air Force agreed not to pursue carrier aviation. Everyone agreed the Marine Corps would not become a part of the Army.
All the services had vital peacetime tasks except the largest. The Air Force would operate the nationâs global strike weapons and stand watch over the homeland. The Navy would protect shipping lanes. The Marine Corps would project decisive combat power within days of notification.
The Army, the largest service and used to special treatment, was left wondering whether its traditional role would fade away.
And yet, the agreement set the foundation for American defense spending for generations. Instead of reducing redundancy, it baked in inter-service rivalry. Instead of cutting costs, it ensured every branch would fight to justify its share of the budget. And over the next few years, that fight would escalate and become public.
[Sound Design: A military phone rings in the background.]
While the generals and admirals were busy carving up the militaryâs future, another war was brewing. In Asia.
[Sound Design: The hum of a military transport plane. Fade to silence.]
The Forgotten Warning â Korea, 1949
Narrator: The Korean Peninsula was spiraling toward war a year after the Key West Agreement. The US had withdrawn most of its forces from South Korea, assuming that a small advisory mission would be enough to keep order.
In Washington, the focus was shifting toward nuclear weapons and strategic deterrence. Ground forces and conventional war were yesterdayâs thinking. The real threat was the Soviet Union and its growing atomic arsenal.
To make the matter more urgent, the Soviets conducted their first successful test of a nuclear weapon in August 1949. The West had lost its dominance.
Then, in January 1950, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson defined Americaâs vital security interests in the Pacific. He excluded Korea from that list.
But by the time Washington realized Korea wasnât just another skirmish, it was too late. A Soviet-backed North Korea invaded the South on June 25, 1950, launching a war that the US wasnât prepared for.
And this is where General Matthew Ridgway enters the picture. He was the man who would change Americaâs military spending forever.
[Sound Design: Artillery explosions in the distance. The rhythmic thumping of helicopter blades overhead.]
Ridgwayâs War â 1950
Narrator: December 1950. The war was going badly. US and UN forces were retreating. The Chinese had entered the war, pushing American troops into a brutal winter retreat. Morale had collapsed. Soldiers were exhausted. Supplies were low. The US commander had been killed in a traffic incident.
Amidst the turmoil, the Army chose a new commander, Matthew Ridgway. During World War II, Ridgway commanded the 82nd Airborne Division at Normandy and the XVIII Airborne Corps during the Ardennes Offensive.
Upon taking command, Ridgway assessed the situation. He stated:
Ridgway (Actorâs Voice): âThe men I met along the road, those I stopped to talk to, all conveyed to me a conviction that this was a bewildered army, not sure of itself or its leaders, not sure what they were doing there. The leadership I found in many instances sadly lacking, and I said so.â
Narrator: Many wondered whether America would leave. This list ranged from South Korean national leadership to soldiers on the ground. Ridgway expressed his intent and stated:
Ridgway (Actorâs Voice): âIâve come to stay.â
Narrator: Ridgway took over the 8th Army after General Walton Walkerâs death and immediately changed everything. He re-energized the troops, stopped the retreat, and launched a counteroffensive. By early 1951, he had stabilized the front and turned the tide. The Forgotten War would end in a stalemate rather than a decisive loss.
But his biggest impact wasnât just on the battlefield. It was what he did after the war.
The Birth of Permanent Military Spending
Narrator: After Korea, Ridgway became Chief of Staff of the Army. And this is where he made his mark. Not with a rifle, but with politics.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, himself a former Army officer who led the Allies to victory in Europe, aimed to balance military commitments with economic sustainability. He knew that without military drawdown, America would run deficits due to military funding. He intended to cut the Army and shift spending toward the other services and the global strike weapons that defend Americaâs homeland. He sought troop reductions in Europe and intended to share defense responsibilities with NATO allies.
Eisenhower stated, âEvery gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.â
Eisenhower warned against the establishment of a military-industrial complex.
Ridgway publicly fought back. He argued the US needed permanent large ground forces to handle conflicts like Korea. He testified before Congress, pushing back against budget cuts and warning against over-reliance on nuclear deterrence.
Ridgway won out. Presented with two conflicting arguments, Congress did what it does best. It gridlocked. The Army didnât shrink. Military budgets remained high. And America locked itself into a cycle of permanent defense spending. This defense spending premise continues today.
People like to say the US spends so much on defense because we have to âfight two wars at onceâ or âproject power.â Thatâs wrong. Those policies were the result of high defense spending, not the cause.
The real reason was that Matthew Ridgway and others like him made sure each military service had a justification for more funding, even when nuclear deterrence made massive peacetime ground forces unnecessary.
And thatâs the story of why we spend so much on defense.
Seventy-five years later, America is still locked into this model. But what happens when the world changes and we donât?
Fast Forward to Today
Our high defense spending had an unintended consequence. America had such a large defense capability that some partner nations chose to put less effort into theirs. Now, America wants NATO and Europe to spend more to contribute to their own defense. This is an echo of President Eisenhower in the 1950s.
And despite the fact that NATO has only once activated the Joint Defense Act, and that was to come to the aid of the United States in Afghanistan, some call for us to leave NATO.
But in a twist that defies logic, those who call for America to reduce our commitment to partner nations still call for us to maintain high defense spending.
These two positions contradict.
One valid position would be to strengthen the economic footing of every American and reduce the burden of debt on future generations. One generation has no right to bind another generation with debt. The dead have no rights over the living.
This position would acknowledge that we must reduce defense spending during peacetime. A result of this position would be reduced support for partner nations, requiring our partners to increase their capability.
A countering valid position would be to maintain our high defense commitment to our partner nations. Security, economics, and influence are all tied together.
This position would acknowledge that if America will be great, we need to maintain global leadership. We must act alone and with partner nations to create favorable conditions and gain and maintain freedom of action and influence. Nations form and maintain coalitions and international partnerships not out of altruism but as a strategic effort to enhance their own strength, stability, and interests.
But threatening and divorcing our long-term partners while still increasing debt for future generations is both unsound and unwise.
Is a country that burdens its future generations with debt while weakening its alliances making itself great again?
May God bless the United States of America.
Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe -
IntroâŠsounds of echoing hooves on stone, a cart creaks, lanterns glow, a horse pulls steady and slow.
1801. The Revolutionâs Philosopher Takes Power
It's March 4, 1801. A cold wind sweeps through the muddy streets of Washington, D.C., a rough, partially built capital city. Philosopher, writer, and revolutionary Thomas Jefferson is about to become Americaâs third president.
As he stood before the partially finished Capitol, the weight of history settled on his shoulders. Demonstrating simplicity, Jefferson wore plain clothes instead of a monarchâs suit. Unlike his predecessors, who arrived in grand carriages, Jefferson walked from his room to the Capitol. When he arrived, nearly a thousand people filled the Senate Chamber, waiting.
This wasnât just another transfer of power. It was a test. The election had been bitterly contested, newspapers spreading lies to the darkest corners of the nation.
But he had prevailed. Now, America faced a question: Would the young republic stay true to its founding ideals or drift toward the centralized power Jefferson feared?
(Sounds; a horse neighs in the distanceâŠ)
We remember Jefferson not just as a president, but as a great philosopher.
He devoted his life to contemplating freedom, governance, and human rights. He upheld the liberal ideal that everyone is born with natural rights no government can take away. His ideas laid Americaâs foundation. Inspired by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, Jefferson regarded government not as an instrument of control, but a protector of individual freedom.
Jeffersonâs words in the Declaration of Independence werenât politics; they were principles of governance and philosophy. He carefully crafted the Declaration to define what America stood for. More than two centuries later, those ideas still shape our views on freedom, representation, and government.
Jeffersonâs philosophy shaped America from our earliest days. His principles still inspire discussions about freedom and our democratic republic.
Moving from philosophy to practical matters, Jefferson believed in limited government, fiscal restraint, and individual liberty.
He championed small government, lower taxes, minimal public debt, and strict adherence to the Constitution. He viewed centralized power and extensive government intervention as threats to individual freedom and pursued policies to limit federal influence, reduce government size, and preserve statesâ rights and personal liberty.
(Ambient crowd soundâŠ)
Back to March of 1801. Jefferson stood in the Senate Chamber to deliver an inaugural address defining his presidency.
The crowd fell silent.
Jefferson spoke passionately about simpler, smaller government. He declared: âa wise and frugal government... shall restrain men from injuring one anotherâŠ(and)âŠshall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuitsâŠâ
His speech echoed a 1799 letter to Elbridge Gerry, where he detailed his vision of a disciplined, frugal, and simple government. Every dollar should strengthen the nationâs economic footing, not expand government control to reward political allies.
The Shadow of Debt
Jefferson entered office with a clear vision, but immediately faced a looming crisis: America was drowning in $80 million of debt, an unimaginable sum for a struggling young country.
Debt wasnât just a financial burden. Jefferson believed debt represented bondage, robbing future generations of freedom.
In a 1789 letter to James Madison, Jefferson pondered whether one generation had the right to bind another with debt. He argued that the dead have no rights over the living.
If the government kept borrowing, it had to keep taxing. Endless taxing meant Americans would never truly be free. Jefferson feared policies driven by debt obligations rather than the peopleâs will.
Taking office, Jefferson didnât hesitate. He refused to let the new republic fall into the traps of Europeâs monarchies, where endless spending fueled endless war. Determined, he launched an ambitious plan to slash spending, dismantle bloated government offices, and strip unnecessary costs.
He intended to create a government small enough to live within its means, freeing future Americans from borrowed money. Success meant setting a precedent for efficient government. Failure meant endless national debt and expanding federal power.
Jeffersonâs Radical Plan
Jefferson saw the military as too big, too expensive, and too dangerous. He believed standing armies led to tyranny, soldiers answering to power, not people. So, he slashed military spending, cutting the army nearly in half. Officers were dismissed, outposts abandoned. Only six Navy ships remained active, enough to protect trade, not wage war. The rest sat idle.
Critics warned Jefferson was leaving America defenseless, vulnerable to Britain, France, or pirates. Jefferson didnât flinch. He envisioned a citizen-led defense, believing a large military was a threat rather than protection.
While ruthless with military budgets, he trimmed the rest of government more gently. His aim wasnât to gut government, but to prevent it from growing. Military savings funded debt reduction, the republicâs real enemy.
For Jefferson, this wasnât just about money. As a philosopher, he wanted government out of peopleâs lives, power resting with citizens. To that end, he fought against a bloated army and an overreaching federal system.
A Revolutionary Tax Overhaul
Jefferson saw taxes as tools of government control. He quickly eliminated the whiskey tax, a hated levy that sparked rebellion in the 1790s. To Jefferson, the idea that the government would send troops against its own people over taxes was a disgrace.
He didnât stop there. Jefferson aimed to reshape federal revenue entirely. Instead of direct taxes, he preferred customs duties, or what we would today call tariffs.
At the time, material needs were modest, social programs nonexistent, infrastructure minimal. Federal tax needs were low.
Jefferson proposed there would be no income tax, property tax, or internal revenue taxes during peacetime. Government would be funded only by trade. He bet a thriving economy with goods moving through American ports would suffice.
Critics warned tariffs made America vulnerable. Reduced imports meant reduced revenue. Others argued tariffs raised consumer prices. Jefferson stood firm.
Mostly, his plan succeeded. Government stayed afloat, people kept more money, and he cut the national debt in half.
Triumph and Irony
Jefferson reduced the national debt from $80 million to $57 million his first two years in office. Americans celebrated. It was proof his vision worked.
Yet Jefferson soon faced contradiction. In 1803, Napoleon offered the Louisiana territory, 827,000 square miles, for $15 million. The Constitution gave no clear authority for this purchase.
Jefferson, a strict constitutionalist, faced a philosophical crisis. He suddenly found himself arguing in favor of implied powers that he had long opposed. Ultimately, his practical vision of freedom won out. He justified the Louisiana Purchase as securing liberty for future generations.
With one stroke of the pen, America doubled in size. He opened vast new lands for settlement, farming, and expansion.
Critics highlighted the contradiction. How could Jefferson, who spent years shrinking government, justify this massive federal purchase?
Jefferson believed this purchase didnât expand government power, but opportunity. More land meant more self-sufficient citizens and less European interference.
Legacy of the Small-Government Philosopher Revolutionary
Jeffersonâs presidency leaves a powerful legacy. His dramatic cuts and bold ideas about limited government continue to shape American debates even today.
Much has changed in America in the last two hundred and twenty-four years. Roads stretch from coast to coast. Power lines hum with energy. The internet connects even the most remote corners of the country. Education shapes the next generation. Social security ensures no one is left behind in old age. All of it; our infrastructure, our systems, our stability, comes at a cost.
But Jeffersonâs fierce dedication to freedom and simplicity defined an era and makes us question what is possible today.
Should we dramatically cut the size of government?
On the one hand, weâve forgotten Jeffersonâs philosophical principle that one generation has no right to bind another generation with debt. The dead have no rights over the living. Yet, every president since 1940 has increased the national debt. Every president. Both parties.
And on the other, each generation uses, and must pay to maintain, national infrastructure. Roads and telecommunications systems are infrastructure. Education and training is infrastructure. Societal stability is infrastructure. We canât eliminate federal taxes and still maintain our infrastructure. There is no free lunch.
We canât claim to be Jeffersonian conservatives and cut taxes on the rich, expanding government control to reward our political allies. Jefferson didnât cut taxes for his political allies. He intended to strengthen the economic footing of every American and reduce the burden of debt on future generations.
And Jefferson didnât cut the size of the federal workforce just to slash jobs. He was guided by philosophy.
Cutting the federal workforce while taking steps that increase the federal debt and pass the burden of debt on to future generations is against his philosophy.
Only four presidents have monuments on the National Mall in Washington D.C.
Washington, who helped birth an America at war, and then gave that power back to the people of the republic.
Lincoln, who reunited a nation torn apart from our dispute over whether people from any station of birth have a right to the fruits of their labor.
FDR, who championed the infrastructure that protects working Americans.
And Jefferson, the revolutionâs philosopher, who sought to safeguard every Americanâs right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness through limited government, lower taxes, minimal public debt, and unwavering commitment to the Constitution.
SoâŠshould we dramatically cut the size of government? After some reflection, that seems to be the wrong question to ask.
Should we strengthen the economic footing of every American and reduce the burden of debt on future generations?
May God bless the United States of America.
Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe -
Zijn er afleveringen die ontbreken?
-
Petro Kalnyshevsky: The Last Cossack
Curtain up. The stage is set. A warrior, a nation, and a betrayal that would echo for centuries.
Imagine. A man who has spent a lifetime fighting for his people, riding into battle, outmaneuvering empires, defending his homeland. He commands warriors, negotiates with kings, and builds a thriving nation from the wild steppe. And then, at 85 years old, after everything heâs given, his so-called ally betrays him.
One moment, he was the leader of the fiercest, freest people in Eastern Europe. The next, a prisoner, dragged away in chains, locked in a stone cell, left to rot in the cold, endless dark.
This is the story of Peter Ivanovich Kalnyshevsky, the last leader of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, betrayed by the Russians. He lived through the rise and fall of a nation and spent 25 years in confinement, refusing to break.
A Warriorâs Rise
Kalnyshevsky was born in the late 1600s in what is now central Ukraine, a land of vast, untamed wilderness where survival meant strength. From a young age, he was drawn to the life of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, the wild horsemen of the steppe. They answered to no king or emperor. They lived by the sword, fought as free men, and bent the knee to no one.
By the time Kalnyshevsky rose through the ranks, people both feared and admired the Cossacks. They were known for their brutal raids against the Ottomans and their cunning ability to play empires against each other. But by the mid-18th century, the world was changing. The Russian Empire was expanding, and the Cossacks were caught in a dangerous game.
Kalnyshevsky was a master of strategy, on and off the battlefield. In 1762, the people elected him Kosh Ataman, the leader of the Cossacks. Russian Empress Catherine removed him in 1763, but the people, undeterred, elected him against her wishes again in 1765. He ruled with a mix of toughness and diplomacy. Under his command, the Sich thrived. The Cossacks became essential allies to Russia in its wars against the Ottomans, and Kalnyshevsky hoped that by proving their loyalty, he could secure their independence.
Catherine had other plans.
The Night of Betrayal
The Cossacks failed to shape the battlefield in their favor. They relied on Russian alliances that betrayed them. They believed their contributions would secure their future.
By 1774, Russian Empress Catherine the Great had secured a major victory against the Ottoman Empire in the Russo-Turkish War. That same year, she signed the Treaty of KĂŒĂ§ĂŒk Kaynarca, which gave Russia control over Crimea and expanded her empireâs reach. The Cossacks, once useful in the fight against the Ottomans, were now a liability.
For years, Catherine had been dismantling Ukrainian autonomy. She had already crushed the Hetmanate, another independent Cossack structure, in the 1760s. The Zaporozhian Cossacks were next. She saw them as too independent, too unpredictable. Their lands were valuable. Their fighting spirit, too dangerous to be left unchecked. The empire could not allow a warrior state to exist within its borders.
On the night of June 4th to 5th, 1775, without warning, General Pyotr Tekeliâs army surrounded the Zaporozhian Sich. Sixty thousand Russian soldiers against a few thousand Cossacks. There was no chance. Kalnyshevsky, then 85 years old, knew that fighting would mean slaughter. So he ordered his men to lay down their arms, hoping to negotiate, hoping to save what little remained.
He was wrong. Catherineâs betrayal wasnât just political. It was complete.
That night, there was no bloodshed, but two months later, Russia finished the betrayal. On August 3, 1775, Catherine ordered the Sich to be destroyed and wiped off the map. The Russians tore down fortifications, looted homes, and desecrated churches. They seized Cossack records in an attempt to erase their history. Some Cossacks managed to escape to Ottoman-controlled lands. Others were forcibly conscripted into the Russian army. The Zaporozhian way of life, centuries old, was erased.
And as for Kalnyshevsky, the empire couldnât risk letting a legend roam free.
Ten Years of Darkness
In July of 1776, the American Continental Congress signed the Declaration of Independence from Britain. The same month, the Russians arrested and exiled Kalnyshevsky. And not just any prison. Solovetsky Monastery. A frozen fortress in the White Sea, where political prisoners were sent to vanish.
Then in 1792, the Russians put him in solitary confinement for ten years. His cell was three meters by three meters, a stone box with no windows, no books, and no human contact. Kalnyshevsky sat in the darkness. He went blind. The world outside changed, but he remained trapped, a relic of a lost nation.
He was a warrior who had led thousands into battle, now left alone with nothing but his thoughts and prayers. And yet, he refused to break.
The Russian empire expected him to die quickly, but the old Cossack endured.
Years of isolation and deprivation robbed him of his vision but not his will. Even the monastery guards, hardened men who had seen many prisoners die in despair, came to admire him. He became known not as a broken old man but as a saint-like figureâsilent, unshaken, and still carrying the pride of the Cossacks.
In 1801, at the age of 110, Emperor Alexander I of Russia pardoned him. Alexander intended to present himself as a reformer. One of his early acts was to grant amnesty to several long-imprisoned political figures.
But it was too late.
There was nowhere left to go. The Sich was gone. The Cossacks had been scattered. Kalnyshevsky was an elderly blind man without a home, without a people. So he stayed at the monastery, living out his final two years in quiet solitude.
When he died in 1803, he was buried in the cold northern soil, far from the land he had fought for.
The Last Cossack
Today, we remember Petro Kalnyshevsky as a symbol of resistance. He refused to break in the face of an empire.
Despite efforts in the 1990s to repatriate them, his remains were never relocated to Ukraine. His gravestone exists, but the exact location of his grave is lost; buried at Solovetsky Monastery in Russia. In 2008, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate canonized him as a saint, recognizing his enduring legacy.
Today, the last Cossack still stands. A legend of defiance. A reminder that free people will always fight against Russian aggression.
(Beat. Silence.)
Curtain down.
Scene Two
Enter Stage Right ⊠the Capitalists
It so happens that funding the fight of a free people against their Russian oppressors isnât inexpensive. Some Americans think these resources should be a two-way street. If Ukraine wants American support, it needs to prioritize aligning its economic future with US interests. And that starts with a minerals deal.
Some say our relationship shouldnât be transactional. But Fridayâs meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky made it clear that the White House isnât treating support for Ukraine as a matter of ideological solidarity. The United States is making decisions based on interests. If Ukraine wants continued support, securing the mineral rights deal with American companies must be its top priority.
Ukraine has a stronger hand than is apparent. America is desperate to counterbalance Chinaâs monopoly in the rare earth element business, and getting rare earth elements from Greenland appears increasingly unlikely.
From Ukraineâs perspective, this agreement is about survival. A stable Ukraine isnât possible without economic security, but economic security depends on stability first. The US wonât invest in a war zone. To establish this stability, the minerals deal must include security guarantees, infrastructure commitments, and long-term stability.
War is diplomacy combined with other means. Wars arenât won only with kinetic weapons. We achieve national objectives with power, with influence, and with the right pressure in the right places. Money and resources are influence.
If Ukraine wants American support, it must commit to an economic relationship that makes its survival an American interest. The minerals deal isnât a side negotiation. It is the negotiation.
Enter Stage Left ⊠the Bleeding Heart Liberals
It may seem unlikely that those who champion the struggle of the Ukrainian people would need to root for the capitalists, but here we are. We may lament the state of the world, but that doesnât mean we can change it.
This is not a new phenomenon. The term âbleeding heart liberalâ first appeared in 1938, mocking those pushing for an anti-lynching bill. The bill failed. Lynchings continued. The US didnât officially make lynching a federal hate crime until 2022â84 years later.
History reminds us that moral clarity doesnât guarantee action. Righteous causes are every day delayed, diluted, or outright denied. And when they are, people suffer. Ukraine canât afford to wait 84 years for the world to catch up.
Despite its lack of grace and decorum, the term never quite disappeared. Last week, Elon Musk took aim on X, commenting:
"Every bleeding-heart liberal I talk to about the Russia-Ukraine war wants to keep feeding bodies into the meat grinder foreverâŠ.They have no plan for success."
Itâs easy to mock those who care, but caring without strategy prolongs suffering. If Ukraine is to win, security canât be a moral stance. It must be a vital American interest, which means money, power, and leverage.
No one wants more bodies in the meat grinder. Passive support in the form of moral backing, speeches, and aid packages that sustain but donât resolve the conflict isnât enough.
We need decisive action. That means changing the conditions of the war in a way that forces Russia to back down, not just keeping Ukraine in the fight. We need to turn Ukraineâs security into a US interest through the minerals deal and economic integration.
Moral conviction wonât stop Russian aggression.
Enter Center Stage ⊠The Pragmatists
The capitalists see opportunity. The bleeding hearts see morality. And the pragmatists see reality. They see that security, economics, and influence are all tied together. If we are to achieve a successful outcome, we have to stop reacting and start shaping the battlefield.
Russia is not a friend to the American people. It sponsors violent extremism across Africa and the Middle East, fueling the same instability that leads to deadly attacks on American soilâincluding the worst in our history, twenty-four years ago.
This threat goes beyond terror networks. Russia actively undermines US alliances and disrupts international stability, making the world more dangerous and unpredictable. The stronger Russiaâs grip on Ukraine, the more emboldened it becomes elsewhere.
Russia has no real incentive to negotiate in good faith because it believes it can outlast Ukraine and Western support. They assume political divisions, shifting US priorities, and battlefield attrition will eventually work in their favor. They will drag out the conflict, knowing that American attention is fleeting. They will use the battlefield as their primary negotiating tool, showing little regard for the lives of their own soldiers, let alone Ukraineâs.
Instead of waiting for Russia to decide when itâs willing to talk, the US and our allies need to shape the conditions under which Russia has no good choices.
NATO needs to apply pressure to key pieces of vulnerable Russian geography, such as Kaliningrad. Kaliningrad is a tiny piece of Russia, separated from the main Russian landmass. Even stopping and searching shipping vehicles entering or leaving Kaliningrad sends a message. No blockade, but disruption. Itâs not an act of war, but it brings traffic to a standstill. And that means we can blockade Kaliningrad whenever we want.
Stopping and searching traffic in and out of Kaliningrad is a message. A warning shot without an empty casing. If Russia escalates or drags their feet in Ukraine, NATO can escalate in Kaliningrad.
Russia knows this. Kaliningrad on the table changes the calculus for Russia. Every second they delay in Ukraine, we can squeeze them in Kaliningrad.
We need to strengthen our negotiating position. We canât just ask Russia nicely. Strength is the only thing Putin understands. But leverage isnât just about more weapons or more aidâitâs about shaping the conditions of the war. We need to make the cost of Russia staying in Ukraine higher than the cost of leaving. And that starts with Kaliningrad.
Russia is a threat to the American people, and we need leverage to negate that threat.
In Sum
Kalnyshevsky fought well. He resisted. He endured. But he lost.
Not because he wasnât strong enough. Not because the Cossacks lacked courage. They failed to shape the battlefield in their favor and were betrayed by their Russian allies.
Ukraine cannot afford to make the same mistake.
The American capitalists need Ukraine, and Ukraine needs the capitalists.
The world doesnât operate on sentimentality. Ukraine must commit to an economic future tied to American interests. Securing a rare earth minerals deal is its survival strategy. The minerals deal isnât a side negotiation; it is the negotiation.
The compassionate need Ukraine, and Ukraine needs the compassionate.
A tragic reality is that history is full of righteous causes that fail. Support for Ukraine must be more than a moral conviction; it must be a vital US interest.
The pragmatists need Ukraine, and Ukraine needs the pragmatists.
We need to shape the battlefield. Russia threatens the American people, and we need leverage. Kaliningrad is that leverage.
Free people will always resist Russian aggression. Will America stand with them?
May God bless the United States of America.
Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe -
A quick note before we dive in. This week, âI Believeâ officially hit the numbers to rank as a Top 10% global podcast for all of 2025. Of course, itâs still February, and we have plenty of room to grow. I just want to take a moment to say thanks for listening!
âŠ
How do we bring manufacturing back to America?
đïž Tariffs Built American Industry
In the early 1800s, the United States was still an economic underdog. We had won our independence from Britain, but economically we were far from independent.
Across the Atlantic, the Industrial Revolution was transforming British manufacturing. British factories had decades of experience in mass production. They churned out cheap, high-quality goods. Meanwhile, US manufacturing was small, scattered, and struggling to compete.
Americaâs economy revolved around agriculture. Cotton. Tobacco. Wheat. We relied heavily on European imports for manufactured goods. British industries dominated global trade, producing textiles and iron at such low costs that American businesses couldnât compete.
That left us with a major vulnerability: We were too dependent on foreign goods. Without a strong domestic manufacturing base, America had little economic control over its own future.
James Madison & The Road to War
In 1808, America elected James Madison as the fourth President of the United States. Tensions with Britain were boiling over.
For years, British naval forces harassed American ships, seized cargo, and forced American sailors into their navy, a practice known as impressment. As an international insult, the British stirred unrest in the Northwest Territory, backing Native American resistance against US expansion.
By 1812, America had had enough. On June 18, 1812, Congress declared war on Great Britain.
The War of 1812: A Mixed Outcome
Militarily, the War of 1812 was a mess. The US attempted to invade Canada, which ⊠didnât go well. We did capture York, which is modern-day Toronto, and burned public buildings, but the British retaliated in full force. They marched into Washington, D.C. and burned the White House and the Capitol.
But hereâs where things get interesting economically.
British naval blockades cut off trade. Those cheap British imports we had relied on were gone.
American businesses had no choice but to step up. Factories that might have otherwise struggled suddenly had a captive market. We had to produce goods for ourselves, and for the first time, we saw what an independent American industry could look like.
The Aftermath & Economic Crisis
In December 1814, the war ended with the Treaty of Ghent. Neither side gained or lost territory. Militarily, it was a stalemate.
Symbolically, it was a turning point. The US had stood up to Britain and survived. National pride soared. The war cemented Americaâs identity as a sovereign power.
While the fighting stopped, Britain wasnât done economically. Almost immediately, British manufacturers flooded American ports with cheap goods, undercutting US businesses and threatening to wipe out our industrial progress overnight.
Congress had newfound confidence and a choice. We could let American industry collapse, or step in to protect it.
The Tariff of 1816: Americaâs First Protective Tariff
In 1816, Congress gained consensus and passed the first major protective tariff in US history. Even the Senateâs most prominent conservative statesâ rights advocate, John C. Calhoun (South Carolina), publically advocated for it.
The Tariff of 1816 imposed a 20 to 30% tax on imported goods, particularly textiles, iron, and leather products. Our goal was to make British goods more expensive and give American manufacturers a chance to compete.
And it worked.
Textile mills in New England flourished. Lowell, Massachusetts, became a booming industrial hub.
Iron production surged in Pennsylvania, fueling railroads, construction, and manufacturing.
Infrastructure projects expanded as a growing economy demanded better roads and canals.
This was Americaâs manufacturing turning point. It was the moment we moved from a country dependent on foreign goods to one that could build its own industrial future.
The Tariff Debate: North vs. South
Now, not everyone was on board.
Southern cotton planters feared retaliation. They worried that if Britain had to pay more for American goods, theyâd buy less American cotton in return. Higher tariffs, to them, meant less trade and lower profits.
This tariff debate, whether to protect US industries or keep trade open and cheap, would continue for decades. It fueled sectional tensions between the industrial North and the agrarian South.
Despite the controversy, the US took its first major step toward economic independence.
Instead of relying on Europe, we were finally building an economy of our own.
Itâs easy to come to the simple conclusion that tariffs protected American industry. You could say, âOur success all started with tariffs!â But that would be a shortsided conclusion.
The decisive element that protected and grew American industry was consensus.
Tariffs Today
The Wall Street Journal last week reported President Trump is considering tariffs âin the neighborhood of 25%â on automobiles, semiconductors, and pharmaceutical products. He suggested these tariffs could increase over time.
Thereâs been a lot of discussion lately about tariffs, so that wasnât so compelling.
President Trump suggested that US companies could be given a phase-in period on the items they import. This period could give businesses time to move production back to the US. He even said heâd allow âa little bit of a chanceâ for companies to re-shore before ramping up the tariffs.
He didnât offer details, but the logic behind giving industry time to come home before tightening the screws is what makes this policy intriguing.
He billed it as a different kind of protectionism.
In the early 1800s, Congress passed protectionist tariffs to protect American manufacturing from British manufacturing. But American manufacturing was already here. It just needed a kickstart.
Today, we face a different challenge. We donât need to protect industry. We need to rebuild it.
Starting in the 1960s and 1970s, America began exporting its manufacturing jobs overseas. Jack Welch and General Electric were at the forefront, pushing for offshoring to boost profits. Other companies followed, chasing cheaper labor and higher margins. Bit by bit, America willingly chose to dismantle our own industrial base. Washington stood by and watched as we destroyed our national capability for a quick buck.
As an example, that was our moment to save American steel. Had we implemented protective tariffs in the 1960s and 1970s, some of those jobs and, more importantly, that capability might have stayed here.
So ⊠the protectionist tariffs President Trump is considering might not just be about protecting our industry from foreign competition.
They might be about protecting us from ourselves.
And the logic behind that is fascinating.
But again, letâs remember that the decisive element that protects and grows American industry is not tariffs. Itâs consensus. Thereâs a key difference between the Tariff of 1816 and today.
James Madison and the Tariff of 1816: The Evolution of a Founding Father
James Madison wasnât just a president. He was the architect of America.
Few figures in American history shaped the nation as profoundly as he did. Before he ever set foot in the White House, he had already built the American framework.
He was the Father of the Constitution. He meticulously crafted the structure of the US government. When the new republic teetered on the edge of collapse under the weak Articles of Confederation, it was Madison who designed a stronger system that balanced power between the federal government and the states. He sought stability without tyranny.
He didnât just write the Constitution. He defended it. Alongside Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, Madison co-wrote The Federalist Papers, a series of essays that convinced the states to ratify the Constitution. Without him, there might not have been a Constitution at all.
When critics of the Constitution demanded protections for individual liberties, Madison delivered. He authored the Bill of Rights, enshrining free speech, religious freedom, and due process into law.
He designed the system. He fought for its ratification. And then, he spent the rest of his career making it work.
From Congressman to Secretary of State
Madison served as a congressman from Virginia, playing a crucial role in shaping early American policy. He was one of Thomas Jeffersonâs closest allies, standing at the center of nearly every major political battle of the era.
He opposed Alexander Hamiltonâs vision of a strong central government and a national bank, fearing that these would concentrate too much power in the hands of the federal government. He fought for statesâ rights.
He fought against policies that favored wealthy elites over working-class citizens.
In 1801, he became Secretary of State under Jefferson. There, Madison oversaw The Louisiana Purchase, one of the most important events in US history. Jefferson saw an opportunity to double the size of the country. Madison handled the negotiations. He drafted the plan and authorized James Monroe to offer a price starting at ten million dollars for the land. In total, four cents per acre. The deal secured vast new lands, opened up the frontier for westward expansion, and strengthened the nationâs position on the world stage.
For eight years, Madison handled foreign affairs. He navigated tensions with Britain and France as the US struggled to maintain neutrality during the Napoleonic Wars. By the time he took office as president in 1809, conflict with Britain had become unavoidable.
Quite a list of accomplishments. The nation forever owes a debt to James Madison.
Because he literally wrote the document to govern America, he knew he needed consensus to make America great.
Madison and Tariffs
James Madison was a champion of divided power, statesâ rights, and the right of the people over tyranny.
He wrote the document that explicitly gave Congress, not the President, the authority to impose tariffs. The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, placed that power in the hands of the legislature.
And because he wrote it, Madison knew he could not simply order a tariff into existence. He needed national consensus to prompt Congress to act. A president acting alone creates no legacy, and certainly not a legacy like Madisonâs. A policy dictated by one man is erased by the next administration. A policy built through Congress, through debate, and through broad support is the decisive effect that endures.
By 1815, Madison publicly acknowledged that the United States needed a strong manufacturing base to avoid dependence on Britain. In his Seventh Annual Message to Congress, he explicitly called for tariffs to protect American industry, marking a major shift in his thinking.
Madison understood the stakes. America had the natural resources, the labor force, and the potential to be an industrial power, but manufacturing would not develop on its own. He argued that certain industries, particularly those tied to national defense and essential goods, were too important to be left at the mercy of foreign competition.
He knew that without government support, industry could take decades to grow. Without broad, lasting consensus, it would not grow at all. A policy that shifts every four years did not support American industry.
Madisonâs public support signaled a major shift in Republican thinking. His endorsement reassured moderates, convincing those who had once resisted federal economic intervention.
If the Father of the Constitution, the guardian of statesâ rights, and the protector of the peopleâs liberty believed it was in Americaâs best interest to protect its industry, who would dare question the brilliant President James Madison?
Back to Today
The lesson of 1816 is clear.
America owes allegiance to no king. Executive orders are fleeting.
Madison worked to build consensus, spurring Congress to action. It was not Madison alone who reshaped Americaâs economic future.
The long-term success of American industry does not rest on executive orders or short-term tariff hikes. Just like in 1816, it rests with Congress.
We must deliberate, gain consensus, and pass tariffs that protect American industry, especially our defense capability and goods essential to running American society. We need to make these goods internally and defend ourselves from coercion from other countries.
May God bless the United States of America.
Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe -
Should America Give Our Surplus Grain Away Every Year?
This week, the nationâs Food for Peace Programâand all other United States Agency for International Development (USAID) programsâfound themselves on the chopping block.
Before we go any further, letâs get on the same page.
American agriculture is national security.
Second, letâs share some quick history.
On July 10, 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act, allowing the president to ship surplus commodities to âfriendlyâ nations on concessional or grant terms. For the first time, America could give away its excess grain to partner nations.
In 1961, President John F. Kennedy expanded the program, rebranded it Food for Peace, and established USAID to oversee it.
If you believe that those with plenty should help those with nothing, Food for Peace was a success. It became the largest single food donor to the United Nations World Food Programme. In 2022 alone, âAmerican farmers provided more than 4 billion pounds of U.S.-grown grains, soybeans, lentils, rice, and other commodity staplesâ through the program.
Itâs also good business for American farmers. Now, Republican lawmakers from agricultural states are fighting to save it.
Every government program should face scrutiny. But this one is worth saving.
This isnât about charity. That was a benefit of the program. But Food for Peace wasnât only about poverty. It was about national security.
Global hunger breeds instability.
Instability creates openings for adversaries.
Adversary influence threatens the American people.
So the real question isnât whether America should shut down an agency that some see as a global social program driven by ideology.
We need to step back and look at the bigger picture. Forget charity for a second. Letâs take the question at face value.
Should America give our surplus grain away every year?
Food Security is National Security
A country that cannot feed itself becomes a victim of coercion and geopolitical manipulation.
By the late 1930s, Japan relied heavily on imports for most of its food and nearly all of its oil, rubber, and metals. Japanâs domestic agriculture couldnât keep up with its growing population, and they started seizing food from their neighbors. Between 1936 and 1938, 95% of Japanâs imported rice came from Korea or Taiwan (Johnston, B. F. (1953). Japanese Food Management in World War II. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 45â49, 166â170, 202â204).
Food shortages forced Japan to expand. As its military campaign in China escalated, the US and other Western powers imposed economic sanctions.
Japanâs food problem became catastrophic during World War II. Imports were disrupted, military priorities came first, and by 1940, Japan rationed food. Malnutrition, disease, and starvation followed. Beriberi, a disease caused by vitamin B1 deficiency, spiked.
Hunger was a key factor in Japanâs surrender. By 1945, US naval blockades and bombing campaigns had destroyed Japanâs food supply chains. America targeted Japanâs food vulnerability as a center of gravity in our strategic approach. Even if the war had continued, famine would have crippled Japanâs ability to fight. After the war, food shortages persisted into the US occupation.
This suffering changed Japanâs long-term policies. The country fortified domestic agriculture and imposed high tariffs on imported grains like rice, wheat, and barley. Even today, Japan strictly controls grain imports, avoiding overdependence on foreign suppliers, including the US.
The lesson is clear. Food security is national security. It is not just about feeding people. It is sovereignty, stability, and strength.
Japan wasnât the only nation that learned this the hard way.
Letâs talk about another fallen American adversary: the Soviet Union.
Khrushchev and Yeltsin Go to the Grocery Store!
On Monday, September 21, 1959, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev went to the grocery store. Not in Moscow. Not in Leningrad. In San Francisco, California.
He walked through aisles of produce, deli meats, and frozen dinnersâfoods unimaginable in the Soviet Union. The next day, in Des Moines, Iowa, he ate his first American hot dog and joked:
âWe have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.â
But in 1959, Khrushchev never publicly admitted shock at Americaâs grocery stores. That would come later.
By the 1980s, Soviet agriculture had collapsed under central planning. Shortages and rationing became commonplace.
Then, in 1989, just two months before the Berlin Wall fell, Boris Yeltsin visited a grocery store in Houston, Texas. Unlike Khrushchev, Yeltsin couldnât hide his reaction. The Houston Chronicle described how he roamed the aisles of Randallâs, shaking his head in amazement.
Yeltsin had grown up hungry. The Soviet State had taken away his familyâs farm, leaving them dependent on a system that couldnât feed its own people.
That grocery store visit shattered any belief in communism. Two years later, as Russian President, Yeltsin ordered Russian state land to be divided into private family farms.
From the defeat of Japan to the fall of the Soviet Union, our lesson is that:
American Agriculture is National Security
Food isnât just about feeding people. It is economic strength, national security, and global influence.
Japanese agriculture couldnât keep up with American agriculture.
Soviet Russian agriculture couldnât keep up with American agriculture.
And today, we still need agricultural abundance.
Agricultural Abundance
Americaâs agricultural dominance isnât an accident. Itâs a deliberate national choice. Itâs built on policy, infrastructure, and continuous innovation. Both necessity and profit drive this system.
On February 13, President Trump reinforced this priority, signing an Executive Order establishing the Make America Healthy Again Commission. One of its key tasks is to âWork with farmers to ensure that U.S. food is healthy, abundant, and affordable.â
The focus on abundance is critical. Food security isnât just about today. Itâs long-term stability.
A nation that produces only âjust enoughâ food is one disaster away from crisis. Thatâs why the national agriculture system cannot be designed for maximum profit alone. There has to be excess. The system must be resilient.
Food production isnât instant. Crops and livestock take time, land, and weather cooperation. For example, with the recent egg shortages, if producers could ramp up supply overnight to chase profits, they would. But you canât create egg layers out of thin air.
This is why food security requires intentional overproduction.
Without surplus, a drought, flood, or disease outbreak can cripple the food supply. Unlike other industries, agriculture canât instantly scale production to meet demand. Efficiency alone isnât the right measure. Resilience is the right measure for agriculture. A strong system produces more than necessary because shortages are more dangerous than excess.
The resulting surplus shields against uncertainty. It stabilizes the food supply, prevents reliance on foreign imports, and protects against market disruptions. On the world stage, a nation that produces more food than it consumes has leverage. Countries that depend on imports are vulnerable to foreign control. When America has a surplus, adversaries canât weaponize food against us.
In this way, surplus grain isnât waste. Surplus grain is a strategic asset.
Thereâs another key factor at play.
Agriculture is Unpredictable
Farmers donât control the weather, bird flu outbreaks, or global trade policies. One in three years is a bad year for agriculture. A system that only produces âjust enoughâ in a good year guarantees shortages in a bad year.
The only way to secure the nationâs food supply is to grow more than needed every year.
When one region suffers from drought, anotherâs surplus offsets the losses. When unpredictable events disrupt production, a buffer ensures food remains affordable and accessible. Surplus keeps Americans fed, prices stable, and the country resilient.
Because our agricultural system must be designed this way, we always have more grain than we need. Even though we need surplus every year, we also need to manage it wisely. Uncontrolled surplus drives prices down, hurting American farmers. If we donât address the grain surplus, we risk losing the ability to grow it.
We also need to think about American influence on the world stage.
Agricultural Surplus and Influence
Without order, scarcity leads to conflict. Nations compete for limited resources. The strong dominate, and the weak suffer. In a world where food shortages create instability, countries that control the global food supply exert power over those that do not.
This is why agricultural abundance is more than an economic advantage. It is a tool of influence. Nations with surplus can stabilize their allies, undermine their adversaries, and dictate the terms of trade. Japan and the Soviet Union failed because they could not secure their own food supply. Americaâs agricultural surplus allowed it to feed its friends and keep its enemies dependent.
But surplus alone is not enough. It must be managed strategically. An uncontrolled surplus collapses domestic markets, driving prices so low that farmers go bankrupt. A controlled surplus allows America to direct influence where it matters.
Food is both a commodity and a diplomatic asset. Throughout history, America has used surplus grain as a foundation for long-term partnerships. Food aid programs have strengthened alliances, opened trade routes, and cemented US influence in key regions. The Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe and ensured that newly rebuilt economies were tied to American markets. The Food for Peace program fed the hungry while reinforcing US influence in developing nations. It aligned economic structures with American interests rather than Soviet alternatives.
Partnerships built on food endure. A nation that depends on America for food security is far less likely to align with adversaries. A reliable food supplier is a stabilizing force in times of crisis. Strategic agricultural surplus is not just about helping others. Our agricultural surplus secures Americaâs position in the world.
We need to extend our influence and maintain strong partnerships to achieve our global security goals. And to do that, we need surplus grain.
Which brings us to our question. Should America give our surplus grain away every year?
Should America Give Our Surplus Grain Away Every Year?
American agriculture is national security.
Food is not just about feeding people. It is economic strength, national security, and global influence. On the world stage, America has interests, and we have partners. Reliability and trustworthiness are both virtues and strategic advantages.
Surplus grain is not waste. It is a strategic asset that we need to use wisely. The question is not whether we should give grain away. The real question is how we should use it to advance American interests.
If you believe that those with plenty, like America, have a duty to help those with nothing, then Food for Peace was a success. But food aid is not charity. It is good business for American farmers and a powerful tool of influence.
Food aid programs do more than just feed people. They strengthen alliances. They open trade routes. They cement US influence. They align global economic structures with American interests rather than those of our adversaries.
We might choose not to send our surplus grain through the United Nations World Food Programme. We might prefer more direct control over where we exert influence.
But we must choose to use American agriculture to reinforce partnerships, secure influence, and protect our global standing.
May God bless the United States of America.
Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe -
Why is remembering American history so hard? Itâs a question that needs an answer because Black history is American history, and federal agencies decided to ban Black History Month.
Black history isnât just Black history. Itâs a record of our constant battle between order and justice. To erase it is to erase the struggle that defines our national identity. It may be easier to maintain a neat, sanitized version of our history than to confront the struggle and resistance justice demands, but that ease is detrimental to America.
If remembering Black history is too difficult, maybe we should turn to the one document that defines our national values. Every state in the Union agreed with the verbiage. Youâd think it would offer clarity.
But even there, justice and order are locked in a constant struggle. The Constitution sets both as national goals, side by side. Then, history demonstrates again and again how the ideals clash and how essential they are to each other.
Justice Disrupts Order, and Order Suppresses Justice
Last week, we discussed the inherent tension between justice and order. Ensuring domestic tranquility and establishing justice are two of our six national goals, but they are often at odds.
Tranquility means a society built on order, stability, and mutual respect. Tranquility is a deliberate national choice to maintain a collective structure.
Justice is the foundation for a society in which individuals can fulfill their roles and contribute to the nationâs well-being. It includes fair and equal treatment under the law, equal access to individual opportunity, and equitable distribution of resources like education, healthcare, and housing.
Justice threatens order. We build institutions and cultural norms around systems that offer stability but perpetuate inequality and power imbalance. Calls for justice expose inherent flaws. They challenge the status quo.
Order threatens justice. While order is necessary for social stability, the rigid pursuit of order obstructs justice. Groups in power preserve the status quo instead of addressing systemic imbalances. They argue that stability must be maintained at all costs. This focus on order suppresses dissent and marginalizes groups that call for reform.
No American better embodies the tension between justice and order than the great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
But to really understand the challenge of justice, order, and Dr. King, we need to first understand Reverend Billy Graham.
Billy Graham Believed in Order
In 1954, TIME Magazine called Reverend Billy Graham âthe best-known, most talked-about Christian leader in the world today, barring the Pope.â US presidents sought his council. He became the moral advisor to the nation.
By 1957, Graham was at the height of his influence as Americaâs most prominent evangelist. That year marked his landmark New York City Crusade. The 16-week revival held at Madison Square Garden drew massive crowds. Over two million people attended, and more than 60,000 responded to his call for conversion.
Grahamâs sermons emphasized personal salvation and moral living. His message resonated with many Americans wrestling with Cold War anxiety and social change. It offered comfort in uncertain times.
During this crusade, Graham crossed paths with a young reverend, Martin Luther King Jr., for the first time. Graham hoped to expand the reach of his message to a broader audience and invited King to speak in New York. King spoke of a brotherhood that transcended race and color. He hoped alliances with influential figures like Graham could accelerate the fight for civil rights.
By 1960, differences between the two menâs approaches emerged. Graham made it clear he valued social order above civil disobedience. He statedâŠ
âI do believe that we have a responsibility to obey the law. Otherwise, you have anarchy. And, no matter what that law may beâit may be an unjust lawâI believe we have a Christian responsibility to obey it.â
There it is. Order versus justice.
Graham wasnât just preaching personal salvationâhe was tapping into a national desire for stability in a time of upheaval. For many, his message was a soothing alternative to the discomfort of systemic injustice.
Grahamâs stance reflected the views of many Americans at the time. They were uncomfortable with the confrontational approach of the Civil Rights movement. They preferred order to justice. Grahamâs supporters argue he wasnât racist. They argue he was called to a mission focused on personal salvation rather than political activism. His critics argue that his reluctance to challenge unjust laws reflected a failure to meet the moral urgency of the moment.
No matter the reason, his line was drawn by April 1963. As Graham envisioned order, King led the Birmingham Campaign. This bold, nonviolent movement targeted deep-rooted segregation and racial injustice in one of Americaâs most racially divided cities.
Letter from a Birmingham Jail
In April 1963, Birmingham, Alabama, was the most violently racist city in the United States. Its aggressive resistance to desegregation earned it the nickname âBombinghamâ due to the frequent bombings of Black homes and churches by white supremacists. From 1945 to 1962, white supremacists conducted 50 racially motivated bombings of Black American homes, businesses, and churches.
They bombed the home of Reverend Milton Curry Jr. on August 2, 1949. The home of Monroe and Mary Means Monk on December 21, 1950. The home of the minister of Bethel Baptist Church, Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, on December 24, 1956. The Ku Klux Klan bombed Bethel Baptist Church on June 29, 1958. It was the second time the Klan had bombed the church.
On and on. 50 bombings.
Amid the years of bombings, Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor led the city government to openly enforce Jim Crow laws with brutal tactics. They used police dogs, fire hoses, and mass arrests to suppress civil rights demonstrations.
Quite a backdrop.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. arrived in Birmingham, Alabama, on April 3, 1963, to lead the Birmingham Campaign. It was the season of the major Christian holiday of Easter. On Easter, Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his love for humanity. We remember our vow to love God and love others.
Kingâs Birmingham Campaign included nonviolent protests against segregation and racial injustice. King and other activists planned sit-ins, marches, and boycotts targeting businesses that upheld segregation.
On April 10, 1963, Circuit Judge of the Tenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama W. A. Jenkins, Jr. issued an injunction prohibiting the demonstrations.
King and others chose to defy the order. They viewed it as an unjust law meant to suppress their Constitutional rights. On April 12, Good Friday, the day Christians remember the Romans putting Christ to death, authorities arrested King and at least 55 other leaders for âparading without a permit.â King spent 9 days in jail. They loved him so much they denied him even his phone call.
While in jail, King read a public letter from eight white Alabama clergymen who criticized the protests as âunwise and untimely.â They urged activists to seek justice through the courts rather than the streets.
King wrote his response to the letter in the margins of a newspaper and on scraps of paper smuggled in by friends. The pieces became the iconic Letter from Birmingham Jail. In it, King defends civil disobedience and highlights the moral urgency of confronting injustice.
King explicitly calls out Americans who are âmore devoted to order than to justice; who prefer a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.â
There it is again. Order versus justice.
âŠ
Letâs reestablish that this is not a Black history topic. This is a Constitutional topic. This is the interlocked American history of Billy Graham and Martin Luther King Jr. Just as we have a national goal to ensure order, we have a national goal to establish justice.
Order and justice. Two ideals, forever competing. Letâs pause for a minute and honor the genius of Gouverneur Morris, Pennsylvania delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, who wrote the Preamble; the founding fathers that agreed to the verbiage; and each state in the Union for ratifying the document. Together, they laid out national goals that were almost impossible to achieve. They understood the delicate balance needed to hold a diverse and divided nation together.
In the ultimate irony, they placed the words establishing justice and ensuring domestic tranquility side by side in the Preamble.
They knew a society striving for justice would inevitably disrupt the status quo. We would challenge entrenched power. It would create tension. At the same time, they recognized that without order, society could descend into chaos. Chaos makes justice impossible to sustain. This tension is a feature of the system. The struggle forces every generation to wrestle with competing ideals.
Each principle threatens the other. But thatâs not why they are next to each other in the Constitution.
Theyâre next to each other because each value is essential to achieve the other.
Justice Enables Order
Justice sets the conditions for trust. In an environment of justice, people trust that they have rights, that those rights are protected, and that fairness governs social interactions. They trust that they are treated equitably, regardless of race, class, or background.
In a just society, people respect the rules and institutions that govern their lives. Justice fosters legitimacy, and legitimacy is the foundation of stable, lasting order.
Enforcing order without justice is impossible. Without justice, any semblance of order is fragile. Authorities may attempt to maintain control through fear, repression, or coercion, but this âorderâ is unsustainable. It breeds resentment, resistance, and unrest. A society that values individuals, respects rights, and offers real opportunities for prosperity doesnât need to police itself into submission.
Back to Birmingham in 1963. Authorities claimed they were maintaining order, but that âorderâ depended on segregation, discrimination, and suppression. It wasnât orderâit was controlled instability. The American peopleâs demand for justice didnât just disrupt orderâit exposed what many called âorderâ was a system built on oppression.
On the surface, one might assume that justice threatens order. But justice and order are not rivals. Justice isnât just compatible with orderâitâs the only thing that makes order possible.
As justice enables order, order sustains justice.
Order Sustains Justice
Order is necessary to sustain justice. Justice requires a strong institution of structure, law, and social framework to establish and maintain it. Without order, these systems collapse. This collapse makes it impossible to protect individual rights, ensure fairness, or maintain trust in governance.
History demonstrates that righteous justice movements rely on some level of structure to succeed.
Back again to Birmingham in 1963. The Civil Rights Movement made lasting change in the nation. But dismantling segregation depended on legal victories, organized protests, and strategic leadership. Without disciplined nonviolent resistance combined with a functioning legal system to challenge unjust laws, racial justice would have remained an ideal rather than a reality.
Even when we achieve justice, we still have a duty to preserve it. A just society cannot exist in a constant state of upheaval. Laws must be enforced, rights must be protected, and institutions must remain strong to prevent injustice from creeping back in. Without order, justice is fleeting. It becomes a moment of fairness swallowed by instability.
Justice corrects and refines order, but order provides the structure that allows justice to endure.
American History
Justice and order are not Black history. They are American history.
They are the interlocked American history of Reverend Billy Graham, who believed in order, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who knew order was not possible without justice.
This is a Constitutional topic. Just as we have a national goal to maintain order, we have a national goal to establish justice.
Today, we continue to struggle with order and justice. We will always struggle with order and justice. History demonstrates again and again how the ideals clash.
When we look deeper, we see how essential they are to each other. There is no order without justice. We cannot sustain justice without order.
We donât have to do it in February every year, but if we donât study Black history, how will we remember American history?
May God bless the United States of America.
Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe -
Before we discuss progressives today and ask, âWho is the Champion of âWe, the People?ââ, we need some context. We gauge progress by whether our decisive efforts move America closer to achieving its six national goals.
Both conservative and progressive principles are essential for effective governance. Without both sets of principles, we cannot achieve Americaâs goals.
But progressivismâs focus drifted. To meet our goals, we must restore it as a center of gravityâfocused on the people, not just the government.
âŠ
Conservatives believe in America and strive to conserve the institution that is the American ideal. Their principles respect tradition, state and local governance, individual liberty, and personal responsibility. Their philosophy values the wisdom of the past, seeks cautious progress in the present, and envisions a stable, prosperous future.
From a business standpoint, conservatives rely on their commitment to personal responsibility. They advocate for free-market capitalism and minimal government intervention. They believe that to command higher wages, workers are responsible for increasing their value. They oppose unfunded federal mandates because they face the reality that to pay higher wages, businesses must increase revenue or face elimination. High worker pay reduces profitability and can threaten business viability, especially in lean years. Therefore, acting in their self-interest, businesses seek to minimize wages to maximize profits.
Conservative values strongly benefit America. They advance living standards by driving economic growth, encouraging innovation, and fostering competition.
Democrats and Republicans alike can be conservatives.
âŠ
Like conservatives, progressives believe in the American ideal.
Progressives view the government as a go-between representative for the people. An intermediary. Strong progressives advocate for fairness and equality across American society. They believe the government must set conditions enabling every individual to have a fair chance to be great.
Regarding business, progressives believe the government must set conditions enabling fair workplace environments, including pay, safety, and hours. They pass federal mandates that benefit workers and America as a whole. They seek to create a society where individuals fulfill their roles and contribute to the overall well-being of the state.
Progressive values strongly benefit America. They advance American society by promoting justice and economic stability, protecting worker rights, and ensuring fair wages. Government regulations create safer workplaces, prevent exploitation, and help sustain a middle class that drives consumer demand.
Republicans and Democrats alike can be progressives.
âŠ
As a related topic, letâs recall there are six national goals outlined in the Constitution. Union⊠Order⊠Defense⊠Welfare⊠Justice⊠and LibertyâŠ
Some might view the goals as having different priorities. For example, conservatives might lean toward order over justice, while progressives might choose the opposite. But the truth is that all six goals carry the same weight.
So ⊠if conservatives and progressives see different prioritiesâbut the goals themselves are equalâthen we need both perspectives to achieve them. Relying only on conservative principles threatens justice. Relying only on progressive values threatens order.
Now that we have shared context, that brings us to this weekâs question.
Who is the Champion of âWe, the People?â
Representative AOC and Jon Stewart
On the January 23 episode of The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)âbetter known simply as AOCâjoined host, hilarious comedian, and all-around great American Jon Stewart for a lengthy interview.
At around 45:20, Stewart and AOC begin a portion of their conversation that YouTube has named âWhat is the Process of Redefining what the Democratic Party Represents?â
Stewart commentsâ
âPeople are thirsty for ⊠leadership. The Democrats, I think, have had a really difficult time responding to that thirst, responding to that action. What is the process then of redefining what this party is, what it represents moving forward, and are there leaders there?â
Representative AOC respondsâ
âIf you ask a working-class American or just any normal American, what is a Democrat? What do they stand for? They will not really be able to give you a clear answer âŠâ
A meaningful exchange.
âŠ
Okay. Letâs tie our thoughts together.
We need both conservative and progressive ideas to attempt to achieve the goals outlined in the Constitution.
Conservatives have not wavered in their commitment to personal responsibility. They believe workers are responsible for their own wages. They oppose unfunded federal mandates. They support business profitability, recognizing the challenges of balancing profitability and survival.
Now for progressives. While both parties can have progressives, Democrats lean that way more often.
SoâŠto answer AOCâs questionâŠwhat do progressives stand for?
Working-class Americans no longer see a strong group of progressives fighting on their behalf. Progressives face a crisis of identity. They have become the party of government, not the party of the people. Leaders like AOC openly acknowledge this gap.
Letâs ask again. Who is the Champion of âWe, the People?â
Do Progressives Believe in the People?
There are two points to be made here.
The first is a fundamental truth in life. Never reinforce your shaping effortâfocus everything on the decisive action that brings real change. Save and expend all your resources, or as many as possible, towards your decisive effort.
For progressives, this means fighting against conservatives is a waste of time and resources. Political battles for the sake of winning political theater donât serve the American people. In the fleeting moments when progressives have both the public will and the political consensus to create meaningful change, every ounce of decisive effort must be spent on delivering tangible results. Wasting that energy on ideological fights, political purity tests, or symbolic victories only kills progress for those who need it most.
Progressives need to fight for the people, not against conservatives. Every moment spent trying to score points against the opposition is a moment not spent improving wages, expanding opportunity for kids who live in projects or leaky trailers, or securing a better future for working Americans. If progressives are serious about governance, their singular focus must be delivering real, lasting benefits to the people they claim to represent. Anything less is a waste of precious time and resources.
The second point is even more fundamental: the point of government is not government.
Government does not exist to serve itself. It is not meant to perpetuate its own power or sustain bureaucratic inertia. The entire premise of American governance is that it is of, by, and for the people. That means every policy, every law, and every decision should be measured against a simple standard: Does this advance American interests toward achieving one of our six goals for the American people?
Progressives lose sight of this. Their attention drifts to prioritizing expanded government authority or making governance easier over empowering individuals. They allow their focus to change toward maintaining political control instead of achieving progress for working-class America. This breaks the trust of the people they claim to serve.
So the question remains: Do progressives believe in the people? If they do, then their path is clear. They must fight for them, not against their political opponents. They must use government as a tool to uplift Americans, not as a means to sustain itself. And they must never forget that political victory is not a measure of success. Itâs measured by the prosperity of the working-class people they serve.
Many of us are both conservatives and progressives. We strive to conserve the institution that is the American ideal. And we believe in progress toward achieving our national goals for the American people.
Because we are both conservatives and progressives, we can reword our takeaways to make them more relevant.
Both conservative and progressive principles are essential for effective governance. Without both sets of principles, we cannot achieve Americaâs goals.
Relying only on conservative principles threatens justice. Relying only on progressive values threatens order.
The point of government is not government. Political victory is not a measure of success.
We measure our success by the prosperity of the working-class people we serve.
We gauge progress by whether our decisive efforts move America closer to achieving its six national goals.
May God bless the United States of America.
Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe -
I love hearing from listeners and readers. While I donât always respond with a dedicated piece, I genuinely appreciate the feedback and seriously consider the questions.
This week, John left a comment at Substack on Reward Work, Build Opportunity:
"Perhaps, instead of waiting for Washington D.C. to work for us, those with skills needed to stimulate the economy and create new jobs could work together."
I love the comment. It challenges the premise that âWe, the People,â have a collective mandate to organize and address inequality. It reflects frustration with our elected officialsâ inability to fulfill their Constitutional duty. But more than that, it suggests a belief that we can make America betterâeven without complete consensus.
So! ⊠Letâs explore it.
Capitalism
The heart of Johnâs comment gets into capitalism as our foundational economic system. The fundamental truth of capitalism is best illustrated by a 1776 quote from Scottish Economist and Philosopher Adam Smith:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
In a capitalist system, private citizens control property and act in their self-interest to gain economic prosperity.
Capitalism drives significant economic growth and innovation. It undeniably demonstrates the ability to drive progress and meet consumer demand. Supported by order and defense, capitalism is the foundation of Americaâs high standard of living.
Letâs consider a series of questions as an example of this exceedingly high standard of living. How many of us put milk or cream in our coffee or butter on our toast this morning? How many of us woke up at four to milk the cow and churn the butter? After months or years working on a dairy, you will never take cream or butter for granted. Our national abundance of butter comes from capitalism.
Our butter example highlights one of capitalismâs great strengths: its ability to pool individual effort into a system that delivers abundance for others. Producers work to meet consumer demand in ways that create economic growth and improve living standards for everyone. As Johnâs comment suggests, collaboration within this frameworkâthrough competition, business partnerships, innovation, or shared effortâ creates even more opportunity.
A capitalist system aims to enable individuals to act in their self-interest. Its successâeconomic growth, innovation, and increased living standardsâmotivates us to keep it as the foundational economic system.
A Simplified Premise
Letâs pose a simplified premise: inside this capitalist system, there are business owners (such as corporations, small businesses, etc.), and there are individual workers.
Businesses are solely responsible to their shareholders. They focus on profit and maximizing business value within legal and ethical limits. Diverting resources away from profit involves using othersâ moneyâshareholders, employees, or customersâwithout their consent.
Some criticize this focus on profit, but it serves a vital role in a capitalist system. Profits enable businesses to reinvest, innovate, expand, and create more opportunities for workers and consumers. Without this commitment to profitability, businesses fail, jobs disappear, and economic progress stalls. In essence, by focusing on their bottom line, businesses indirectly contribute to the broader economy. Profits are what remains from revenue after expenses, taxes, and costs.
Worker pay is a component of revenue. Businesses generate revenue by selling goods or services, using part to pay wages among other expenses. They also invest in infrastructure, technology, taxes, raw materials, manufacturing, logistics, and research and development.
In sum, high worker pay reduces profitability and threatens business viability, especially in lean years. Therefore, acting in their self-interest, businesses seek to cut wages to maximize profits.
Letâs keep pulling on this thread. In this simplified system, individual workers command higher pay by raising their value. Workers seeking to raise their value need to change their position on the âSupply and Demandâ scale.
In simple systems, supply and demand explain free market prices. Supply refers to how much of a product or service is available, and demand is how much people want it. This applies to wages, too. Supply represents the number of workers available with the skills needed for a particular job, and demand represents how many employers compete for those skills.
For example, consider a dishwasher. Itâs easy to find people capable of washing dishes, though maybe not easy to find someone willing to do so. The perceived value of the job remains low because the skill level required is minimal, and employers can usually find enough workers to fill the gap.
On the other hand, consider a computer engineer. Itâs harder to find someone who can do the job because the skills required are specialized and take training, education, and time to develop. The limited supply of qualified engineers, coupled with the high demand for their expertise, drives their wages higher. Employers in this scenario must compete more aggressively for skilled talent. This competition means they offer higher pay and better benefits to attract the best candidates.
This back-and-forth illustrates why raising worker value is vital to supporting both workers and businesses. Workers who invest in learning new skills, gaining certifications, or entering high-demand fields improve their position on the supply-demand scale. They move into roles where their skills are scarce, making them more valuable to employers. As a result, they command higher wages. Businesses leverage their increased value to innovate and grow revenue, which supports paying higher wages.
Now that we have a common understanding of these basics letâs return to Johnâs comment. His suggestion touches on the idea that workers, business owners, and communities can collaborate within this system to raise worker value and create opportunities that benefit everyone.
Stimulate the Economy and Create Jobs
John suggests we work together through our capitalist system to create higher-paying jobs. In a non-regulated free market economy, this means raising worker value so businesses can innovate and grow revenue. As businesses grow, this revenue allows workers to command higher wages in the market.
Working together to raise worker value without taxpayer dollars or regulation likely involves creating a non-profit organization that would enhance the professional development of young workers. This organization could become a collaboration hub where businesses, educators, and communities work toward a shared goal of preparing local workers with in-demand skills.
This non-profit organization would establish a vision, mission, task, and purpose. Funding would come from private sourcesâparticularly businesses needing a more skilled workforce. Local businesses would be instrumental in shaping the training programs, ensuring they align with actual market needs. With these resources, the organization could develop educational and training materials tailored to young individuals with no education and training beyond high school. These workers, equipped with quality skills, would enter businesses ready to innovate, boost productivity, and generate revenue. In turn, they could command higher wages, benefiting both themselves and the broader economy.
This organization would need to track results, such as job placements, wage increases, and productivity gains, to ensure its programs remain effective and relevant.
Of course, there would be severe challenges. Securing funding, maintaining a relevant curriculum, and scaling the program require focus and determination. But with the right partnerships and a clear purpose, itâs possible. Businesses, workers, and communities would need to come together, but the potential payoff of a more skilled workforce and a stronger economy is worth the effort.
It wouldnât be easy, but it would provide businesses and individuals with a solution that works within our capitalist system. And it supports Johnâs idea of taking ownership of our shared future instead of waiting for the government to act.
âŠ
In the meantime, we are spending the American peopleâs money to support society as a result of low wages. Half of American working families needing social program support is wildly excessive. Because businesses exist to achieve profitability, they seek to cut wages to maximize profits. Building consensus to reduce inequality through regulation is necessary and must continue.
Build ConsensusâŠ
Changing culture is hard. It takes dedicated and sustained effort.
A part of realigning our culture with the American ideal is building consensus.
Building consensus involves developing messages that resonate broadly across diverse populations, reminding us of our shared goals and the principles that unite us.
If we are to orient our perspective towards the goals that are America, we have to use our decisive effort to achieve our goals. It could take ten or more years.
So! ⊠In the meantime, we focus on these guiding principles: Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty.
We conserve the institution that is our Constitutional democratic Republic.
We progress toward the opportunity for all Americans to be born from nothing and achieve greatness.
May God bless the United States of America.
Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe -
We often hear that land doesnât vote; people do.
How about a different perspective?
Land doesnât have rights, but land endows rights.
What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?
We often hear that âland doesnât vote; people do.â This phrase highlights the humanity of our democratic republic. The adage emphasizes rights of the individual and the collective power of the electorate to shape governance and policy. But, the viewpoint oversimplifies the intertwined relationship between people and the soil.
Land doesnât have rights, but land endows rights. Geographical boundaries and birthplaces shape individual rights, demonstrating the enduring influence of the land on our legal and societal frameworks.
The Latin Jus soli, or the right of the soil, is a cornerstone of our legal and societal frameworks. It grants individuals a national identity rooted in their birthplace.
Our Constitution establishes rights granted to all Americans by the soil, including rights of citizenship, representation, and national service.
This connection between land and individual rights becomes especially clear when we consider the legal foundations of citizenship in America. Citizenshipâs roots grow into this concept of the soil.
Citizenship
Citizenship in America is founded on jus soli, the right of the soil, and jus sanguinis, the right of blood. The right of the soil carries into the right of blood.
Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1870 to Wee Lee and Wong Si Ping. The couple were not American citizens and had no path to citizenship; they returned to China when Wong was eight.
In August 1895, at the age of 24, Wong made a return trip to San Francisco with papers certifying his identity and legal standing as a citizen born on American soil. US customs official John H. Wise denied Wongâs entry on the grounds of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the 1880 Angell Treaty between the US and Qing Dynasty China, which recognized Americaâs ability to restrict Chinese immigration. Wise ordered Wong deported.
Wong appealed the decision and remained on shipping vessels for several months off the coast of California. In 1897, the US Supreme Court heard his case. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the court found Wong to be an American citizen on the grounds of the 14th Amendmentâs first clause: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
During deliberation, the court found Wong was born in the US. Further, though his parents were subjects to the Emperor of China, they were not âemployed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.â The court affirmed that Wong was subject to US jurisdiction at birth and thus a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark upheld the principle of the right of the soil for determining citizenship. It firmly clarified that children born in America to foreign citizens are US citizens, even if their parents have no allegiance to America. The Supreme Court's decision established a broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It ensured that the vast majority of children born on American soil are entitled to citizenship, regardless of their parents' nationality. Though the fight for equal treatment of Asian Americans continued well past Mr. Wong, this ruling has had a lasting impact on immigration and citizenship policies.
Jus soli grants citizenship to all born on US soil and carries through blood. The right of blood extends the right of citizenship across borders, allowing children born abroad to American citizens to inherit their citizenship. This dual foundation reflects a comprehensive understanding of national belongingârights rooted in the physical land of America that reach through the blood to extend the inalienable rights to those born to American parents worldwide.
Just as jus soli grants citizenship, it also confers the right to participate in our democratic republic. This extension of rights from the land empowers us as participants in the national discourse.
Representation
The 14th Amendment is not the earliest affirmation of the right of the soil in the Constitution. The first reference to the premise that soil endows citizens with rights is earlier than even the Bill of Rights.
Specifically, Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution identifies, âEach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the CongressâŠâ
This section was later amended by the 12th Amendment after some drama in the 1796 and 1800 elections. It forms the basis of the Electoral College, which grants individuals the right to representation in national elections. By ensuring that residents' votes in each state contribute to the national outcome of presidential elections, the Electoral College grants them a meaningful role in the democratic process.
The Constitution achieves this by guaranteeing that every state has a certain number of electors, regardless of population. This system grants "rights" or influence to regions, paralleling how jus soli grants citizenship rights to individuals born on US soil.
Just as the right of the soil grants citizenship, it also guarantees that each geographic state has a say in national elections. Because land doesnât vote, the Constitution extends this guarantee to the voters in each state.
âLand doesnât vote; people doâ is a misconception. The statement overlooks how the Electoral College system carefully balances geographic diversity and population. The system allocates votes in a manner that accounts for geographic distribution, thereby preventing larger population states from completely dominating national elections. It also supports the underlying principle of our democratic republicâevery vote is an expression of an individual's choice, and all states have a voice in national elections.
In short, land doesnât bestow on Americans the right to vote; it grants people from each state influence in national elections, no matter how small the state. Elected representatives from all states ratified both the US Constitution and the 12th Amendment. Therefore, every American agreed with the premise that each state has a voice in national elections.
The influence of land on rights extends into the highest offices of national service, reinforcing the critical role that birthplace plays in determining who may lead the nation.
National Service
Serving the nation in any capacity is a privilege. Serving in the highest office is a privilege only available to those who are endowed with the right of the soil.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution states, âNo Person except a natural born CitizenâŠshall be eligible to the Office of President.â If you werenât born on US soil or with the right of the soil carried into the right of blood, you are ineligible for the nationâs highest office.
The founders included the natural-born citizen requirement to ensure the President would have the deep-rooted allegiance to the United States that only the right of the soil bestows. They believed the requirement would reduce the risk of foreign governments having control over the nation.
Eight Presidents had parents, or both parents, who were not born on US soil. They range from Andrew Jackson, whose parents were both immigrants, to Donald Trump, whose mother was an immigrant. But all Presidents have been natural-born citizens, either born on US soil or to US citizens abroad in an official capacity.
National service is a distinguished honor, especially when it involves leading the country. Only those granted citizenship by the right of the soil or the right of the soil through the blood are eligible. This precedent safeguards the presidency from foreign influence, ensuring the President's loyalty lies firmly with America.
Now for our question: What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?
Birthright citizenship isnât a legal formality. Itâs a fundamental cornerstone of American democracy and identity. It ensures that every person born on American soil is a part of the nation's fabric, endowed with the rights and responsibilities that fortify our collective future. Overturning the precedent would lead to a future where many are isolated, disenfranchised, and alienated from the civic body.
Attempting to repeal birthright citizenship would disregard the strong precedent that allegiance to America is gained through the right of the soil.
Some argue that we should repeal birthright citizenship to preserve national identity and ensure we grant citizenship only to those with a provable connection to the United States. But national identity and unity come from commitment to the American ideal, not from repealing birthright citizenship.
Some argue for the repeal of birthright citizenship because children of non-citizens place an undue economic burden on American taxpayers. They cite the costs of public education, healthcare, and other social services. This perspective overlooks the long-term economic contributions of immigrants and their children, who stay in America for generations.
Finally, proponents of repealing birthright citizenship argue it would enhance national security and more effectively control immigration. In fact, it would lead to stateless individuals inside the country, creating a marginalized group that's more vulnerable to radicalization and exploitation. Individuals born on American soil have a clear and immediate stake in the country's future, promoting societal integration and cohesion.
Throughout our discussion, from citizenship to national representation and service, we see a consistent theme: soil bestows rights on Americans.
Our Constitution firmly establishes that we are tied to the soil and the soil through blood. Birthright citizenship is crucial for American identity and the health of our democratic republic.
The Constitution grants individuals rights of citizenship, representation, and national service based on the soil. These rights underscore the importance of soilâwhether a specific place of one's birth or the geographic boundaries of statesâin defining what it means to be American.
National identity and unity come from shared values and commitments to the American ideal.
What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?
Attempting to repeal birthright citizenship would disregard the strong precedent the Constitution establishes: namely, jus soli imprints allegiance on Americans.
May God bless the United States of America.
Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe -
Last week, David Leonhardt, writing for the New York Times, questioned whether any of President Bidenâs legacy would endure. Most Americans view his term unfavorably. Parties with one-term presidents often see those presidencies as failures and shift their focus to the future. However, Leonhardt highlighted one aspect of Bidenâs agenda that may leave a lasting mark. This is the idea that âthe federal government should take a more active role in both assisting and regulating the private sector than it did for much of the previous half-century.â
President Biden is not alone in his assessment. Both parties agree to some extent that unfettered free market globalization is not in Americaâs best interest. Similar to an approach used in the Gilded Age, President Trump intends to influence the global economic system through tariffs.
In his farewell address from the Oval Office, President Biden said, âToday, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracyâŠWeâve seen it before, more than a century ago, but the American people stood up to the robber barons back then.â
Bidenâs use of the term ârobber baronsâ is a reference to a phrase from the late 19th century, when Mark Twainâs The Gilded Age gave that period its name. From the 1870s to the early 1900s, the Gilded Age saw rapid industrialization, economic growth, glaring inequality, and societal transformation. It was also a time of innovation. From the birth of America to 1870, the US Patent Office granted 40,000 patents. By 1900, that number exploded tenfold. The countryâs population nearly doubled in those 30 years from immigrants flooding into the nation to work in the factories. During this era, industrial magnates like Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, and Stanford amassed immense wealth. Twain satirized their greed and the corruption that defined Americaâs elite.
As the country experiences rapid digital transformation and robust economic growth, parallels to the Gilded Age are hard to ignore. Unlike then, wealth is concentrated in corporations rather than individuals and families. Like in the Gilded Age, many American families are left behind. Inefficient social programs that did not exist in the Gilded Age prop up society, but these programs come at the cost of unprecedented national debt. Without them, unrest would mirror the turmoil of the Gilded Age.
Leonhardt observed that the emerging idea of a more active federal role in regulating the private sector still lacks a name. Scholars and policymakers have referred to it as the âend of the neoliberal order,â âa new economics,â or âa new centrism.â
He makes a strong point. America has faced at least two significant periods of inequality before. In both instances, unifying messages helped Americans rise to the challenge. But before considering names, itâs worth breaking this idea into two fundamental questions.
First, do Americans have a mandate to address inequality?
Second, if Americans have a mandate and decide to act, what simple message could unite the nation and drive change?
Letâs start by considering the first question. Should Americans choose to address inequality?
Should America Address Inequality?
Businesses have no responsibility to address social inequality. None. Businesses have responsibilities only to their business and their shareholders. Diverting effort away from generating profit is using someone elseâs moneyâshareholders, employees, or customersâfor purposes they did not agree to. A businessâs primary responsibility is to increase profits, and corporate executives should focus solely on maximizing shareholder value within legal and ethical boundaries. Any effort toward social justice is outside a businessâs fundamental responsibility unless it directly contributes to profitability. While some businesses voluntarily pursue social initiatives, their fundamental legal responsibility is to maximize shareholder value.
Therefore, arguments claiming that businesses should pay higher wages to address social inequality are flawed, as businesses have no inherent responsibility to resolve societal issues. Declaring that an individual or group âshouldâ do something for which they have no responsibility (and therefore, no requirement) means they will do exactly what they are required to do. In this case, exactly nothing.
SoâŠif businesses are not responsible for paying livable wages and can find workers willing to accept poverty-level pay, they have little incentive to raise wages voluntarily.
To continue this argument, we need to note that Americans can earn money from two sources: their work, or their fellow taxpayers in the form of the government. Because Americans get money from both sources, this leaves the government to address the shortfall in wages.
Through social programs, Congress spends the American peopleâs money to support society as a result of low wages. These social programs, subsidies, and incentives are supported by taxes collected from the American people. And our elected representatives certainly have the requirement to spend taxpayer money responsibly.
The basis of this requirement is found in Constitutional provisions that include the Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8), which directs Congress to allocate funds for defense and general welfare. It is further found in the Appropriations Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 7), which mandates transparency and accountability in public expenditures. Additionally, federal laws like the Antideficiency Act prohibit spending beyond appropriations, underscoring the Congressional duty to ensure fiscal discipline.
Thereâs another fascinating wrinkle here.
In United States v. Butler (1936), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the authority to spend money for the âgeneral welfareâ under the Spending Clause but that the Constitution limits that authority. This spending must serve the common good, not specific groups or industries. Subsidizing low wages with public funds serves business interests but not the American people as a whole.
Spending on social programs to help those who arenât able to work supports American society by promoting order and tranquility. But half of American working families needing social program support is wildly excessive and points to low wages as a root cause problem.
The burden of wages has shifted from employers to taxpayers, violating the principle that public spending should benefit the nation as a whole.
We, the People, must meet the Constitutional standard to promote the general welfare. Therefore, Congress must act to reduce reliance on social programs by addressing systemic wage issues. Failure to do so violates Constitutional principles and harms the American public.
âŠ
In short, we can answer our first question.
Do Americans have a mandate to address inequality?
Yes, Americans and our elected representatives have a Constitutional and legal mandate to address inequality. Failure to minimize spending on taxpayer-funded social programs benefits only special business interests, not the American people as a whole. This violates the Constitution. Therefore, we are mandated to take an active federal role in regulating the private sector.
Now, letâs recall our second question.
If Americans have a mandate and decide to act, what simple message could unite the nation and drive change?
History shows that when America faced inequality in the past, it found its way through unity and purpose. To understand how this was achieved, letâs turn to our nationâs first period of radical inequality and the leadership of Abraham Lincoln.
Lincolnâs Legacy
Abraham Lincoln led the nation through its first great reckoning with radical inequality. The divide between free labor in the North and enslaved labor in the South symbolized a moral and economic conflict.
This divide was too great for Lincoln to tolerate. As a lawyer, he was known for clear reasoning and ability to simplify complex issues. In an 1862 draft titled Meditation on the Divine Will, he wrote that âGod can not be for and against the same thing at the same time.â Lincoln sought to preserve the union, the first national goal outlined in our Constitution. The union could not sustain itself half-slave and half-free; it had to be one or the other.
This question defined Lincolnâs leadership. In a nation of free men and enslaved men, who had the right to the fruits of their labor?
In his Fragments of a Tariff Discussion (1847), Lincoln articulated his economic philosophy. He referenced the biblical phrase, âIn the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,â to emphasize the dignity of labor and the moral imperative that workers should benefit from their toil. Later in his 1861 Annual Message to Congress, he outlined more specifically that âLabor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.â
Further, in Fragments, Lincoln wrote that a âmost worthy object of any good governmentâ is to ensure that âeach laborer (receives) the whole product of his labor, or as nearly as possible.â This belief tied directly to his fight against slavery as both a moral and economic injustice that denied millions of people their rightful share of the wealth they created.
Critics often downplay Lincolnâs connection to labor rights. They argue that he focused narrowly on preserving the Union or that the Civil War was not fundamentally about slavery. Luckily, Lincoln was a prolific writer who preserved his thoughts in ink. His views on labor were intertwined with his opposition to slavery. He believed that the right to benefit from oneâs work was essential to a just and prosperous society.
Lincolnâs leadership was guided by principles that resonate as mantras even today.
âA house divided against itself cannot standâ captured his conviction that the nationâs survival depended on resolving the division between free and enslaved labor.
The Gettysburg Addressâs âGovernment of the people, by the people, for the peopleâ reaffirmed his belief in the republicâs role to enable the opportunity of Americans of any station of birth to benefit from their work.
As we confront modern inequality, we consider Lincolnâs legacy. He faced an economic system that denied millions of workers their fundamental rights. His vision of fairness in labor was twofold: First, each person has the right to benefit from their work, and second, âWe, the People,â must protect that right. These principles remain as vital today as they did during the Civil War.
The second national period of severe inequality was the Gilded Age. Several individuals led the nation through this more prolonged period, but Teddy Roosevelt left a decisive impact.
Teddy Rooseveltâs Legacy
President Theodore Rooseveltâs legacy is that for any one of us to be great, we all need to be able to be great. The primary source of our welfare is our work. The welfare of each of us depends on the welfare of all of us.
Teddy Roosevelt stepped forward during the Gilded Age to confront the entrenched power of industrial elites and champion the ability of individual Americans to be great. By Rooseveltâs time, the wealth and influence of ârobber baronsâ like Rockefeller and Carnegie had reached unprecedented heights. They left millions of workers behind for a system that favored the few over the many. Roosevelt saw this disparity as a barrier to the greatness of the American people.
Rooseveltâs presidency is best remembered for his bold actions against corporate monopolies. As the âtrust-buster,â he challenged the power of industrial giants, using the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to dismantle monopolies like Northern Securities and to regulate companies like Standard Oil. His actions conveyed that no individual or corporation was above the law. Roosevelt understood that unchecked corporate power created inequality and stifled opportunity, making it impossible for the average person to succeed and thrive.
Roosevelt didnât believe that the governmentâs role was to tear down booming businesses or level the playing field. He believed that the government should give every individual a âSquare Deal,â or fair chance, to be great. A core premise of his administration was that the government needed to actively intervene on behalf of the general public to ensure economic opportunity for all.
Rooseveltâs mantras reflect these principles.
âFar and away, the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing,â reflected his belief that fulfillment, purpose, and personal greatness are achieved through dedication to meaningful effort.
âThe welfare of each of us depends on the welfare of all of usâ embodied Rooseveltâs vision of a society where every individual, regardless of birth or background, had a fair chance to succeed. In this society, the government had a duty to protect the rights of workers, promote fair competition, and ensure access to opportunity.
Rooseveltâs legacy reminds us of the importance of empowering individuals to be great. Greatness is a product of good work and a fair share of the profits from that work. Greatness is a collective pursuit. His presidency was a testament to the idea that everyone deserves a square deal to live, work, and achieve.
âŠ
Now we can address our second question.
If Americans have a mandate and decide to act, what simple message could unite the nation and drive change?
A New Economics: Reward Work, Build Opportunity
Lincoln faced a nation divided by slavery and inequality, but he never wavered in his belief that every worker deserved the fruits of their labor. Roosevelt fought against monopolies to ensure that individual Americans had a fair chance to succeed.
Both great leaders focused their decisive effort on enabling Americans from any station of birth to reap the value of their work.
They had two simple messages.
First, the messages âA house divided against itself cannot standâ and âFar and away, the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doingâ share a common theme. The survival of the nation relies on Americans finding fulfillment and purpose through meaningful work and having the right to bring the fruits of their labor home to their families.
Second, the messages âGovernment of the people, by the people, for the peopleâ and âThe welfare of each of us depends on the welfare of all of usâ emphasize the governmentâs duty to safeguard that right and ensure opportunity for all Americans, regardless of their station of birth.
These simple messages illuminate the fundamental human truth that fulfillment comes from enjoying our work and eating and drinking with those we love.
With these truths in mind, we can answer our second question.
If Americans have a mandate and decide to act, what simple message could unite the nation and drive change?
âA New Economics: Reward Work, Build Opportunityâ is a good starting point.
May God bless the United States of America.
Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe -
Should America take economic control of Greenland? Both the Prime Minister of Denmarkâwho oversees Greenlandâs foreign affairsâand the Prime Minister of Greenland have repeatedly said that the territory is not for sale and have rejected the idea of annexation.
But American interest in Greenland has already had its intended effect. Forbes reported that Denmark is âopen to a dialogue with the Americans on how we can cooperate, possibly even more closely than we already do, to ensure that American ambitions are fulfilled.â
Even if America taking economic control of Greenland seems imperialistic, rephrasing the question reframes the stakes. As in, we might ask the exact same question but with different wording.
Should China have access to rare earth elements in Greenland?
The shift in wording highlights Greenlandâs role in great power competition and underscores the strategic value of its location and resources. Letâs kick our mental exercise off by considering Greenlandâs significance on the world stage.
Greenlandâs Strategic Value
Greenlandâs strategic value has evolved over centuries, shaped by its unique location and resources. In 1721, Danish-Norwegian missionary Hans Egede led an expedition to Greenland to search for descendants of vanished Norse settlers. While Egede did not find the Norse, he established the settlement of Nuuk, which later became Greenlandâs capital and marked the start of Danish-Norwegian rule. Over time, Denmark-Norway expanded its control. It established trading posts and integrated Greenland into the European mercantile system. After Denmark-Norway split in 1814, Greenland remained under Danish control.
Greenlandâs modern strategic importance emerged during World War II when the US agreed to protect the island after Germany occupied Denmark. The US established military bases that served as critical waypoints for transatlantic flights, weather stations for Allied operations, and a source of cryolite, a key catalyst for aluminum production. During the Cold War, Greenlandâs pivotal Arctic location became essential for monitoring Soviet activity and hosting early warning radar systems.
In 1953, Denmark ended Greenlandâs colonial status and incorporated it into the kingdom. This granted its citizens representation in the Danish parliament and access to national welfare programs. Greenland achieved home rule in 1979, gaining control over its internal affairs. In 2009, it gained further autonomy, including authority over resources and justice, while Denmark retained control over foreign policy and defense.
As climate change opens new shipping routes and enhances resource accessibility, Greenlandâs economic and geopolitical significance grows. Greenlandâs vast reserves of rare earth elements and strategic Arctic location make it a focal point for global competition.
Rare Earth Elements
Greenland has some of the worldâs biggest stores of rare earth elements (REE), known by unfamiliar names such as neodymium, dysprosium, and praseodymium. These elements are essential for producing wind turbines, electric vehicle motors, and military equipment.
Despite their name, REEs are relatively common in Earthâs crust. However, their distribution and extraction present a mining challenge. REEs are rarely found in concentrated, profitable, mineable deposits. Instead, they are typically dispersed across vast areas, mixed with other elements. Due to their chemical similarity, extracting and refining them is complex and costly. Greenlandâs reserves are especially valuable because they are believed to exist in relatively high concentrations, making them potentially more economical to extract than deposits found elsewhere.
Greenlandâs untapped resources would allow Western nations to diversify their supply chains, reducing their dependence on China, which dominates the global REE market.
China controls approximately 90% of global rare earth production. Approximately 80% of the REEs used domestically in the US are imported from China. This dominance is due to its vast reserves, advanced refining infrastructure, and government policies prioritizing REE production as a strategic industry.
Chinaâs near monopoly gives it significant leverage in geopolitical and economic arenas. Rare earth elements are critical for manufacturing everything from smartphones and renewable energy technologies to advanced military systems. This dependence poses a strategic vulnerability for Western nations, as disruptions to Chinaâs supplyâfrom trade disputes, export restrictions, or internal policy changesâcould severely impact key industries. Even if Chinese companies wanted to negotiate business arrangements in good faith, the Chinese government controls all private businesses in China at its whim.
Greenlandâs potential to become an alternative source of REEs represents an opportunity to mitigate this risk and secure a more stable and diversified supply chain for these critical materials.
However, rare earth elements are only part of Greenlandâs strategic significance. Because of its strategic Arctic location, Greenland is a focal point for global competitors.
Strategic Arctic Location
Because we tend to look at flat maps rather than globes, itâs easy to overlook that the Earth is round and the shortest path from America to Europe lies over the Arctic. For example, the distance from Los Angeles to Paris, France, is approximately 5,700 miles over the Arctic and 8,300 miles through the Panama Canal.
These Arctic routes follow what mathematicians even before the time of Columbus called the Great Circle Route. This Great Circle Route is the shortest path between two points on the Earthâs surface. From North America, it typically passes near or over regions like Greenland and the Arctic, depending on specific flight or shipping planning considerations.
Although the distance difference may not seem significant, even small reductions in distance can translate to significant savings in time, fuel, and emissions. Arctic routes offer the potential for more efficient transit between major markets in North America, Europe, and Asia, bypassing clogged routes through the Panama or Suez Canal. Greenlandâs strategic location along these potential routes underscores its importance in shipping, aviation, trade, and defense logistics.
Of course, the Arctic has other transit challenges. Itâs cold. Historically, extreme Arctic cold and thick ice made navigation treacherous. Shipping lanes like the Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route were largely impassable for most of the year. But itâs less cold now, and previously unavailable shipping routes are opening.
This accessibility extends beyond shipping routes. The retreating ice uncovers untapped natural resources, including oil, gas, and rare earth element reserves. This new territory is fueling a modern scramble for control over the Arctic.
The US has long viewed the Arctic as a critical defense and economic security frontier. Military bases like Thule in Greenland and several in Alaska cement our commitment.
Meanwhile, China aggressively seeks influence. In 2018, It declared itself a ânear-Arctic stateâ and incorporated Arctic development into its Belt and Road Initiative, the Polar Silk Road. Chinaâs motives are clear. Shipping from China to Europe through the Suez Canal in Egypt takes 48 days and only 24 days by way of the Northeast Passage through the Arctic.
In response, US leaders drew firm lines. In 2019, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated, âThere are only Arctic states and non-Arctic statesâŠNo third category exists â and claiming otherwise entitles China to exactly nothing.â
Ultimately, new shipping lanes and resource opportunities have turned the Arctic into a strategic chessboard. Control over Greenland and other key locations could shift the balance of global influence. America cannot yield its position in this great power competition. If we cede influence under the guise of fairness, rival nations will not return the favor. America must act alone and with partner nations to create favorable global conditions and ensure freedom of action and influence for the American people and our allies.
The strategic necessity of great power competition and the Constitution compels us to protect national interests.
Great Power Competition
Nations have no choice but to ensure their survival and protect their interests. If they do not, or cannot, protect their interests, their competitors will not cede them prosperity. The absence of a world government creates a globally competitive environment that compels states to prioritize their security, interests, and the stability of their strategic alliances.
In this anarchic international order, nations act in their own interest. They make choices that maximize their benefit and strengthâeven at the expense of others. We form coalitions and partnerships as strategic efforts to enhance our power, stability, and influence. Preserving our business interests requires denying competitors the same advantages we seek, which ensures a favorable position in the global hierarchy.
This competitive reality is on full display in the Arctic. The US, Russia, and China are vying for control of a region where melting ice has opened new shipping lanes and exposed previously buried resources. The Arctic is a critical arena for global rivalry. The security and prosperity of the American people and our allies require independent action and strategic partnerships to shape favorable conditions. These efforts are essential to maintaining freedom of action and influence in this rapidly evolving region.
From Americaâs perspective, this imperative aligns with Constitutional guiding principles. The Constitution does not explicitly state that maintaining favorable business conditions is a federal responsibility; however, specific provisions inherently support this objective.
The Commerce Clause (in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) grants Congress the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, ensure economic stability, and facilitate commerce. However, the Clause does not grant Congress the power to regulate trade under conditions that do not benefit the American people. An implied mandate in regulating trade, ensuring economic stability, and facilitating commerce is to achieve these conditions under favorable terms.
Further, if the Commerce Clause isnât sufficient to achieve commerce under favorable terms, the Constitution grants Congress the authority to raise and support armies (in Article I, Section 8, Clause 12). Nations that can establish favorable international conditions attract international investment, promote trade, and create new economic opportunities. Defense and the economy are interconnected. Economic power sustains defense, while defense safeguards markets and secures supply chains.
Now for our Question
Should America take economic control of Greenland?
Letâs rephrase the question to reframe the stakes.
Should China have access to rare earth elements in Greenland?
Letâs review some key points.
Greenlandâs Arctic location makes it indispensable for trade, defense, and global influence.
The United States and Greenland have a longstanding and cooperative partnership.
Chinaâs dominance in rare earth production presents a strategic vulnerability for America; Greenlandâs resources offer a solution.
Climate change is unlocking Arctic shipping lanes and revealing untapped resources. Greenlandâs strategic position along Arctic trade routes and the Great Circle Route solidifies its role as a vital hub for global shipping, aviation, and defense operations.
Safeguarding influence in Greenland is crucial for creating favorable conditions for the American people and our allies while preserving freedom of action and influence in the Arctic. This reflects the strategic necessity of great power competition and the Constitutional duty to protect national interests.
Securing our position under favorable terms requires denying our competitors those advantages. Therefore, we must actively prevent Chinese access to Greenland and other Arctic regions under the control of America and our allies.
Should the United States take control of Greenland by military force? Absolutely not. Denmark is a steadfast ally and a NATO member. Instead, we should pursue a collaborative arrangement that benefits Denmark and America, strengthening our partnership and mutual interests.
May God bless the United States of America.
Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe -
H-1B visas have been an item of hot discussion lately. On New Yearâs Day, Newsweek detailed, âAt the end of December a bitter row broke out within Trumpâs MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement over H-1B visas, pitting business figures such as Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy who believe they boost the U.S. economy against more nativist elements who think they harm American workers. And, speaking to The New York Post on December 28 Trump defended H-1B visas.â
This recent debate reveals a deeper question: Why are we still relying on this program after more than 30 years? Is the H-1B visa program solving Americaâs workforce challengesâor masking our failure to address them?
âŠ
An H-1B visa is a nonimmigrant visa issued by the United States. Nonimmigrant visas apply to individuals wishing to enter the US temporarily. Reasons for entry might include business, temporary work, study, or other reasons.
H-1Bs allow foreign workers to work in specialty occupations in the US for up to six years, with some opportunity to change that six years to permanent residence. Employers that sponsor H-1B holders need specialized knowledge and typically require a bachelorâs degree or equivalent in a relevant field. Common industries employing H-1B workers include technology, engineering, finance, healthcare, and education.
The US Department of Labor says H-1Bs âhelp employers who cannot otherwise obtain needed business skills and abilities from the U.S. workforce by authorizing the temporary employment of qualified individuals who are not otherwise authorized to work in the United States.â
Proponents and Opponents
Proponents argue that we should expand the number of visas and skilled immigrant workers. They argue that the program is essential to maintaining Americaâs competitive edge in a global economy, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. They highlight how skilled foreign workers contribute to innovation, job creation, and economic growth. They note that H-1B visa holders bring expertise in short supply domestically.
They cite studies that find more H-1B workers in an occupation correlate with lower unemployment. That stricter H-1B policies lead US multinational companies to cut domestic jobs while expanding foreign operations, especially in India, China, and Canada. That higher H-1B approval rates lead to more patents, increased patent citations, greater venture capital funding, and higher success rates for IPOs and acquisitions.
Opponents argue the program negatively impacts US workers by depressing wages and reducing job opportunities. They claim some employers exploit the system to hire foreign workers at lower wages, bypassing qualified domestic candidates. Critics point to instances of fraud and abuse, where companies misuse the program to outsource jobs or replace existing American employees.
Opponents further see the program as a failure to invest in the domestic workforce through training and education. They argue that we need to shift our main effort toward equipping US workers with the skills needed for high-demand fields rather than relying on foreign labor.
Now, for our question: So, why do we need more H-1B visas? Or do we?
Bipartisan Immigration Efforts in the 1990s
President George H.W. Bush (Republican) signed the Immigration Act of 1990 into law on November 29, 1990. The bill represented the most comprehensive reform of US immigration laws in 66 years. It aimed to adapt national immigration to the American economyâs changing needs. In particular, it addressed the increased demand for skilled professionals in technology, engineering, and other specialized fields.
In 1990, Democrats held a strong majority in the House and Senate. Both parties agreed to increase skilled immigration in support of American business.
One key provision of the 1990 Act was the creation of the H-1B visa category. This effort specifically supported businesses seeking immigrants in âspecialty occupationsâ and required these immigrants to have at least a bachelorâs degree or equivalent in a specialized field of study. The bill intended to enable American businesses to fill critical skill gaps the domestic workforce could not meet.
The law established annual caps on the number of H-1B visas issued, initially set at 65,000. This cap intended to balance employer needs while protecting the domestic labor market. Further, employers seeking skilled immigrants had to attest that hiring foreign workers would not negatively impact US workers by certifying that H-1B workers would be paid at least the prevailing wage for their occupation and location.
âŠ
By 1998, the dot-com boom raged. Tech companies clamored for more skilled workers in STEM fields, and the nation revamped the H-1B program.
But the political tides had turned. The Republican Party held strong majorities in both the Senate and House. No matter. President Bill Clinton (Democrat) signed the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA) into law on October 21, 1998.
The ACWIA temporarily raised the H-1B cap from 65,000 to 115,000 for 1999 and 2000. It also introduced a training fee for employers sponsoring H-1B workers, initially set at $500 per worker. Congress intended that this fee would fund training and education programs for US workers and reduce reliance on foreign labor in the long term.
âŠ
Employers quickly absorbed skilled workers from the 1998 cap increase, and tech companies returned to Congress a few years later, again asking for more visas. Their request led to another temporary cap increase authorized by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21) of 2000.
In 2000, Republicans controlled both the Senate and House. President Bill Clinton (Democrat) signed AC21 into law on October 17, 2000. It expanded the number of visas and opened the opportunity for H-1B visa holders to apply for permanent residency.
âŠ
In sum, the tech industry has long demonstrated the need for more skilled labor. Critics argue that this pattern of periodic cap raises reveals structural deficiencies in the training and education of American workers.
Saying this condition is a training and education problem dances around the problem. What we have is a failure to meet Constitutional obligations.
Constitutional Duty
The nationâs guiding document outlines a national purpose to achieve six highly aspirational goals: Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty. These six goals are why the nation exists. Advancing interests not linked to these six goals is meaningless at best and damaging at worst. Two goalsâgeneral welfare and justiceâapply to our discussion of H-1B visas.
First, general welfare. Individuals can contribute to society when the nation sets conditions to achieve widespread education, healthcare, housing, and safety. Though not the only components of infrastructure, these conditions build the infrastructure that is individual capability. Collective individual capability generates national capability.
Said another way, empowering Americans to contribute to society is an investment in the nationâs infrastructure.
Second, justice. Justice presents the opportunity for Americans from any station of birth to access that infrastructure. Innovation, ideas, and contributions come from every corner of society and lift us all economically and culturally. When Americans from any station of birth can access the infrastructure that supports promoting the general welfare, we strengthen American individuals and businesses.
Expanding the H-1B visa program directly means we have either failed to build the infrastructure that generates individual capability, which then generates national capability, or built the system in such a way that denies Americans the opportunity from any station of birth to access that infrastructure, or both. Therefore, we have failed to achieve welfare and justice, two of our six national goals. Worse, rather than decisive efforts to fix this deficiency, and to meet the needs of tech businesses, we bring in skilled immigrant workers from nations who do a better job of achieving these goals than we have.
We should highlight this is not a fault of American businesses. A businessâs primary responsibility is to increase profits, and corporate executives working within legal and ethical boundaries should concentrate solely on maximizing shareholder value. Corporate social responsibility blurs the line between the private and public sectors.
Any effort toward individual welfare or justice is outside a businessâs fundamental responsibility unless it directly contributes to profitability. Instead, the public sectorâor governmentâmust fulfill these roles.
âŠ
A businessâs primary responsibility is to generate profits, not solve national workforce issues. The public sector must address justice and general welfareâthese are public responsibilities. After all, it is our Constitution, and we are âWe the People.â
If we intend to reduce reliance on H-1B workers while meeting the demands of our tech economy, the solution isnât curbing immigration. Itâs building infrastructure and ensuring Americans from any station of birth have access to that infrastructure. To that end, here are three recommendations to set conditions enabling training and education for Americans in tech fields.
1. Change How We Measure Success
How do you know when youâve achieved your goals? They have to be measurable, and you must actively measure them. For simple goals, the process is straightforward. For instance, if your goal is to solidify your familyâs financial security, you might set a sub-goal of saving $500 each month. If your savings account grows by $500 this month compared to last, youâve achieved your goal. Consistently meeting this sub-goal brings you closer to your broader objective of financial security.
When you lead large organizations, those goals become bigger, more complex, and more ambiguous. For example, how do you measure your organizationâs innovation rate? OrâŠhow would you measure the trust you have with your customers? You have to break your big goals down into smaller, measurable units. You have to pick the right areas to measure, and these areas need to directly correlate to your goals. If we choose a metric that is easy to measure but only loosely connected to a goal, the insights we gain about our progress become unclear and ambiguous.
Another note about picking areas to measureâwhatever area we choose to measure and apply pressure to will improve. There may be unintended effects of this improvement we donât foresee, but when thereâs money or job performance associated with improving a particular measurable outcome, that direct outcome will improve.
So letâs ask: If we intend the H-1B visa program to become less necessary, how do we measure and assess the national infrastructure that is technical training and education?
Congress evaluates H-1B visas through a lens of economic metrics. Each H-1B generates revenue from employer fees. A significant portion of these fees goes to the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other entities to support workforce development and education. The NSF administers these funds by distributing grants and scholarships with the intent to improve STEM education and create opportunities for US workers to compete in a global economy.
This system introduces two layers of bureaucracy. Money flows from employers to Congress, then to the NSF, and finally to education and training programs, where we hope this money has its intended impact. As the old saying goes, hope is not a strategy.
Further, the nation has attempted to implement initiatives to enhance technology training programs, particularly for students in low-income areas. Recent attempts include the National Educational Technology Plan (NETP) of 2024. The US Department of Education intends NETP to close the digital gap and improve tech education for all students.
Funding and supporting training programs are commendable efforts. But, if the goal is to strengthen the national infrastructure for technical training and education to reduce reliance on the H-1B visa program, we must measure H-1B visa applications with a clear intent to decrease demand from businesses. That is something we do not do.
In sum, H-1B visa applications are a measure of the tech readiness of the workforce. SoâŠ
âŠ
Recommendation 1. We need a better metric: H-1B visa applications per capita.
We must move beyond tracking resources and programs to focus on outcomes. To that end, we need to measure and assess the technical training and education of American students by H-1B applications.
Tracking H-1B applications per capita directly measures how well the domestic workforce meets industry demands. A decline would show progress toward self-reliance, while persistent or rising applications would highlight where gaps remain.
Declines in H-1B applications per capita should signal reduced dependency on foreign talent and reflect improvements in the domestic workforceâs readiness to meet tech industry demand. This approach will directly measure how well we are closing skill gaps towards a more self-reliant workforce. Reduced H-1B applications would signal stronger domestic readiness, national innovation, and economic resilience.
Now for our second goal. We need to build technical training and education infrastructure.
2. Build Infrastructure
The best training and education programs are focused and iterative. Theyâre designed to meet specific needs, build on feedback, and improve over time.
We need infrastructure that bridges the divide between high school and high-level tech performance for working Americans. This infrastructure might look like a network of training and education innovation hubs. With support from local communities, we need to use the nationâs community college infrastructure as an initial base.
We need these programs to apply to all careers. Agriculture needs tech education. Theater needs technical training. Manufacturing needs tech education.
To build this infrastructure, we need to partner with academia to create pathways for students with no education beyond high school to acquire training and professional certifications in tech. Businesses must also play a critical role by participating in class exercises and presenting real-world challenges. This involvement ensures that programs remain relevant and aligned with workforce demands.
However, business participation cannot be optional. A businessâs primary duty is to generate profits, and workforce development may not always align with that goal. The duty of the public realm is then to step in and set requirements. Businesses benefit from the stability and talent of American workers, and they have an obligation to support this development.
Therefore, businesses seeking to file H-1B applications must demonstrate active participation in local training programs. This participation could include participating in relevant coursework or exercises, hosting career days, or presenting industry-specific challenges for students to solve. Companies that fail to engage in these programs should not have the option to file H-1B visa applications. This requirement aligns public and private interests, ensuring businesses contribute to the development of the American workforce while still meeting their hiring needs.
This requirement shouldnât be imposed on all businessesâonly those seeking to file H-1B visa applications. Businesses choosing to hire skilled foreign workers must first demonstrate efforts to find and hire skilled American workers.
Courses within these hubs must be laser-focused on high-performance job skills. While valuable, humanities courses are not essential for many roles and should remain optional. Programs should bridge the gap between high school and professional careers, offering practical training that goes beyond surface-level knowledge. For example, statistics might be a subject skimmed over in high school but would require deeper exploration in a program designed for data analysis.
This isnât about theoryâitâs about measurable results: reducing reliance on H-1B visas, increasing workforce readiness, and securing meaningful employment for American workers. SoâŠ
âŠ
Recommendation 2. Create a network of focused and iterative training hubs.
This network would enable Americans to develop high-value skills, solve critical industry challenges, and secure employment in fields currently filled through H-1B applications. Investing in this infrastructure would build capability, enhance economic competitiveness, and create pathways for all Americans to succeed in the modern workforce.
Building this infrastructure would directly address our Constitutional duty to promote the general welfare of Americans.
Letâs move on to our final goal. Building a strong training infrastructure removes one barrier to workforce readiness. We must address another: the financial burden of student loan debt, which disproportionately affects low-income Americans. To fulfill our Constitutional mandate to establish justice, we need to eliminate student loan debt interest for the lower half of American students by income level.
3. Support justice by eliminating student loan debt interest for students with low-income levels
We need American students to build their individual capability through training and education. This collective individual capability drives national capability. Further, we have a Constitutional duty to establish justice for all Americans. We achieve justice when each individual has the opportunity to fulfill their role in society.
Student loan debt presents a significant barrier to this goal. For students from low-income backgrounds, this burden can become insurmountable. Due to predatory or poorly structured terms, some student loan debt grows even when borrowers consistently make their payments. A 2021 Wall Street Journal article, Why Student Debt Keeps GrowingâEven When Borrowers Keep Paying, highlights how total balances can increase over time despite regular payments, trapping borrowers in a cycle of debt.
This violates the principle of justice. If students from the lowest income brackets cannot repay their loans and gain access to training and education, they are effectively barred from achieving the qualifications necessary to contribute meaningfully to society. Without this access, they cannot fulfill their potential or aid in building national capability.
Letâs consider a straightforward question: Why does the government charge interest on federal student loans? The government isnât a for-profit institution, and the nation benefits when its citizens improve their individual capability. Charging interest on these loans neither strengthens national finances nor aids individual studentsâit simply prolongs repayment periods and exacerbates financial stress.
Eliminating interest on federal student loans for low-income students would provide these individuals with a fair opportunity to repay their debt within a reasonable time frame. This would enable them to focus on building their skills and fulfilling their role in society rather than being trapped in a cycle of debt.
SoâŠ
Recommendation 3. Eliminate student loan debt interest for students with low-income levels.
This change would remove a significant barrier to education for millions of Americans, ensuring that low-income students can contribute to the nationâs collective capability without being penalized by debt that grows faster than they can repay it. By supporting these students, we uphold our Constitutional duty to establish justice and strengthen both individual and national prosperity.
In Sum
Americaâs guiding document exists to achieve six goals.
One of these is to promote the general welfare. In part, promoting the general welfare means building national infrastructure that enables individual and national capability.
A second goal is to establish justice. We achieve justice when Americans from any station of birth have access to that infrastructure so they can take the initiative to build their capability and fulfill their role in society.
Our continued reliance on H-1B visas means we have either failed to build the infrastructure that generates individual capability or built the system in a way that denies Americans from any station of birth the opportunity to access that infrastructure, or both.
To achieve our Constitutional aims, we must set and progress towards three goals.
We must move beyond tracking resources and programs instead of focusing on outcomes. To that end, we need to measure and assess the technical training and education of American students by H-1B applications.
We need to create a network of focused and iterative training hubs. These hubs will reduce reliance on H-1B visas, increase workforce readiness, and secure meaningful employment for American workers.
And we need to eliminate student loan debt interest for students with low-income levels in order to remove barriers to tech training and education for millions of Americans.
Some will say these aims are too lofty, even unachievable.
To that, I say there are six reasons America exists, and these goals tie directly to two of those reasons. If we donât make our decisive effort to align with Americaâs purpose, why are we here?
May God bless the United States of America.
Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe -
I Am and the Burning Bush
This is not a religious piece. But stick with me for a minute.
I grew up attending small country churches. As a young boy, I asked my mother, âWho made God?â
She had the answers. No one made God. God has always been and always will beâthe Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. Of course, this answer was not satisfactory to me. As a boy and now, my limited human capacity to understand infinity, quantum physics, and whether all time and space can exist simultaneously demonstrates I will never really be able to comprehend the nature of God. But I still try and understand.
The story that sticks with me most about the existence of God is the story of Moses and the burning bush. If youâre unfamiliar, hereâs a quick version.
Moses was tending a flock of sheep near the mountain of God when he noticed a strange sight. A bush was on fire, but the fire wasnât destroying it. He was curious and approached the bush to investigate.
As he approached the bush, God called out to him. God told Moses that He had seen the suffering of His people in Egypt and would deliver them from slavery.
God gave Moses a mission: He was to go to Pharaoh, convince him to release the slaves, and lead them out of Egypt. Moses pushed back. He doubted. Still trying to shirk his duty, Moses asked what name he should give when others questioned who sent him.
God answered, âI AM WHO I AM.â And, âSay this to the people of Israel: âI Am has sent me to you.ââ
The story isnât compelling to me because God spoke to Moses. Itâs not compelling because the bush didnât burn up. Itâs not compelling because of the subsequent exodus and lack of faith demonstrated by humanity that doomed a generation. Itâs compelling because only once in the Judeo-Christian tradition did a human ask God His name. Moses is the only one to explicitly ask God His name and receive a direct answer. And God didnât answer the Almighty, the Creator, or the Ancient of Days. God answered, my name is âI Am.â
No human making up a name for God would have thought to call the Almighty âI Am.â ⊠Names signify identity but always depend on something external to the individual. No one names themselves. However, God has no âotherâ to provide a name. God exists outside the framework of creation and human conventions. So, when asked for a name, the only possible response is âI Am.â
Of course, the 3,500-year-old story doesnât erase the questions about the existence of God. Because tomorrow is Christmas Day, Iâd like to approach national belief from another angle. The source of love for others is God. Whether you believe God exists or not, the question of how we live and treat each other remains.
God commanded us to love each other. But even if God doesnât exist, should we not love our countrymen?
Loving one another isnât just for the good of others. Itâs for our own good. Said another way, loving each other brings us more benefits than it gives to others. And nowhere is this love better demonstrated than in the national goals enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution.
Love and the Constitution
The Preamble to the Constitution outlines the documentâs purpose. Without the Preamble, the rest of the Constitution loses all meaning. The Preamble provides the foundation, outlining the reason the Constitution exists. Its aspirational and nearly unattainable goals are the greatest expression of brotherly love ever written by mankind outside a spiritual text. It outlinesâŠ
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Letâs look at it piece by piece. The nationâs guiding document outlines a national purpose to achieve six highly aspirational goals: Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty. America strives to achieve these six goals to secure the benefits for ourselves and others. The nationâs first goalâŠ
Union
Our first national goal is to preserve the union. Our union is a union of states and individuals who live in those states. Like any marriage, partnership, or community, there is no lasting union without love.
In the context of union, love isnât about affection. Itâs commitment, sacrifice, and a willingness to work through differences. A union canât thrive without the shared understanding that we are stronger together than apart. Without love and commitment for each other, the cracks in the union fracture and lead to collapse.
The closing line of the Declaration of Independence states, âAnd for the support of this DeclarationâŠwe mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.â This line underscores the essence of union later found in the Constitutionâa bond forged by shared goals and sacrifice. The signatories committed themselves to one another and to the union of states. They understood that achieving something greater than themselves required sacrifice and a willingness to stand together, even at the cost of losing the war and everything they had.
Union isnât the absence of conflict or failure. Itâs the shared responsibility of both. It doesnât mean agreement; it means shared ownership of the outcomes, good or bad. We are a union, united in success and united in failure.
This is the heart of any lasting union. No matter success or failure, states and individuals pledge themselves to one another, not out of convenience but out of love, honor, and shared purpose. Without this kind of commitment, no union can endure.
The nationâs second goal isâŠ
Justice
Our second goal is to establish justice. Loving each other enables justice for ourselves and others. Itâs not just for the good of others. Itâs for the good of ourselves.
Justice is the foundation for a society where individuals can fulfill their roles and contribute to the nationâs well-being. The founders outlined justice as a collective responsibility because it depends on the systems we build as a nation, not just individual action. It requires institutions that ensure fairness while empowering individuals to pursue their potential.
Justice means that people should be treated fairly and equally under the law. It also means that society strives toward individual opportunity and the equitable distribution of resources like education, healthcare, and housing. It encompasses fair opportunities in criminal justice, voting rights, and workplaces.
Justice is not a handout program. While itâs a national responsibility to establish conditions for justice, itâs an individual responsibility to rise to greatness. No one American can tell another whatâs important to them, and our opinions change as we age and have different life experiences. Further, the American dream isnât about material possessions. Itâs about having the opportunity to pursue your dreams and live a fulfilling life.
These dreams have shared themes. An environment of justice enables people from humble beginnings to buy a house in a safe neighborhood with a good school for their children. Justice enabled self-educated President Lincoln to ascend from nothing to the nationâs highest office in arguably our greatest time of need. He remarked, âI am a living witness that any one of your children may look to come here as my fatherâs child has.â Justice makes the American Dream possible for anyone willing to strive for it.
Justice ensures stability and opportunity. These conditions benefit everyone, including those who feel far removed from the injustice others face. Justice encourages progress. When we empower others to succeed, society becomes more prosperous. Innovation, ideas, and contributions come from every corner of society and lift us all economically and culturally.
Justice isnât charityâitâs opportunity. Justice isnât favoritismâitâs fairness. Justice isnât abstractâitâs the foundation of progress. Loving each other enables justice for ourselves and others. Itâs not just for the good of others. Itâs for the good of ourselves.
Our nationâs third goal isâŠ
Tranquility
Our third national goal is to ensure domestic tranquility. Tranquility means a society built on order, stability, and mutual respect.
Loving each other supports order and stability. Respect for one another makes compromise possible and conflict resolvable. Without it, rebellions, riots, and civil unrest rise, undermining national unity and success.
Tranquility requires effort from every individual and institution. ⊠When we succeed, we resolve our differences with grace and dignity and are stronger together.
Tranquility was not assured in the years between the Articles of Confederation (1781â1789) and the Constitution.
Take Shaysâ Rebellion (1786â1787) as an example. It began as an uprising of farmers in western Massachusetts, many of whom were Revolutionary War veterans. These farmers faced land foreclosure and imprisonment for unpaid debts. They felt betrayed by a system they had fought to defend. Led by Daniel Shays, they took up arms, closed courts, and attempted to disrupt government operations.
The rebellion revealed a dangerous flaw in the Articles of Confederation: individual states didnât have the capacity to maintain order, and a weak federal government offered no support. The national government lacked the power to raise an army or enforce laws. This left states like Massachusetts to handle conflicts alone. The rebellion exposed the risks of a fragile union and demonstrated that the nation itself was at risk without tranquility.
Shaysâ Rebellion directly influenced the drafting of the Constitution. The framers understood that tranquility had to be actively ensured through a stronger federal government capable of addressing domestic challenges while respecting state and individual sovereignty. Thatâs why âinsure domestic Tranquilityâ became one of the six core national goals outlined in the Preamble.
Tranquility is a deliberate national choice to maintain collective peace, stability, and order. Peace comes from respect. Respect comes from love. Loving each other benefits us individually because it maintains stability and order.
Tranquility alone isnât enough. We have to safeguard it, which leads us to our next goal. Our fourth national goal isâŠ
Defense
Our fourth national goal is defense or mutual protection. If tranquility ensures domestic order, defense preserves that order and extends it to support America and her interests inside and beyond our borders. Defense is a deliberate choice to create conditions where freedom and stability thrive.
Loving each other supports protection because a united people are better equipped to ensure their survival and power. When a nation defends its interests, it does so out of love for its citizens and a commitment to the opportunities they seek to secure.
Nations have no choice but to ensure their survival and protect their interests. To guard the safety and security of the American people and our allies, we act alone and with partner nations to create favorable global conditions. These efforts protect freedom of action and influence.
Coalitions and international partnerships enhance security and contribute to global stability. These partnerships are strategic efforts that strengthen stability and set conditions for individuals to pursue their interests. By pooling resources, sharing intelligence, and projecting power, nations achieve together what none could achieve alone. When we protect our allies, we strengthen ourselves. A stable global environment ultimately contributes to the prosperity and safety of individual Americans.
A strong defense fuels economic growth. Stability provides the foundation for businesses to innovate and thrive and for investments to grow. Nations with robust defense and stable alliances attract global investment, foster trade, and expand economic opportunities. Defense and economics are inseparable. Economic strength fuels defense, and defense ensures the safety of markets and supply chains.
Economic strength underpins global influence, sustains technological leadership, and allows the nation to respond effectively to challenges. Protecting business interests and fostering growth are as much a part of defense as any military strategy.
Defense is a collective effort and a shared responsibility. Loving each other benefits us all because mutual protection creates stability and opportunity for individuals, businesses, and communities to succeed.
Our fifth national goal isâŠ
Welfare
Our fifth national goal is to promote the general welfare. This goal identifies our collective duty to ensure the well-being of all Americans. The general welfare has nothing to do with social welfare programs. When the states ratified the Constitution to make it effective, social welfare programs did not exist.
Loving each other means recognizing that our success as individuals is tied to the success of others. People can contribute to society when the nation sets conditions to achieve widespread education, healthcare, housing, and safety. Empowering Americans to contribute to society is an investment in the nation's infrastructure.
This national infrastructure is human capital â the knowledge, skills, and abilities of individual Americans. Human capital is foundational infrastructure similar to bridges, roads, and dams. Collective individual capability generates national capability. Said another way, the skills and knowledge of individuals build the strength of the nation as a whole.
Promoting general welfare requires balancing individual freedom with collective progress. This balance means providing opportunities while preserving personal responsibility.
Investing in human capitalâlike education and healthcareâstrengthens our collective ability to thrive and innovate. Consider education. Itâs a cornerstone of promoting the general welfare. Education supports individuals, regardless of background, in gaining the knowledge, skills, and training necessary to function in and improve society. Or consider healthcare. It protects individuals and communities from preventable crises. Promoting the general welfare means supporting national infrastructure that demonstrates commitment to the idea that every American deserves the chance to pursue happiness and live a meaningful life. This effective governance demonstrates love for others.
Americans donât need handouts to connect to the infrastructure. Big infrastructure programs demonstrate that Americans will connect themselves to infrastructure when given the opportunity. When allowed to move goods across states, American businesses jump at the chance. When we need flood control for agriculture and resources for national security, Americans are ready. When electricity is available, rural Americans connect themselves to electricity.
Loving each other means promoting the general welfare. Promoting the general welfare means building national infrastructure. National infrastructure includes expanding the infrastructure that is individual capability.
And our final national goalâŠ
Liberty
Our sixth and final national goal is to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and those who follow.
Liberty is the promise that every American has the right to live freely, to pursue their dreams, and to choose their path. It is the ultimate expression of love and respect for the individual. Liberty is the right to choose. These choices have consequences. Personal choice enables us to grow through personal responsibility. Without liberty, there is no responsibility.
Liberty empowers us to learn from the consequences of our choices, fostering resilience, innovation, and a deeper sense of responsibility.
Individual liberty is the hallmark of America. Itâs a foundational concept that represents several rights. The freedom to practice a religion of your choosing, or none at all, is a right of liberty. Freedom of speech and expression is liberty. Freedom to vote is liberty. The list is long.
When we allow some to take liberty from others, we risk losing our own. To preserve our individual liberty, we must protect and fight for the rights of others.
Therefore, itâs the right of Americans to express their liberty and the responsibility of Americans to tolerate others who would express their liberty in a manner we may find objectionable.
Liberty allows for diversity of thought, belief, and action. These are the hallmarks of a thriving society. Liberty is not an excuse for selfishness. It is an opportunity to grow through personal responsibility, to learn from our choices, and to help secure the freedom of others. Loving each other means fighting for libertyânot just for ourselves, but for each other.
The Ties That Bind
These six goals tie together.
There is no union without demonstrated commitment, sacrifice, and willingness to work through differences.
There is no general welfare without the willingness to build infrastructure to expand individual and national capability.
There is no justice without stability and opportunity for Americans from any station of birth to access that infrastructure.
We canât preserve what individuals and communities can achieve without the tranquility built on order, stability, and mutual respect.
We must protect the union and interests beyond our borders through partnership, engagement, and defense.
These conditions enable a society where Americans can choose their path, note the consequences of their choices, and develop the personal responsibility that leads to individual and community growth. This is liberty.
SoâŠ
To Love Your Country, Love Your Countrymen
We are commanded to love each other not for the good of others but for the good of ourselves. Loving others helps us individually. Loving each other isnât an unachievable ideal. Love is a practice. It brings us union, justice, tranquility, protection, welfare, and liberty.
Therefore, we canât love our country without loving our countrymen.
My best wishes are with you and yours this Christmas. Iâm not a priest and have no right to bless you, but Iâll do it anyway.
May God bless you and keep you;May God smile on you and be gracious to you;May God look on you with favor and give you peace.
May God bless the United States of America.
Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe -
Can we raise wages to fully fund Social Security?
Social Security is societal insurance, not an individual retirement plan. Its purpose is to protect society by ensuring a basic level of income security, particularly for the elderly, disabled, and survivors of deceased workers. It is a safety net to prevent poverty and economic distress in vulnerable populations. This fosters societal stability. Unlike a private retirement plan, Social Security pools contributions from the workforce to provide collective support, shielding America from the dire effects of widespread poverty that harm the economy as a whole. However, stagnant wages undermine this system. They limit revenue growth and increase dependency on government programs. Addressing stagnant wages is vital to ensuring the sustainability of Social Security and fostering financial independence.
Now that the election is over, the conversation about fixing Social Security has gained momentum. On the December 8th NBC News Meet the Press, President-elect Trump said he didnât plan to cut Social Security.
At the same time, Social Security is underfunded, and the programâs failure to provide full benefits is imminent.
We canât bury our heads in the sand and pretend the problem will resolve itself. According to the Social Security Administration Annual Trust Fund report, âin 2023, the (Old-Age and Survivors Insurance) Trust Fundâs cost of $1,237.3 billion exceeded income by $70.4 billion.â At the same time, the â(Disability Insurance) Trust Fundâs income of $183.8 billion exceeded cost by $29.0 billion.â For those of us trying to do public math, the total shortfall was $41 billion. Letâs remember that figure for later.
The timeframe of 2034 to 2037 coincides with the time when all the Boomers reach retirement age. The size of the Boomer generation significantly exceeded the Gen X generation, and Social Security funding canât keep up. Because Social Security revenue is lower than needed during this timeframe, the first Americans who could lose part of their Social Security benefits are the Boomers. Social Security benefits wouldnât have to be eliminated; they could be reduced to distribute the available funds accordingly. The Social Security Administration estimates it could pay about 79% of benefits to retirees in 2034.
In principle, there are three approaches to addressing the deficiency, each with its trade-offs. First, we can increase revenue. Second, we can cut benefits. Third, we can increase the size of the working population.
You can rename these approaches any way youâd like. As an example, instead of saying we need to increase revenue, you can say we should raise or eliminate the Social Security tax cap. For 2024, the tax cap is $168,600. Employees and employers each contribute 6.2% of wages toward Social Security up to this income cap, totaling 12.4%. Any earnings beyond $168,600 are exempt. Advocates for this approach claim if higher earners pay Social Security taxes on earnings above $168,600, it could boost the funds available for the program. Critics say raising or eliminating the tax cap illegitimately increases taxes on a population that wonât see a proportional increase in their benefits. This creates tension between the goals of funding Social Security and maintaining a balance in tax equity.
As another example, instead of saying we need to cut benefits, you can say we should increase the retirement age. This approach means individuals would need to work longer before becoming eligible for benefits. By raising the age threshold, the proposal would reduce the total amount paid to beneficiaries over their lifetimes, as they would have fewer years to draw benefits. Advocates of this idea argue that it reflects increased life expectancy, aligning the system with modern demographics. Critics highlight that the life expectancy for the bottom half of earners has not risen since 1983, and they are the individuals who need Social Security the most.
Of course, fully funding Social Security is a systemic problem with no silver bullet solution. We need to compromise on both ends of the spectrum. But we should still consider new ideas.
I propose we consider something other than the proposals we commonly hear. Instead of focusing on cuts or caps, we should address the root cause of the issue: stagnant wages.
Higher wages directly increase Social Security revenue through larger payroll tax contributions.
Higher wages reduce the need for Social Security and other social programs. They make individual workers more financially resilient if we do have to cut benefits. Further, fewer taxpayer dollars are funneled through the bureaucracy, which means less waste.
Higher wages empower individuals to achieve greater financial independence. This fosters long-term economic stability for workers.
First, letâs look at how we can increase revenue by raising wages.
Higher Wages Increase Social Security Revenue
Raising wages directly increases Social Security revenue by increasing payroll tax contributions. Employers match worker wages dollar for dollar. These funds are the primary source of Social Security revenue.
Social Security taxes represent a percentage of earnings. When workers earn more, they contribute more to the program.
Letâs consider the non-starter idea of raising the minimum wage across the board. An Economic Policy Institute fact sheet from 2021, titled âWhy the U.S. needs a $15 minimum wage,â identified raising the minimum wage would âlift pay for 32 million workersâ21% of the U.S. workforce.â We can address why this idea is a non-starter in a minute, but letâs consider the financial impact on Social Security.
If 21% of the workforce earned higher wages, an immediate effect would be a significant boost to Social Security payroll tax contributions. The Institute estimated that a $15 minimum wage would generate $107 billion in higher wages.
12.4% of worker wages goes to Social Security, 6.2% from worker wages, and 6.2% from employer contributions. 12.4% of $107 billion is $13.26 billion.
Social Securityâs shortfall was $41 billion this year. Raising worker wages to $15 an hour would reduce the shortfall to $28 billion.
However, raising the minimum wage is a non-starter because businesses canât raise wages without increasing revenue. Taking broad action, such as raising the minimum wage to a federal standard for all areas, threatens business vigor and viability nationally, making this approach politically untenable.
For example, a $15 federal minimum wage might be too low in high-cost-of-living areas, viable in some areas, and overwhelm small businesses in lower-cost rural areas. Businesses must generate sufficient revenue to support higher wages, and a one-size-fits-all mandate doesnât account for regional differences. Even if itâs a potential solution, itâs not achievable if we canât gain consensus.
Instead of mandating raising the minimum wage, we need to increase small business revenue and incentivize businesses to pay higher wages. We could reduce the tax burden for small businesses that prove they pay wages above social program levels. This approach would help businesses generate the revenue to pay higher wages, reduce the national need for poverty programs, and increase funding to shore up Social Security.
Beyond increasing Social Security revenue, raising wages has a compounding effect on the broader economic system. When workers earn more, their reliance on government assistance programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) decreases. This reduces the financial strain on taxpayers and minimizes the inefficiency of funneling the American peopleâs money through the bureaucracy. Letâs look at how higher wages decrease the need for social programs and drive efficient use of public resources.
Higher Wages: Financial Resilience and Reduced Government Waste
Letâs establish a fundamental truth: the government owns no assets. It has no money of its own. Every dollar spent by elected representatives or government workers is an asset of the American people. When government officials spend money, they allocate resources that belong to the citizens they serve.
Social programs, then, pass money from one individual to another through layers of bureaucracy that waste at least 30 to 40 percent of those resources. We should inherently oppose a system where half of American families rely on this inefficiency to survive. Even though we canât love our country and not our countrymen, this system reflects a failure to achieve financial resilience across society.
Workers who earn livable wages achieve financial resilience and donât need government assistance programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). One immediate benefit is that more financially resilient workers can better absorb cuts if they are necessary. Financial resilience means workers have the capacity to adapt to unexpected costs.
Further, raising wages reduces reliance on social programs, which means less of the American peopleâs money is funneled through the bureaucracy. Less taxpayer money eaten by the government means less waste and more efficient use of public funds.
For example, EITC is designed to supplement the incomes of low-wage workers, effectively subsidizing employers who pay below livable wages. By increasing wages, fewer workers qualify for EITC, reducing government payouts while businesses pay true labor value.
The money not spent on social programs could then be redirected to fiscally responsible efforts, such as balancing the budget, paying off the national debt, and strengthening social security.
Letâs consider the drastic impact this proposal could have on national finances. In 2023, on just these two programs, the nation spent $57 billion supplementing worker wages through EITC and $112 billion supplementing low wages through SNAP. $169 billion combined.
If higher wages led to only a 20% reduction in reliance on these programs, $34 billion of American taxpayer funds would be available to help balance the budget. This figure exceeds the necessary funds to eliminate the Social Security shortage for the year, albeit in a different money bucket. If we could reduce social program expenditures by half, we could save $85 billion annually.
Opponents of this approach argue that workers need to justify their higher wages with more productivity. This is a valid point. Some jobs and employees generate higher revenue for their employers and inherently command higher wages.
But we should considerâeven if itâs true that some jobs pay low wages, does that mean itâs the taxpayerâs responsibility to pick up the tab? Thereâs no valid argument to justify any employer offloading labor costs onto the taxpayer. Use any example you would likeâdishwasher, janitor, burger maker. Even if a business thinks itâs a low-wage job, under no circumstance should it be a taxpayer-funded one. If a business doesnât think a janitor is an important job, they should go a month without one and see if they change their mind. When businesses pay wages below social program thresholds, those jobs become taxpayer-funded.
Beyond saving taxpayer dollars, higher wages allow Americans to escape the cycle of government dependence and build financial resilience. When individuals can rely on their earnings to meet basic needs and save for the future, they gain stability and resilience in their personal lives and can contribute to the broader economy.
Higher Wages Foster Financial Independence
Higher wages enable workers to build greater financial security and resilience. Workers can save more for emergencies, invest in their future, and rely less on safety nets.
How would we reduce the reliance on programs like Social Security without paying workers livable wages that enable them to put food on their tables, heat their houses, and save for the future?
When they donât make livable wages, workers go to the lower-cost grocery store to put food on their tables. Except there isnât one. They go to the same grocery store as everyone else and use SNAP benefits.
To find a house to heat, workers might move their family into a cheaper apartment. Except those donât exist, either. Those are government housing units.
If workers canât put food on their tables and heat their houses without government assistance, how would we reduce their dependence on Social Security and other safety nets?
If we donât address the root causeâlow wagesâprograms like Social Security will remain essential as a retirement benefit and a lifeline for daily survival. Reducing reliance on Social Security means ensuring workers can build financial security through livable wages, personal savings, and access to private retirement options.
We need to set conditions enabling workers to be independent from government programs to meet basic needs. Workers must be able to afford food, housing, and utilities without inefficient taxpayer-funded government assistance. Livable wages create the foundation for financial independence. With higher wages, workers can save more for emergencies and strengthen their retirement options on their own.
Some doubt higher worker wages would achieve these goals, but Universal Basic Income pilot studies prove them wrong. Americans arenât irresponsible with money, lazy, or stupid. They use extra money to gain skills and get better jobs, move into safer neighborhoods, buy shoes and coats for their kids, and heat their houses. They go back to school and get degrees and certifications. They work MORE with the extra funds, not less, and the work they do is more meaningful.
Americans with enough money live stable, productive lives and can save money for their futures. They are less dependent on Social Security and all other social programs.
In Sum
We need to shore up Social Security funding. We have few choices: increase revenue, cut benefits, or expand the working population.
I propose we consider something other than the proposals we commonly hear. Instead of focusing on cuts or caps, we should address the root cause of the issue: stagnant wages.
Higher wages directly increase Social Security revenue.
Higher wages reduce the need for Social Security and other social programs. They make individual workers more financially resilient if we do have to cut benefits. Further, fewer taxpayer dollars are funneled through the bureaucracy, which means less waste.
Higher wages empower individuals to achieve greater financial independence. This fosters long-term economic stability for workers.
Fixing Social Security is achievable, and higher wages directly address the root cause of the issue.
May God bless the United States of America.
Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe -
Last week, I analyzed Air Force Captain Lacie Hesterâs Silver Star to highlight a contradiction. We canât claim to value the militaryâs ability to achieve decisive effects while categorically excluding women from combat roles. I concluded that if we intend to value results over diversity, we should be ready to welcome any capable individualâmale or femaleâwho can help achieve efficient violence in support of national objectives.
This week, Iâm pushing that logic a step further. If women belong in combat roles, do they also belong on the most elite and demanding ground combat teams? Letâs test our commitment to results-based standards and challenge ourselves to rethink how we select, train, and deploy our nationâs most specialized warfighters.
If the central premise is that results matter more than diversity, then the standards driving ground combat roles must be no exception. If a woman can meet those standards and enhance mission success, excluding her would weaken, not strengthen, our ability to achieve decisive effects. At the same time, forcing either men or women into ground combat positions without the qualifications to succeed directly threatens our ability to achieve national objectives.
Letâs explore.
Captain Marsh and a Cup of Coffee
In 2008, I was an Air Force Captain attached to 1st and 2nd US Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF and II MEF) under the Multi-National Forces West command structure in Iraq.
My role in Iraq was to enhance combat capability with special technical tools. My bosses were Marines, and my customers were primarily the Marines and Special Operations Forces (SOF) Task Forces. I developed strong relationships with my customers, identified technical tools they needed to support their missions, and integrated them into their operations. We developed some tools in-house and integrated others with support from national agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA).
My work area was tucked away behind some armed Marines who kept watch day and night over the area, and it was right next to the SOF Task Force coordinator. The Task Force coordinator was a US Navy Sea, Air, and Land Captain (commonly known as a Navy SEAL). For those unfamiliar with different service ranks, an Air Force Captain is a relatively junior officer rank, while a Navy Captain ranks just below Admiral, a senior officer rank. No matter, though, he and I had a good relationship. Letâs call him Captain Marsh.
Captain Marsh had an attraction rarely found in the areaâhe had acquired a coffee maker and had some supply of ground coffee. I didnât want to overstay my welcome, but I did need to determine when the Task Force might need support. So, every so often, I would tell my small team that I was âgoing to talk to the SEALs.â Captain Marsh would fill me in on relevant upcoming operations, and I might have a cup of coffee.
Captain Marshâs coffee pot attracted more than just me. Other senior officers would visit, and I would hear snippets of their conversations. On one of these visits, a Marine Corps Colonel and Captain Marsh shared insight that challenged my assumptions.
Their conversation centered around the role of women in ground combat. Captain Marsh mentioned that Muslim women couldnât freely talk with men. In many traditional Muslim societies, culture and religion restrict interactions between unrelated men and women. These norms dictate that women avoid direct communication or physical proximity with men who are not family members. For women in conservative communities, speaking with male strangers is inappropriate and brings social repercussions.
These cultural differences posed significant challenges during military operations, particularly when teams needed to gather intelligence or conduct searches. Without female team members to bridge the gap, mission-essential information from local women was inaccessible.
If a team needed to question a woman, they needed a woman to do so, which drove a requirement for women on ground combat teams. Later I learned that as a result of this requirement, the Marines established Task Force Lioness, which attached women to ground combat teams to provide support.
Five years later, at a training event in San Diego, I heard more to the story. The Navy SEAL commanding officer at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado also brought up the value of women in ground combat roles in Iraq.
This second story was that when women were attached to SOF teams, they couldnât be decorations just because they were necessary for intelligence gatheringâthey had to be active team members. Female team members provided perimeter security during operations. The women were armed and applied lethal force when necessary. They also played a crucial role in stopping runners, going so far as to crash their vehicles into escaping vehicles to ensure mission success.
Both commanding officers emphasized the extraordinary bravery the women demonstrated. The women often put their lives and health at immediate risk, sometimes more than the men, to achieve objectives. In critical moments, their decisive action proved integral to mission success. The respect the officers had gained for the women was evident.
If asked, in the context of the environment we operated in at that time, whether women should be on SOF teams, I know the answer they would give. Both senior leaders shared the same opinion.
Still, regardless of operational needs or cultural advantages, inclusion in ground combat teams hinges on meeting the grueling physical and mental standards required of every member. The first and most fundamental of these is the individual physical requirement.
Individual Physical Requirements
There are domains of society in which there are absolutely no gender barriers. Only results matter. In these areas, individuals succeed or fail based solely on their ability to achieve results.
Due to the physical requirements, the National Football League (NFL) is a prime example that is not so dissimilar to Special Operations Forces (SOF). In the NFL, winning and money are the only outcomes that matter.
Women are not barred from playing in the NFL, but there are no female players. If a woman could compete and win at the necessary level, an NFL team would sign her to a contract. While women are not prohibited from playing, the competitive nature ensures that only those capable of performing at the highest level make the cutâregardless of gender.
The same principle applies to ground combat SOF teams. The stakes are higher than a football game, but the premise remains: meeting the standard matters more than who is meeting it. If a woman can perform to the required levelâcarry the same load, endure the same physical stress, and contribute to mission successâthere is no logical reason to exclude her.
At the same time, just as there is no reason to add a player to an NFL team who doesnât contribute to winning games, there is no reason to force the integration of women into specialized ground combat roles. Books like Kill Bin Laden: A Delta Force Commander's Account of the Hunt for the World's Most Wanted Man vividly depict the grueling conditions SOF operators endure in war. Very few men can survive and operate in these conditions; the vast majority cannot. Itâs possible that some women could likewise survive and operate. But forcing either men or women into these positions without the qualifications to succeed directly threatens our ability to achieve national objectives.
The inherent tension arises from the Department of Defense's (DoD) integration of women into combat roles, which officially started in 2013 and has continued for the past 11 years. Last month, the new nominee for Secretary of Defense stated women have no place in combat. Critics worry that as we adjust to accommodate women, we chip away at the qualities that make Americaâs ground combat units extraordinary. They fear a loss of unit cohesion, a decline in physical performance, and a less capable fighting force. In their view, when we soften the edges to expand eligibility, we erode the teamâs razor-sharp ability to operate under the harshest conditions.
They cite a 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, which concluded that putting women in combat risks the lives of entire units for the sake of career opportunities. It found, âRisking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.â
They further highlight a 2015 Marine Corps Force Integration Plan assessment that found all-male units conducted movements faster and were more lethal than mixed-gendered units. They further had healthier, more physically resilient Marines. That study found differences in individual performance. For example, âWhen negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top.â
They posit that since the DoD directive to integrate women into combat roles, senior officers have reduced individual standards to increase participation. This view is supported by a mass email titled âCareerism, Cronyism, and Malfeasanceâ in the US Army Special Warfare Center and School sent through Special Operations Command in 2017.
These findings and fears are real. Many of them are rooted in firsthand studies and historical assessments. Still, they donât capture the entire picture. While effective operations demand brute strength and raw speed, they also hinge on capabilities like cultural insight, intelligence access, and specialized skills that women can bring to the fight. In complex irregular warfare environments, overlooking these advantages means missing critical opportunities to achieve decisive effects.
So Thereâs the Rub
Direct accounts from SOF operators confirm that decisive action by women has proven integral to mission success. In some environments, their participation is essential. Not every combat role demands the rare physical endurance required for months-long operations in remote mountains. Perimeter security, intelligence gathering, and other specialized tasks are equally vital.
Further, if some missions require female operators, women must consistently train and serve alongside men, developing the trust and cohesion that define effective teams. While women may not meet the grueling physical demands required of some ground combat roles, the same is true for most men. What matters is finding those who can excelâwhether they pilot AC-130 gunships, crew CV-22 Ospreys, or secure a perimeter as part of a SEAL team. These are combat positions. Some of these are ground combat roles.
At the same time, if throwing a pack over a Marine Corps wall obstacle translates into faster, more lethal units, we should add that and other necessary requirements to the positions in question. After reassessing what matters for mission success, we should train and hold both men and women to that standard. Those who qualify earn their place.
Rather than making blanket rules that exclude women from ground combat roles, we need policies that prioritize lethal effects. That means defining standards based on actual mission needs, not arbitrary quotas, and applying those standards evenly. Anyone who meets them should be welcomed.
If we intend to value results over diversity, we must follow through. Our standards must reflect what it takes to achieve national objectives, and we must embrace those who can meet those standardsâregardless of gender.
May God bless the United States of America.
Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe -
This Weekâs Theme: Unenforceable Ideals
This week, we explore three unenforceable idealsâsituations where two conflicting truths canât coexist.
First, we draw parallels between Prohibition and illegal immigration, highlighting the governmentâs struggle to control the demand for goods and services.
Second, we examine the logical inconsistency of supporting stricter climate change regulations while opposing overturning Chevron deference.
Last, we address the contradiction of prioritizing military effectiveness while excluding women from combat roles.
Letâs begin with the story of Mabel Walker Willebrandt and her fight to enforce Prohibition.
The First Lady of Law
In 1921, President Warren Harding appointed Mabel Walker Willebrandt to the office of Assistant Attorney General of the United States. The appointment made Mabel the highest-ranking woman in the US government in the 1920s. Among her other duties as Assistant Attorney General, Ms. Willebrandt was charged with enforcing the Volstead Act, or National Prohibition Act. Congress passed the Volstead Act to enforce the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which attempted to ban the âmanufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors.â
Ms. Willebrandt recognized that enforcing Prohibition through raids on speakeasies and small-time bootleggers was ineffective. She described this as âlike trying to dry up the Atlantic Ocean with a blotter.â Instead, she enforced the Volstead Act with a two-pronged effort: addressing tax evasion and targeting major criminal enterprises.
Her first effort, addressing tax evasion, was successful. During her service, Willebrandt argued more than 40 cases before the Supreme Court. One of the most decisive was United States vs. Sullivan (1927). In that case, Willebrandt argued, and the high court agreed, that illegal income was taxable. Because illegal income was taxable, failing to declare income from illegal operations was tax evasion and a felony offense.
Since illegal alcohol sales generated untaxed income, US vs. Sullivan gave the federal government the authority to investigate and prosecute these operations under tax laws. This effort weakened the finances of organized crime. Willebrandt used the precedent set by US vs. Sullivan to prosecute powerful gangsters such as Al Capone for federal tax crimes.
Her second effort, targeting major criminal enterprises, was less effective. It required coordination across multiple federal and state agencies, which often lacked resources and cooperation. Criminal networks adapted faster than enforcement efforts, developing new smuggling routes and distribution systems that outpaced government responses.
Willebrandtâs second effort failed because Prohibition lacked broad public support. In other words, Americans wanted to drink, and no effort by the federal government was going to reduce the demand for alcohol. Although the government found some success in raiding production facilities and intercepting smuggling operations, these initiatives amounted to a game of Whac-A-Mole. As soon as one network was dismantled, another rose in its place.
The failure of Prohibition enforcement is a story about human behavior and governance: government attempts to restrict supply without addressing demand fail. Banning alcohol supply didnât stop demand; it fueled a thriving black market. Speakeasies became social hubs, and even law-abiding citizens began to view Prohibition as government overreach, fueling resentment toward enforcement.
If we canât turn off the demand for an item, no government effort to restrict supply will stop it.
This concept also applies to undocumented immigration. Addressing illegal immigration is a complex challenge that, like Prohibition, requires coordination among federal, state, and local agencies, each with competing interests and limited resources.
The most significant hurdle is the strong demand for undocumented labor. Many immigrants risk their lives to come to the United States because they believe they can find employment opportunities. Some employers hire undocumented workers because they may accept lower wages and work under conditions that others refuse.
If businesses face real consequences for hiring undocumented workers, the incentive to cross the border illegally would diminish. By enforcing laws that require employers to verify legal residency, we address the demand side of the issue.
Attempting to control illegal immigration solely through border enforcement is like playing a game of Whac-A-Moleâwithout reducing the demand for undocumented labor, these efforts are unlikely to succeed.
We canât advocate for removing undocumented immigrants while opposing requirements for employers to hire legal residents. Turning off the demand for undocumented labor is a critical first step toward resolving illegal immigration.
Alternatively, we have another option. We don't have to shut off the immigrant pipeline for businesses. By expanding immigrant work programs and accepting more legal immigrants, we can align immigration policies with the economy's labor needs. This approach addresses the demand for workers legally, supporting businesses while upholding the rule of law.
The second unenforceable ideal from this week is the inherent logic fallacy of supporting stricter rules for climate change while opposing overturning Chevron deference.
The Second Unenforceable Ideal: Climate Change and Overturning Chevron Deference
Let's consider the inherent contradiction of supporting stricter climate change regulations while opposing the overturning of Chevron deference.
On November 25, 2024, the New York Times âThe Morningâ email discussed climate change regulations. Advocates for robust environmental regulations push for limits on pollution from automobiles, power plants, and factories. They support expanding access to renewable energy and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Opponents are concerned about the economic impact of stringent regulations and favor a more measured approach.
That morningâs email posited the new administration plans to repeal pollution limits on automobiles, power plants, and factories and expand access to federal oil and gas drilling land. Many of these regulations were established through federal agency interpretations of ambiguous statutesâa process enabled by Chevron deference.
This discussion isnât about the merits of specific climate policies. Itâs about governance and how laws are made and enforced.
The decisive juncture is not the potential repeal of these regulations. Itâs Chevron deference, which the Supreme Court overturned on June 28 of this year. Established by the Supreme Court in the 1984 case Chevron USA vs. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Chevron doctrine held that courts should defer to a federal agencyâs reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that the agency administers.
Under Chevron deference, federal agencies had been empowered to interpret vague or broadly written laws, effectively creating law without direct congressional approval. The judiciary then deferred to these interpretations, limiting its role in checking executive overreach, alignment with congressional intent, or constitutional principles. While this allowed for faster policy implementation, especially in complex areas like environmental regulation, it also concentrated legislative power within executive branch agencies. The practice bypassed the legislative process, blurred the separation of powers, and weakened constitutional governance.
This violated the Constitution. Article I, Section 1 states that all legislative powers reside in Congress. Allowing agencies to legislate through regulation concentrated power in the executive branch. Chevron deference undermined the legislatureâs responsibility to fulfill its constitutional duty.
Article III outlines the judiciary as the independent interpreter of the law. Further, in the precedent case Marbury vs. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall established, âIt is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.â Chevron deference stripped the judiciary of its authority to conduct checks and balances.
America owes allegiance to no king, and this principle of divided power is fundamental to American liberty.
Overturning Chevron requires Congress to pass meaningful bipartisan legislation rather than the watered-down ambiguity that federal agencies use to create de facto laws.
Again, this isnât about climate change regulations; this concept applies to all regulations. When the executive branch changes, the country shouldnât drastically change directions. Federal agencies need to adhere to Congressional legislation, and overturning Chevron deference helps restore the nation to constitutional footing.
We canât oppose overturning Chevron deference while resisting a new administrationâs ability to change agency rules. When agencies have broad interpretive power, regulations change dramatically with each administration, leading to policy instability. Upholding the constitutional separation of powers ensures that laws remain consistent unless altered by Congress.
To achieve lasting and effective climate policies, we should support legislative action that clearly defines regulations and goals. This approach respects the Constitution and provides stability, regardless of changes in the executive branch.
Our final unenforceable ideal this week is the inherent contradiction in claiming to prioritize the militaryâs ability to achieve decisive effects while excluding women from combat roles.
Viper 72 is âWinchesterâ
On April 13 of this year, Iran launched a series of missile and suicide drone attacks against Israel. Iranâs attack was an operation designed to overwhelm Israelâs air defenses. The US condemned the attack and assisted Israel in shooting down the vast majority of missiles and drones.
The nation awarded Major Benjamin Coffey and Captain Lacie Hester the Silver Star for their actions as âAirborne Mission Commandersâ that evening. As the command team aboard their F-15E Strike Eagle, they led their squadron that evening to shoot down 70 Iranian drones and three ballistic missiles headed towards Israel. The award is especially significant for Captain Hester, who became the Air Forceâs first woman and the tenth woman in the Department of Defense to win the Silver Star.
The Strike Eagle is a complex weapons platform that delivers precision firepower while operating in demanding combat environments. Its advanced systems integrate radar, electronic warfare capabilities, and air-to-ground or air-to-air munitions. The Strike Eagle is a cornerstone of modern air superiority and interdiction missions.
Captain Hester is a weapons system officer (WSO) on the platform. Aboard the Strike Eagle, the pilot and WSO have some interchangeable capabilities. The pilotâs primary duty is to fly the jet. The WSO primarily manages the complexity of coordinating with other assets, identifying targets, and selecting suitable munitions. A WSOâs role is critical to the platformâs mission success. They operate the advanced radar, sensor, and targeting systems that guide the aircraftâs weaponry, enabling precision engagement of air-to-air and air-to-ground threats. They are the tactical brains of the operation.
Thatâs just Captain Hesterâs role on her own platform.
As Airborne Mission Commanders, Major Coffey and Captain Hester take on responsibilities beyond their platform. They are the squadron mission lead, coordinating an entire air mission in real-time. They oversee multiple aircraft, synchronize their actions, and ensure every asset is in the right place at the right time to achieve mission objectives.
Major Clayton Wicks was monitoring a command and signal frequency that evening. Of the event, he said, âA message comes across that just says ⊠Viper 72 is âWinchester,â which means they are out of missiles. They have no bullets left. ⊠That was the first time I was like, âOh my gosh. Command and control canât keep up with the amount of missiles that are being shot and things that are happening. And thatâs the only message they got across.â
In the middle of the chaos, Captain Hester was the tactical brains for the squadron to achieve national objectives.
In addition to the challenges, Coffey and Hesterâs platform that evening expended all missiles, engaged suicide drones with their guns at âextremely low altitudes,â and landed with a live, still dangerous missile that had failed to launch.
Coffey and Hester demonstrated what the military values: decisive effects. Achieving efficient violence under extreme conditions is the essence of operational success. Captain Hesterâs actions were groundbreaking not because of her gender but because they exemplified leadership in combat.
Some women, like some men, are not suited for combat roles. If we need to strengthen requirements for service members to serve in some units, we should do so. There are men who wonât meet those requirements either. But blanket rules stating that women are not suited for combat roles do a disservice to America. If the militaryâs mission is to achieve decisive effects, then disqualifying half the population from contributing at the highest levels undermines that mission.
We canât claim to care about the militaryâs ability to achieve decisive effects while excluding women from combat roles. The contradiction subverts our claim that we value results over diversity. If we are to value results, we need to value results. We donât need to make special rules to select women for decisive positions. When given the opportunity, they rise to the challenge. But if we make rules that exclude them, we weaken our ability to achieve decisive effects.
Unenforceable Ideals
Unenforceable ideals are contradictions in which two things cannot be true at the same time.
We canât be âforâ taking action to remove undocumented immigrants while at the same time âagainstâ requirements for employers to hire legal residents. Turning off the demand for undocumented labor is the first step to resolving illegal immigration.
We need to support employersâ requirements to hire legal residents. Or we could approach the solution from another direction. We could help businesses, expand work programs for immigrants, and accept more legal immigrants.
We canât oppose overturning Chevron deference while also opposing a new administrationâs ability to change the rules. If we support limiting presidential power as outlined in the Constitution, Chevron deference is incompatible. When the executive branch can use Chevron deference to make laws, those laws will change with every new administration.
We need to support the premise that the peopleâs representatives make the law, not federal agencies.
We canât claim to care about the militaryâs ability to achieve decisive effects while excluding women from combat roles. The contradiction subverts our claim that we value results over diversity. If we are to value results, we need to value results.
We need to value the ability for the military to achieve results. That means maintaining rules that enable women in combat roles.
May God bless the United States of America.
Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe -
Should we deport illegal immigrants en masse? What options do we have?
Situation
On November 21, 2024, Dara Lind, a Senior Fellow at the American Immigration Council, wrote a fantastic piece published in the New York Times titled, What âMass Deportationâ Actually Means. Ms. Lind superbly outlines the legal and logistical challenges of such a venture. She states:
âDeporting one million people a year would cost an annual average of $88 billion, and a one-time effort to deport the full unauthorized population of 11 million would cost many times that â and itâs difficult to imagine how long it would take.â
There are several severely complicating factors. There arenât enough beds or departing flights to achieve mass deportation. Few other nations will accept deportation flights from the US. Past efforts to deport illegal immigrants have been good for political publicity but largely unsuccessful.
Further, all persons in the US, not just citizens, have rights. The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution provides protections to all persons in America, not just American citizens. It states:
No person shall beâŠdeprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
In addition to Constitutional protections, there are other additional legal considerations. The US is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. This agreement obligates signatory members to provide asylum to individuals fleeing persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, ratified by the US in 1968, strengthens these protections.
Last, section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act outlines that eligible persons physically present in the United States or at a port of entry may apply for asylum.
Illegal immigrants have the right to present their asylum argument to an immigration court. Nearly 4 million immigrants are waiting for the courts. These courts are insufficiently resourced.
In short, every state in the union agreed that immigrants have rights. Edmund Burke, the philosophical father of conservatism, asserted that a nation has a solemn duty to uphold its agreements, honoring them across generations. This commitment to personal and national responsibility is a cornerstone of America.
Edmund Burke and Honoring Our Agreements
Edmund Burke, Irish statesman and philosopher, was born on January 12, 1729. He is the father of conservative philosophy. His ideas and writings during the American and French Revolutions significantly influenced the development of conservative thought in both America and Europe.
Burke emphasized personal responsibility and respect for tradition and established institutions as cornerstones of his philosophy.
Burke believed traditions and institutions evolve naturally over time, carrying the collective wisdom of generations. These institutions are essential for stability and continuity and should be preserved and respected. This respect for tradition shaped his skepticism of abrupt, radical change and his belief in the importance of gradual reform. His ideas have had a lasting influence on conservative thought. They highlight the value of continuity, historical context, and careful, incremental progress in societal norms.
In American conservatism, principles like originalism in judicial interpretation demonstrate Burke's respect for tradition. Similarly, the focus on protecting Constitutional rights aligns with Burkeâs commitment to preserve established freedoms and the institution that upholds them.
The Constitutionâs choice of the word âpersonâ and not âcitizenâ in the Fifth Amendment underscores the framerâs intent to extend protections to all individuals under US jurisdiction.
Burke would view this amendment as part of the collective wisdom of our founders. Due process protections embodied in the Fifth Amendment align with his belief that laws and institutions are shaped over time to reflect enduring principles of justice and fairness.
Conservatives and progressives alike have offered immigrants the opportunity to move to or stay in America legally. At the same time, no Congress and President has supported open borders. There is no national agreement to support open borders because undocumented immigration leads to abuse of immigrants and strains community resources, including healthcare, education, and law enforcement.
Interim Summary
Mass deportation of illegal immigrants has been largely unsuccessful. These efforts are hugely expensive. We have a Constitutional obligation to honor immigrant rights to due process of law. However, there is a political desire by politicians and voters alike to deport illegal immigrants en masse.
So, what can we do? Letâs think through some options.
Option 1: Do Nothing
Our first option is to maintain the status quo. We could allow undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States without significant changes to current policies. Before we write this option off as untenable, we need to think about it.
This approach would rely on existing immigration laws and enforcement to address undocumented immigration on a case-by-case basis. It has some positive aspects. Proponents advocate that it avoids the massive costs of mass deportation and saves billions in taxpayer dollars. It prevents overburdening already overwhelmed immigration courts. It supports human rights, aligns with the Constitutional protections of due process, and reflects our commitment to international treaties. It maintains economic stability as immigrants contribute to various sectors of the economy, particularly agriculture, construction, and service industries.
Critics argue that failing to address illegal immigration undermines the rule of law and sows distrust in the governmentâs ability to enforce immigration laws. Undocumented immigration strains communities that continue to face challenges related to healthcare, education, and law enforcement. And this option fails to enable comprehensive immigration reform, leaving millions in legal limbo without a clear path to citizenship.
Letâs be clearâthis option has strong advocates. The American Immigration Council outlines that instead of spending $88 billion every year on mass deportation efforts, we could âBuild over 40,450 new elementary schoolsâŠand construct over 2.9 million new homes in communities around the nation.â
However, this argument is a fallacy. The comparison misleads us by framing deportation costs as a trade-off with other priorities. It implies that federal funds are interchangeable. But federal spending doesnât work like a household budget. Money from one category canât be redirected to another. This oversimplification ignores how government spending and resource allocation work.
Frankly, the biggest problem with pursuing this option is the perception that voters told their representatives to do something, and the representatives didnât. It would look like the name of the optionâdoing nothing. It would leave a foul taste in the mouths of many Americans.
In sum, this option risks destabilizing institutions and eroding public trust. Doing nothing fails to address the underlying causes of undocumented immigration, perpetuating current challenges indefinitely. It kicks the can down the road for future generations, leading to longer-term challenges. It widens political extremes, creates gridlock, and polarizes public opinion.
All considered it may not be the best choice. Letâs move on to another.
Option 2: Efficient Enforcement and Employer Accountability
Our second option is efficient, targeted immigration enforcement to safeguard the nation while addressing the root causes of undocumented immigration. This approach would combine targeted enforcement of threats, streamlined immigration processes, and stronger accountability for employers who exploit undocumented labor.
The keynote of this approach is efficient enforcement. There are 330 million people in America and an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants. That means undocumented immigrants make up around three percent of the total population in America. These immigrants are not all in the same place.
So, finding undocumented immigrants by searching for them is inefficient and costly. We will not achieve efficient enforcement by looking for undocumented immigrants.
Rather than spending huge resources looking for all undocumented immigrants, this option would focus resources on removing individuals who pose security threats or commit serious crimes. The biggest difference between this approach and the âDo Nothingâ option is what we wonât do.
We wonât sweep employers to search for illegal immigrants. We wonât bog down the legal system with immigrants who donât commit violent crimes and donât pose security threats. We will avoid broad, indiscriminate methods of searching for undocumented immigrants who donât pose problems to the nation.
Instead, we will emphasize removal of individuals who pose security threats or commit serious crimes. We need to rush these individuals to the front of the legal line, conduct their hearings to meet our Fifth Amendment obligations, and deport them. Focusing on genuine security threats and due process demonstrates accountability, restoring public confidence in immigration enforcement.
This approach allocates resources more effectively. It avoids the immense costs and logistical challenges of simultaneously searching for and deporting millions of individuals.
At the same time, we need to address the root causes of undocumented immigration. Immigration courts need more funding and staffing to handle the nearly four million pending cases. Tools like remote hearings and other digital solutions could help expedite case processing while ensuring due process to honor our obligation outlined in the Fifth Amendment. Expanding immigration court capacity could help streamline the process.
And we need to toughen enforcement on employers who hire illegal immigrants. If immigrants canât find work, this will reduce the demand for many to come to America. To achieve this goal, we need steeper fines and criminal charges for repeat offenders. We should conduct public awareness campaigns to remind businesses of their legal obligations and the consequences of ignoring them. Finally, we need whistleblower protections with robust enforcement to encourage employees to report illegal hiring practices without fear of retaliation. To address potential labor shortages, industries could work with policymakers to create or expand visa programs that legally fill gaps in sectors like agriculture and construction.
This option has downsides. Some political factions may view targeted deportations as too lenient, pushing for broader, more visible enforcement actions. Strict employer enforcement of hiring undocumented immigrants could lead to labor shortages in agriculture, construction, and hospitality. Business interests and lobbying groups may oppose stricter accountability. Increasing funding for immigration courts and conducting workplace audits would require substantial investment.
But overall, itâs a tenable option. Letâs consider another.
Option 3: Conduct Mass Deportation of Undocumented Immigrants
Our third option is to pursue mass deportation of all undocumented immigrants in the United States.
This approach would require an unprecedented scale of enforcement to locate, detain, and deport the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants across the country. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other agencies would need to significantly expand to conduct large-scale raids, workplace inspections, and community sweeps. We would need massive investments to house individuals awaiting deportation.
We would have to pay for transporting millions of individuals to detention centers, court hearings, and eventually to their home countries. We would need to dramatically expand immigration courts to process cases quickly. This would likely require thousands of additional judges, attorneys, and support staff.
All told, these requirements drive the reason for the $88 billion annual price tag.
Proponents advocate that this option demonstrates a firm commitment to enforcing immigration laws and addresses illegal entry. If successful, it could reduce demand for public services like healthcare and education in some communities. Proponents support this option because itâs visible. The sight of raids, detentions, and removals implies a perception of strong leadership and accountability. It signals to voters that the institution is upholding immigration laws.
Opponents cite the staggering annual costs. This option also faces the logistical impossibilities of beds, transportation, and cooperation from other nations. These factors make deporting 11 million people impractical, even with expanded resources.
The biggest downside of this option is simple: the government just isnât good at getting things done on this scale. Even if the most efficient military subset had all the legal protections and resources to fight a known enemy hiding in the population, they couldnât do it. We tried in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq for 48 years combined and couldnât achieve it. What makes us think we can achieve it here?
Mass deportation would require unprecedented coordination across federal agencies, state and local governments, and international partners. The sheer logistical complexityâfinding, detaining, processing, and deporting 11 million peopleâis far beyond what the government has successfully managed in the past.
Immigration courts are already overwhelmed with nearly four million pending cases, and detention facilities are stretched thin. Adding this burden would lead to drastic inefficiency, mismanagement, and massive delays.
In short, expecting the government to execute this option effectively is unrealistic.
Those who say that we should deport as many undocumented immigrants as possible are missing a huge pointâthe immigrants we can find at their workplace and home arenât the problem. The threats are hiding elsewhere. And if we tie up our resources with the immigrants trying to make an honest living, we are going to miss the dangerous criminals and security threats. This option is dangerous for America.
All told, this doesnât seem like a good option. Letâs move on.
Option 4: Expand Asylum Opportunities
Our fourth option is to focus on asylum as a legal pathway for law-abiding, non-threatening undocumented immigrants. This option emphasizes the humane and lawful treatment of individuals seeking protection.
This approach involves strengthening the asylum system to address legitimate claims while simultaneously reducing the strain on immigration courts and other resources.
This option may seem like a throwaway, but it is not. The last president to offer undocumented immigrants asylum while toughening requirements for employers was President Ronald Reagan.
Reagan and the 99th Congress of 1986 offered legalization to undocumented immigrants who had entered the country illegally. Of that event, Wyoming Senator Alan K. Simpson noted that President Reagan âknew that it was not right for people to be abused,â and âanybody whoâs here illegally is going to be abused in some way, either financially [or] physically. They have no rights.â
We could increase funding and staffing for asylum officers to handle cases more efficiently. We would need dedicated asylum courts to address claims separately from other immigration cases, reducing the overall backlog. We could strengthen initial screening processes at the border to ensure that we identify individuals with valid asylum claims early.
The biggest downside of this option is that many voters would perceive it as a betrayal. Expanding asylum would be viewed as prioritizing undocumented immigrants over enforcing immigration laws. Voters who demanded stricter enforcement would feel ignored or even deceived. Voters who expect visible actions to reduce undocumented immigration would see this option as leniency disguised as reform. It would fuel distrust in government promises and policies.
For this reason, this viable option is likely untenable.
Whatâs Our Best Option?
None of our choices is perfect. Option 2: Efficient Enforcement and Employer Accountability, seems to be the most suitable.
Itâs politically acceptable, as voters could hear the stories of the US deporting criminals and security threats. Itâs the most achievable. It doesnât represent a huge financial expenditure to achieve our goals.
Of course, any option needs to be combined with efforts to strengthen border security and reduce the demand for undocumented immigrants to come to America while at the same time supporting legal immigration.
Weâve already spent considerable effort discussing improving border security. First, we need to set conditions allowing for the legal and orderly movement of goods and people across the border. This will create unambiguous indications that other movement across the border is illegal. Thereâs a high likelihood these illegal movements are human traffickers, weapons smugglers, and drug runners.
We need enhanced security measures, political will, and continual commitment on the border itself.
Further, weâve already considered how to reduce the demand for undocumented immigrants to leave South America. We need a Plan Colombia approach that strengthens economic partnerships while avoiding excessive militarization or human rights concerns. This adapted Plan Colombia approach must include regional cooperation among Latin American countries, not just bilateral partnerships with the US. Initiatives that foster collaboration on cross-border issues can address trafficking, migration, and economic integration.
In Sum
Should we deport illegal immigrants en masse? What options do we have?
We covered four distinct options.
Doing nothing risks destabilizing institutions and eroding public trust. It fails to address the underlying causes of undocumented immigration, perpetuating current challenges indefinitely.
Conducting mass deportation of all undocumented immigrants is prohibitively expensive and unachievable. Further, if we tie up our resources with this group, we will miss the dangerous criminals and security threats. This option is dangerous for America.
Offering expanded asylum, as President Reagan did, would alienate voters who expect visible actions to reduce undocumented immigration. They would see this option as leniency disguised as reform. It would fuel distrust in government promises and policies.
All told, our best option is efficient enforcement and employer accountability.
It safeguards America by focusing on reducing criminal activity and security threats. Itâs politically acceptable, as voters could hear the stories of the US deporting criminals and security threats. Itâs the most achievable. It doesnât represent a huge financial expenditure to achieve our goals.
Itâs the option we should pursue.
May God bless the United States of America.
Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe -
If we are going to have meaningful discussions, we need to realize that there are legitimate points on both sides of issues.
I advocate for dissenting points of view in operational and leadership matters. Dissent drives innovation. Even when we disagree with a position, failing to present it drives groupthink. Groupthink stifles growth.
Discussions about military governance and leadership have to balance civilian oversight with the militaryâs singular purpose: to protect the nation by achieving national objectives through precise and purposeful application of force.
Should the President dismiss senior military officers who have served honorably?
A âWarrior Boardâ to Recommend Removal of Unfit Officers
On November 12, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an exclusive article titled, Trump Draft Executive Order Would Create Board to Purge Generals. The Journal received an advance copy of the draft order from an undeclared source. If signed, the order intends to focus military brass âon leadership capability, strategic readiness, and commitment to military excellence.â
The proposed executive order would create a board of retired senior military personnel to review threeâand four-star officers and recommend the removal of any deemed unfit for leadership.
On November 13, the WSJ Editorial Board wrote an opinion piece titled Why Trump Wants Hegseth at Defense. The piece rightly identified the nationâs legitimate security issues and stated that military brass needs to be able to focus on their responsibilities and not their political allegiance. The Editorial Board flatly stated the order âwould be a mistake that smacks of politicizing the officer corps.â
Critics worry that the order could lead to uncertainty among high-ranking officers. They are concerned that political or ideological alignment would overshadow merit as the criterion for leadership. The same day as the editorial, military.com quoted an unnamed 3-star Army General, who stated, âIt could be very hard to do our job if we have to constantly be making sure we're appeasing someone on a political or partisan level.â
This concept of a board to identify and remove unfit leaders isnât without precedent. Supporters of the draft order point to General George C. Marshallâs plucking boards in 1940. Those boards aimed to streamline leadership and prepare the Army for the high demands of World War II.
Marshallâs approach was driven by his conviction that effective leadership could make or break the Armyâs ability to face a global conflict. It was controversial but ultimately successful.
General George C. Marshall and the US Army 1940 Plucking Boards
The great General George C. Marshall became Chief of Staff of the US Army in September 1939. On his first day in office, Germany invaded Poland to kick off World War II.
Twenty years earlier, during World War I, Marshall had observed professionally unfit officers command units with poor results. Military historian Forrest Pogue wrote that Marshall was âhaunted by recollections of the droves of unfit commandersâ (George C. Marshall, Memoirs of My Services in the World War, 1917-1918 (Boston, 1976), 175-76). Pogue further wrote that Marshall believed he was preparing the Army for war and that it was his duty to the nation to select the right officers for the job. He needed to reform the leadership cadre and ensure the Army was ready for World War II.
Marshallâs plucking boards consisted of six retired officers. They were intended to eliminate officers unfit for command and high rank. He believed swift action was necessary to promote a dynamic set of leaders that would innovate and handle the scale and technology of modern warfare. He recognized that the quality of commanders was crucial as the Army grew and faced more complex missions.
Marshallâs controversial approach prioritized capability over tenure. It aimed to instill a merit-based system that could better adapt to the urgency and unpredictability of wartime demands.
The newly promoted officers played crucial roles in World War II and contributed to American success. The âplucking boardâ initiative created a more lethal fighting force. Marshallâs boards promoted officers who would go on to shape history. Among them were Dwight D. Eisenhower, the future Supreme Allied Commander Europe and 34th President of the United States; Joseph W. Stillwell, who later commanded all US forces in China, Burma, and India; Omar N. Bradley, the commander of US ground forces during the D-Day invasion at Normandy; and Carl A. Spaatz, the future commander of Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific and the first Chief of Staff of the Air Force.
As Army Chief of Staff, General Marshall conducted his boards using authority delegated by Congressional legislation and existing military regulations. The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 included provisions that allowed for the rapid expansion and restructuring of the Army as the nation prepared for involvement in World War II.
Advocates for a modern plucking board note the success of Marshallâs approach. Marshallâs review boards retired some senior officers early and selected junior officers with great potential to lead their units to achieve national objectives.
The success of Marshallâs boards highlights how effective civilian oversight, exercised through delegated authority, can transform military leadership. This authority is enshrined in the Constitution, which mandates a framework for civilian control over the military.
The Constitution and Civilian Oversight of the Military
The Constitution establishes civilian control over the military through multiple provisions. These ensure that the armed forces remain accountable to elected leaders rather than independent military authority.
Article II, Section 2 designates the President, a civilian official elected by the people, as the âCommander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.â This gives a civilian elected official the highest military authority and ensures that the military is subordinate to the civilian government rather than acting independently.
At the same time, the Constitution seeks checks and balances. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to raise and support armies, declare war, regulate military forces, and âto make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.â
Congress exercises this power through its legislative authority by enacting nearly all laws now codified in United States Code Title 10. These laws serve as the framework for organizing the Department of Defense and each branch of the Armed Forcesâthe Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force. Additionally, Congress oversees the Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security during peacetime and can be transferred to the Department of the Navy during wartime or by presidential direction. These laws cover a comprehensive range of military operations, including pay grades, enlistments, commissions, promotions, retirements, training, education, recruitment, and honors. This legal structure underscores the essential role of civilian oversight in guiding military standards, ensuring accountability, and keeping the Armed Forces aligned with the nationâs democratic principles and strategic goals.
This framework supports a democratic republic by placing military authority under civilian oversight, preventing military dominance over the government, and protecting against potential abuses of military power.
As Commander in Chief, the President certainly has the authority to direct or conduct boards to review senior officer promotions. The President further has the authority to delegate the conduct of these boards to the service chiefs.
At the same time, Congress has the Constitutional responsibility to control the environment in which officers are raised to senior positions.
Through its structure, the military serves the people as an instrument of national capability directed by civilian leaders. This alignment preserves our democratic republic by ensuring military influence is a part of the elected government and our principles.
With this understanding, the militaryâs ultimate purpose is to protect and defend the United States, our Constitution, and its people while supporting national interests. The Constitution demands a lethal military under civilian control.
A Continuation of Policy With Other Means
In On War, Carl von Clausewitz famously described war as âa continuation of policy with other means.â Clausewitz was Prussian, and wrote âmit anderen Mittelnâ in the original German. He elaborated that we conduct war to compel the enemy to submit to our will. War combines military force simultaneously with other influences, such as diplomacy, to attempt to achieve political objectives.
In short, wartime operations are diplomacy combined with violence.
Military units do not conduct diplomacy.
Therefore, military officers and the units they command aim to achieve efficient violence in service to national objectives.
Since military officers and their units are tasked with achieving efficient violence in service to national objectives, any review of an officerâs conduct must prioritize their capability to fulfill this mission. Other considerations, such as schools attended, advanced academic degrees, and administrative marks, should be secondary. Military leadership should be assessed based on alignment with the Constitutionâs mandate to achieve effects supporting national security goals under civilian direction. Military leaders must ensure their units apply force with precision and purpose.
1940 and President Franklin D. Roosevelt
Thereâs one more question we should ask regarding the proposed boards: Why did President Franklin D. Roosevelt choose to stand aside and not participate in General Marshallâs plucking boards?
FDR didnât write about the boards, but he trusted General Marshall explicitly.
Roosevelt recognized that diplomacy was not the military component of influence, and he needed to focus on diplomacy. Separating diplomatic and military responsibilities avoids politicizing military decisions while maintaining strategic focus.
FDR focused on diplomatic efforts worldwide, leaving the Army in Marshall's competent hands. Roosevelt engaged in navigating the US response to the growing threat of World War II. He prioritized diplomatic efforts to support the Allies (such as the Lend-Lease program) and prepare the nation for possible involvement in the war.
Roosevelt trusted Marshall to manage the Army's internal restructuring. FDR respected Marshallâs expertise and gave him considerable autonomy to prepare the military for the growing global conflict. Marshall convened the plucking boards under existing Army regulations and legislation, making them a professional and administrative matter rather than a political one.
By allowing Marshall and his boards to operate independently, Roosevelt ensured the process focused on military effectiveness rather than politics.
In Sum
General Marshallâs plucking boards were controversial but successful. They were instrumental in preparing Army leaders for World War II.
The Constitution establishes civilian control over the military. As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to review and dismiss officers for poor performance. At the same time, Congress is responsible for passing legislation supporting an environment that raises officers to be who the nation needs.
Military officers and their units have a mandate to support and defend the Constitution by achieving efficient violence in service to national objectives.
The militaryâs strength lies in its unity of purpose, where everyone focuses on the mission. Political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic should never distract from the ultimate goal: to apply force with precision and purpose in service to our nation.
Senior officer review boards could make sense if they focus on enhancing military effectiveness, ensuring leaders are equipped to support national objectives through precision, readiness, and lethality in the profession of arms. To best achieve this goal, the President should delegate the authority and responsibility of conducting the boards to the service chiefs and leave the task of diplomacy for themselves.
May God bless the United States of America.
Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe -
I believe in AmericaâConceived in liberty,Born at war,Founded on the promise that we are all created equal.Endowed by our Creator with the gifts ofLife,Liberty,and the Pursuit of Happiness.We pledged to each otherOur lives,Our fortunes,Our honor.From the beginning, the Almighty declared,âIn the sweat of your face, you shall eat bread.âBy the work of our hands, we shape the meansTo warm our homes,To fill our tables,To keep the promise of plenty.And thoughâIf we were angels,Weâd need no government,We are not angels.We need governance that holds justice close,That shields the weak,And serves the people it protects.Joel K. Douglas
What an emotional week for the countryâand not just because of the election. This week, I talked with some fired-up cattle producers who believe federal agencies overstepped their authority. May we all be gracious in our interactions.
Many Americans fear for their ability to forge the means to achieve heat in the house and food on the table. Thereâs no quick fix for this systemic problem. Systemic problems require systemic solutions. Over the last year, we spent almost half of our effort thinking about how to improve the economy for families across America. This was the decisive effort of the year. We need governance to serve the people and set conditions that enable individual Americans to work and succeed.
Some fear for the security of our borders. At the same time, we recognize the benefit and talents legal immigrants bring to America. Even if we disagree with the premise that drastic changes are necessary to secure our borders, the perception of doing nothing leaves a foul taste in the mouths of Americans. We spent an entire month posing a multi-pronged approach to address border security in an efficient and respectful manner.
Some fear for their liberty or the liberty of others. If we give the government the power to take individual liberty away from any group, we give the government the power to take away our liberty. Inherent in the inalienable right to life is the right to make decisions about ourselves. We may have opinions and personally disagree with othersâ choices, but government interference with individual choice violates liberty. No legislative body can support liberty better than stating that men and women of able mind have the right to make their own healthcare decisions. We must protect each otherâs rights to ensure our own.
Some fear for the integrity of the institution that is our democratic republic. Few attain the privilege of swearing an oath to the Constitution, and we need to hold those who violate their oath for personal gain accountable. Government exists to serve the people. Any leader who serves themselves is a disgrace to the nation. Too many serve proudly and take this oath as almost a condition of their lives to allow us to water down the commitment of others.
If we were angels, we would need no government
These challenges are not new. Principal framer of the Constitution and later President James Madison outlined the inherent difficulties of governance in Federalist 51.
He addressed setting conditions for governance to secure liberty and justice for Americans.
He helped establish a system of separated powers, ensuring each branch holds the others accountable. The premise is that individual Americans must have the liberty and justice to succeed on their own merits. Government has two aims: securing liberty and justice for individuals and then controlling itself.
Liberty is the freedom to choose how you will live and act, within a framework that respects the same rights for others.
Justice is fairness, ensuring that social and economic structures benefit everyone, even the least advantaged, while correcting wrongs under the law.
Madison famously wrote, âIf men were angels, no government would be necessary.â He emphasized our duty to prevent one group from oppressing another. Stated another way, we need to set conditions enabling individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds to have the same opportunity to achieve prosperity as those from privileged ones. This is the essence of justice. Madison verbatim states we must âguard one part of the society against the injustice of the other.â
Our fears today reflect the same fundamental concern: how to preserve liberty and justice when human nature is flawed.
The fundamental bedrock of America is that we are conceived in liberty. No matter our group, we must protect each otherâs rights to ensure our own. America demonstrates she will go to war for liberty.
The ambitious promise of America is justice for all. No matter our upbringing or whether we live in urban or rural America, we need to have heat in the house and food on the table. Individuals need to be able to achieve these necessities through the effort of their work.
In sum, the government exists to ensure liberty and justice for all.
I believe in America. Some are worried about our future, but I am not.
The âFather of the Constitution,â James Madison, expressly stated the primary purpose of the document was first individual liberty and justice, and then control of the government. America bows to no king.
The system Madison and others put in place is resilient.
America will continue to strive for liberty and justice. Just as America was born at war, fighting for liberty, Americans will rise against any group that threatens their inherent rights.
Our challenges today are of liberty and justice, but again, I donât fear for our futureâI know we will overcome them.
May God bless the United States of America.
Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe -
Did the American Founding Fathers support the Electoral College?
Days at elk camp are long. We rise in the wee hours of the morning and hike with headlamps through the mountains in the dark to be where we think elk will be at first light. At the end of the day, we wait where we think the elk will be at last light and hike out with headlamps. We meet at camp at night to share our experiences, food, and drink. Success in the field probably means your group is the last to return to camp, but no one sleeps until everyone returns.
Over food and drink, we catch up. Several camp veterans wonât have seen each other in a year or more. We share pictures of kids and talk about life changes.
We chat generally about anything. We rarely talk about religion, but we talk about God and existence. And we talk about politics.
We donât all agree on every topic, and there are some strong disagreements. But we accept each other's views, communing over beer and food. We know that the next day, the person you share your disagreement with will help you carry out a heavy load, and theyâll wait for you to return to camp to go to sleep.
A topic at camp this year was representative government. One of the hunters lives in a rural area in a populous eastern state dominated by city politics. He expressed frustration because the city negates the state's interest in the rural area.
The issue at hand is a critique of âwinner-take-allâ state election systems. In a winner-take-all system, the candidate who receives the majority of the popular vote in a state wins all of that state's Electoral College votes. If cities vote differently than rural areas, the city still dominates the stateâs electoral choice. States prefer this approach as it gives their preferred candidate the maximum advantage. In 1800, only two states had a winner-take-all system. By 1836, all states except for South Carolina used a winner-take-all system. Today, all states except for Maine and Nebraska use a winner-take-all system.
For all the critique of the Electoral College, a winner-take-all system equally undermines the democratic principle of one person, one vote. It distorts the national popular will. Those who argue that âland doesnât vote, people doâ often still support a state winner-take-all system, negating the rural influence in their own state. The result of both winner-take-all and the Electoral College is to amplify the power of swing states.
Because thereâs nothing new under the sun, this issue has been hotly debated since America was born at war and by none other than the brilliant primary framer of the Constitution and later President James Madison.
August 23, 1823. A letter from James Madison to US District Judge George Hay
James Madison was the primary framer of the US Constitution and a driving force behind the 1787 Constitutional Convention, which created the structure of the American government. His detailed notes from the convention are the most complete of any delegate.
Following the convention, Madison wrote 29 of the 85 Federalist Papers to explain the Constitution and convince states to ratify it. When the states refused to ratify the Constitution without explicit protections for American individual liberty, Madison was the primary author of the Bill of Rights. These amendments protect the liberty of citizens and states.
In short, Madison was central to the creation and ratification of the Constitution. He served the nation as a Congressman, Secretary of State, and was later the fourth President of the United States, serving in that capacity from 1809 to 1817. He was a staunch advocate for states' rights and a rational pragmatist. He recognized that while a statesâ rights approach has strong merits, there are practical limits that sometimes necessitate federal intervention.
At the Constitutional Convention, Madison recommended using the national popular vote to decide the office of President. He stated that "the people at large wasâŠthe fittest" to choose the executive. But his perspective changed over a lifetime of national service.
In an 1823 letter to George Hay, Madison discussed a potential Constitutional amendment: district-based voting to select Presidential Electors instead of the current Electoral College system. He reflected on the 1787 Constitutional Convention's difficulty in determining a method to elect the President. He acknowledged the compromise that led to the Electoral College system, which was influenced by the need to balance the interests of small and large states and strongly influenced by slave states. He mentioned that the compromise agreement became necessary due to time pressure and the long deliberative process.
Madison suggested that the Electoral College was an imperfect solution.
Towards the end of the letter, Madison outlined his proposal:
Electors should be chosen by districts⊠If no candidate achieves a majority⊠the President should be chosen by a joint ballot of both Houses of Congress
Madisonâs proposal identifies that each voting district should cast its own vote for the president. Instead of the winner-take-all system or the current Electoral College system, voting districts should each have their vote counted.
In the letter, Madison also doesnât explicitly discuss the concept of a direct national popular vote for electing the President. Instead, he focuses on the mechanics of the Electoral College and the potential benefits of district-based voting. Madison critiques the current Electoral College system, particularly emphasizing the shortcomings of the winner-take-all approach and the disproportionate influence it can grant to smaller states or individual electors.
Madisonâs discussion is more about improving the representational fairness of the Electoral College rather than advocating for a shift to using the national popular vote directly for electing the President. He suggests reforms that would make the Electoral College better reflect the diverse preferences across different regions of the states, aligning Electoral College outcomes more closely with popular vote distributions within those states. His proposal aims to balance the representation of smaller and larger states and address the issues that arise when a few electors or a small number of densely populated areas can determine the majority of electoral votes for an entire state.
As a strong supporter and advocate of a democratic republic and statesâ rights, Madison grew to recommend not abandoning the flawed Electoral College but making the system more closely represent the vote of the populace.
So, Why do we have the Electoral College?
Slavery shaped the structure of the Electoral College during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 due to the significant political and economic divisions between slave-holding and free states.
Slave-holding states were concerned about their political influence under a direct national popular vote system. The South had large populations, but a significant portion of those populations were enslaved individuals who had no voting rights. In a popular vote system, these states would have less voting power than the more populous free states if the president were elected purely by the popular vote of free citizens.
To reach a compromise, convention delegates agreed on the Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted three out of every five slaves as people for congressional representation and taxation. The Electoral College agreement gave Southern states more electoral power than they would have had if slaves were not counted at all.
The Electoral College was also a means for Southern states to influence presidential candidates. Under the compromise agreement, these states could push candidates to consider Southern interests, particularly the preservation of slavery, to seek support from Southern electors.
Right or wrong, the Electoral College helped maintain the union of the states by giving each stateâregardless of North or South, large or smallâa proportionate influence in the electoral process. It also perpetuated slavery.
Did the American Founding Fathers support the Electoral College?
The American Founding Fathers supported a democratic republic and representative government.
At the Constitutional Convention, James Madison himself recommended using the popular vote to determine the president. But the Founding Fathers could reach no such agreement. The Electoral College was a compromise that became necessary for slave-holding states to agree to the method of selecting a President.
Madison had a different recommendation after serving as Congressman, Secretary of State, and President.
We should keep the Electoral College districts, but instead of a winner-take-all system that disregards the one-person, one-vote principle, we should tally each voting districtâs vote individually.
It's a compelling idea from one of Americaâs greatest leaders, who dedicated his lifetime in service to the nation.
May God bless the United States of America.
Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe - Laat meer zien
